Products, and where a deal's value comes from
Five products, none of which is attached to a single enquiry. What the catalogue is really for, and where the number on a deal actually comes from.
This business sells 5 things, and they are not products in the way a shop has products — nobody buys a Home Loan for a fixed price. What the catalogue holds is the shape of each kind of case.
The catalogue
| Product | Typical ticket |
|---|---|
| Personal Loan | ₹6,00,000 |
| Education Loan | ₹15,00,000 |
| Home Loan | ₹32,00,000 |
| Loan Against Property | ₹65,00,000 |
| Business Loan | ₹1,20,00,000 |
Personal Loan
- Typical ticket
₹6,00,000
Education Loan
- Typical ticket
₹15,00,000
Home Loan
- Typical ticket
₹32,00,000
Loan Against Property
- Typical ticket
₹65,00,000
Business Loan
- Typical ticket
₹1,20,00,000
Those prices are typical case sizes, not prices. Somebody borrowing against property is a fundamentally different customer from somebody taking a personal loan — different documents, different lenders, a different advisor, and twenty times the money. The catalogue is where that difference is written down.
Nothing is attached to it
Of 96 enquiries in this org, 0 are linked to a product.
The product appears in the enquiry's name — every one of them reads like “Home Loan — somebody”, because the workflow that raised it wrote the name that way. But the link between the record and the catalogue entry is empty on all of them.
That is worth knowing before a client asks for revenue by product. It can be answered by reading the names, which works until somebody types a name differently. Linking the records properly is a small piece of setup, and it is the kind of gap to find during a demo rather than during a board meeting.
So where does a deal's value come from?
Somebody asked for it. The value on an enquiry is the amount the applicant said they wanted, captured when the enquiry was raised and edited by an advisor as the case firms up. It is not derived from anything, which is exactly why it is trustworthy as a signal of size — and why the automations use it.
| The average enquiry here | The biggest product's ticket |
|---|---|
₹26,66,303 | ₹65,00,000 |
₹26,66,303
- The biggest product's ticket
₹65,00,000
Both of those numbers are already in your automations
This is the connection worth carrying into Module 3, and you can check it there yourself:
- A workflow decides whether a new enquiry gets a 30-minute call-back or a same-day one, by comparing its value against roughly
₹26,66,303— the average case. It is asking “is this bigger than normal for us?” - Another decides whether the branch head takes it personally, by comparing against
₹65,00,000— oneLoan Against Property. It is asking “is this a different kind of case?”
Neither threshold is a round number somebody liked. Each is a fact about this business, written into a condition box. When a client asks how you would pick their numbers, that is the answer — you read their pipeline first, and the thresholds fall out of it.
Change one thing — price your own
- Open the catalogue and change one typical ticket to something you would defend for a Delhi NCR lender.
- Work out, from the board, whether that would move the average enquiry value at all. It will not — and knowing why is the lesson.
- Write down the two thresholds you would set for this business today, and what you would need to see to change them.
Try it
- Count the enquiries whose value is more than double the typical ticket for their product name, and decide whether they are mistakes or the best leads in the org.
- Say what would have to be true for a client to genuinely need the product link filled in.
Next: Notes, tasks and the activity trail — the last part of the record, and the one the automations in Module 3 trust more than any other.
Related lessons
Base rates — what a piece of evidence is actually worth
A face-recognition system that is 99.9% accurate and almost entirely wrong, and a number that sent an innocent woman to prison. Both are the same arithmetic, and it is the arithmetic that decides what any piece of evidence is worth.
ReadConfirmation and survivorship — what you never looked for
Two questions about evidence you did not go looking for. One is a rule you have to discover, and one is a pattern in five famous people — and in both, the thing that would have told you the truth is the thing nobody checks.
ReadLoss aversion, sunk cost and regression — what it costs you
Four questions you answer about yourself rather than about a scenario, and your own answers are the finding. Then the pattern that makes praise look useless and criticism look like it works, whatever you actually do.
Read
