Questions about Lip Loi Creative, answered in the words of the people who did the work. The engagement itself is on its own page.
Which assumption in the original Plunge pitch failed first when the build and equipment were priced?
The build cost. Plunge wanted a big luxury space full of ice baths where everyone sees each other, and they did not know what that costs to build. Our view was the build was too expensive and the equipment was going to get a lot cheaper fast. Both happened. What changed is it stopped being cost-effective, and Plunge walked away from the luxury format. Luxury does not work for a place that needs that kind of volume. Studios have since popped up with a small space, maybe ten private rooms, each with a sauna, an ice bath and a shower. Cheaper equipment made room rental the model that works.
When the luxury model was set aside, what was put in front of the studio first?
The cost to build, priced by someone who has carried a build. That came first, because the pitch never shows it. Next to it we put where the equipment price was going. The units were getting a lot cheaper, and the studio's whole premium sat on them. Then the go-to-market, before any capital ask. They heard it as a fix, not a no. They brought us in on exactly that scope: the capital raise strategy, the go-to-market and the construction cost. That is how our seat at the studio started. The luxury format did not survive the numbers, and they walked away from it rather than raise against it.
After the original concept was paused, what did the continuing work on Plunge involve?
Just consulting. What Plunge really did was start our working relationship with the designer we still partner with. We saw his deck work and started hiring him on other projects, then brought him into Drive for the Dream. We carry the narrative and he does the visual side. We have done a lot of projects together since.
What did the fractional CRO seat add to the studio?
The studio had world-class craft and nobody whose job was revenue: deciding which engagements to take, how each one was positioned, what it should cost, and who brought the next one in. It started when the studio pitched its own concept, a contrast-therapy studio, as an investment, and our answer was to make it better before anyone funded it, with what better meant spelled out, starting with a build cost set against equipment prices that were falling fast. The fractional CRO seat grew out of that. The studio does the physical and design work; the seat sets the direction and the narrative on each engagement, and on the best-known ones it brought the work in.
How did the four-question deck structure hold up when applied to the Olympic champion?
The four questions ran across the top of every page: where we've been, where we're going, how we get there and how we make it happen, so a sponsor could follow the argument without a meeting. The structure held up. What changed was where the content came from. For the Olympic champion, he answered a set of questions first, what motivates him, what he tests himself against, which brands he wants to stand beside, and his answers built the inside pages. That is where the luxury tie-in came from, which we did not expect.
What carried over when the deck structure was reused on the next engagement?
The approach. Brand work for a person is collaborative, and they have to be invested in it. The key is getting them talking: the food they like, the brands they wear, their colors, day person or night person. You can get a nugget from any of it.