Prototype 01 · idesign · public anchors + synthetic illustrative fixtures · noindex

The next partner dollar: cheap inquiry, or enrolled start?

A fee-for-service OPM does not own the enrollment P&L; the university partner does. So the metric that pays at renewal is the partner's cost-per-enrolled-start, demonstrated, not cost-per-inquiry. This splits one partner program's media buy across channels under per-channel ceilings (the boast) and a total cap (the bound), then flips the objective from inquiries to enrolled starts. Switch the partner program in the selector and the same method reruns: that portability is the point. The per-channel cost numbers are synthetic and labeled; only the public funnel and base are real.

One method, many partners. Switching reloads the public anchors and reruns the same optimizer: the resellable-across-partners proof.
Try a scenario: one click sets the plan
Fine-tune (optional)

Inquiry cost is the fast metric a channel team reports. Cost-per-enrolled-start is the number that wins the partner's renewal. The finding: an inquiry-optimal plan is usually pessimal on enrolled starts.

Hard upper bound on this partner program's quarterly media spend. The synthetic default scales to the public enrolled-start base of the selected program. No increase in total cost.

Flat ceiling each channel may grow over last period. A flat percent is a placeholder; the honest version is a per-channel number negotiated against what each vendor can actually deliver. That negotiation is the real engagement.

Multi-period weighted scorecard; the rest splits 5 / 10 / 15 across the older three periods. You want more than one bar to point at when a partner asks why the buy moved.

ChannelCost / inquiryCost / startPlan $vs base

Sources & method