Internal document. Not for partners yet. This is the thinking behind the numbers; a separate, lighter partner-facing version comes after you pick a structure.
Be clear-eyed about where the value sits, because the whole model follows from it:
The conclusion that drives every number below: the partner is providing introductions and follow-up on leads we help generate. Under every industry benchmark, that earns a minority recurring share — generous enough to keep them hunting, but nowhere near a 50/50 split. You hold the majority because you hold the scarce things.
| We provide (you + Claude) | The partner provides |
|---|---|
| AI-built target lists + decision-maker research | Existing relationships & local credibility |
| The live pitch and the close (you) | Manning the phones / outbound calls |
| Needs analysis + placement + the engine | Booking meetings, scheduling |
| The bespoke curriculum + paperless delivery | Lead tracking & follow-up |
| Marketing materials & the demo | (Structure B only) venue / delivery staff |
| Outcome reporting | Local presence & first-line trust |
The local commodity market is cheap — Nepal skills/IT courses run NPR 10–38k (~$75–285) and one provider's blended rate is under $25/hr. We do not price there. We price to the premium tier — embassies, INGOs, donor-funded NGOs, international businesses — in USD, against international-consultant norms (roughly $300–1,000/day for INGO work in the region).
Illustrative engagement values (anchors for modeling, not fixed prices):
| Product | Illustrative value |
|---|---|
| Language & Communication Audit (diagnostic) | $800 |
| Focused short program | $3,500 |
| Comprehensive flagship program (8–12 sessions) | $8,000 |
| Annual retainer (rolling cohorts) | $20,000+/yr |
The comprehensive program is the unit we'll model the partner's earnings on.
Different partners warrant different shapes. ALC has delivery infrastructure (classrooms, teachers) → Structure B may fit. Englishers is a consultancy (relationships/leads) → Structure A fits. You can run both at once.
The partner converts a warm, pre-researched lead into a booked meeting and keeps the relationship warm. You pitch, close, and deliver. - Partner share: 12–15% of engagement value, recurring on the business they open (including renewals from that client). - Sits at the lower-middle of the 10–20% "ongoing-relationship referral" band — lower because we hand them the researched lead.
Worked example — Structure A: - Partner opens 6 comprehensive programs in a year @ $8,000 = $48,000 in engagements. - Partner earns 15% = $7,200. - 2 of those clients roll into retainers @ $20,000 = $40,000 → partner earns another $6,000. - Partner take-home ≈ $13,200/yr — for warm intros and phone follow-up, with us doing the research, the pitch, and the delivery. - You keep ≈ $74,800 of that $88,000 (before your own delivery time/costs).
For a partner like ALC that already has rooms and teachers. They carry real delivery cost, so they earn more. - Partner share: 25–30%, but they absorb venue + junior-staff/logistics costs. - Justified by the benchmark where a partner adding delivery/services earns 25–40%+.
Worked example — Structure B: - Same 6 programs @ $8,000 = $48,000. Partner at 28% = $13,440 — but they cover the room and a junior facilitator/coordinator per cohort. - Net to them after those costs is similar to Structure A; the difference is they run the logistics, freeing you to close more.
A lever you can layer onto A or B. - 20% on the first engagement with a brand-new client (they did the hard work of opening the door), 8–10% on all repeat business from that client thereafter. - Keeps them hunting for new logos rather than coasting on one account.
Do not grant exclusivity to anyone unproven. This is the single most important structural call, so here's the reasoning, not just the verdict:
Why this protects you: exclusivity means betting your whole business on one partner's hustle. Until someone has proven their hustle with real closes, you keep optionality and let results — not promises — decide who you double down on.
Reveal early — enough to excite: - Their percentage and a worked take-home number ("a handful of warm intros could earn you ~$13k this year, and you never have to pitch or deliver"). - How little they have to do, because we bring the research, the pitch, and the delivery.
Guard early — your actual economics: - Your full pricing ladder and margins. - Your cost structure and how cheaply Claude lets you produce. - The other partner's terms. - Anything about the engine internals.
The teaser they should feel: "Your relationships + our system = money you earn while we do the hard part." That's the hook. The detailed math stays yours.
Note: this is business modeling, not legal or financial advice. Before signing anything, have a local professional paper the agreement — especially cross-border USD payment, Nepal tax/VAT treatment, and the lane/exclusivity terms. The percentages here are illustrative industry-benchmark anchors, not quotes; your real numbers depend on your costs and what each partner actually commits to.
How to use this: this is your prep and your argument, in order. Walk a partner through it the way it's laid out — their world first, then the bridge, then the proof. It can also be trimmed into a one-page leave-behind once you've picked structures. The numbers are grounded but illustrative; lead with the logic, not the decimals.
Open by naming what they're already thinking. It builds trust faster than any number:
"You're going to look at these dollar figures and think nobody in Kathmandu pays that for English training. And you're right — nobody pays that for a course. But that's not what this sells. Let me show you why it's a different buyer, in a different currency, from a different budget — and why we're the ones who can reach them."
That single move flips you from "naïve foreigner who doesn't know the market" to "someone who knows it better than they expected." Now they'll listen.
Be honest and specific. This is a commodity market, and there's no shame in it — but it has a ceiling.
The ceiling: to gross $8,000 here, you have to sell and deliver roughly five separate courses, to five separate clients, each one haggling you down. That's five sales cycles and five deliveries for one premium program's revenue.
The embassies, INGOs, donor-funded NGOs, and international businesses in this city are not buying a course. They're buying a documented outcome — something a program officer can attach to a grant report, or a ministry can show a bilateral donor.
The reason your partners have never touched these numbers isn't that the budgets aren't there. It's that they've been offering the commodity to the premium buyer — and getting commodity prices for premium work.
This is the slide that changes the conversation. Same effort, same relationships — two outcomes:
| Stay in the NPR market | Move to the USD market | |
|---|---|---|
| One engagement grosses | ~$1,200–1,800 (then haggled down) | ~$8,000 (line-item, not haggled) |
| To reach $8,000 you must | sell + deliver ~5 courses to 5 clients | close 1 program with 1 client |
| The buyer's instinct | negotiate the price down | justify the spend to a donor |
| After it ends | start the next sale from zero | renew into a $20k+ retainer |
| What the partner earns | a thin cut of a small, haggled deal | a meaningful share of a much larger one, recurring |
The point lands without you saying it: the dollar market isn't five times harder. It's the same work — often less — for several times the return, because you stop chasing haggled commodity deals and close fewer, larger, documented ones.
A partner's fair question: "If it's so lucrative, why haven't I been doing it?" The honest answer is that the premium buyer pays for things the commodity course never delivered — and we built exactly those things. These five are the unlock:
The one sentence to remember: The NPR buyer is paying for a course. The USD buyer is paying for a document they can show their donor — and we're the only ones in the room who can hand them that document.
He has real connections inside Nepal's government agencies and has always wanted to engage them at this level. Government and ministry capacity-building is frequently donor-funded — which means dollar budgets and a hard requirement for exactly the rigor and reporting we provide. His relationships have always been worthy of bigger rooms; what he's lacked is a product worthy of those rooms. We are that product. Frame it: "Your access to these agencies plus our documented-outcome system is the first time you've had something premium enough to justify walking through those doors."
ALC already has clients haggling them down for thin programming — and, crucially, they have rooms and teachers. We don't ask them to give up the NPR business. We add a higher tier on top of it: the INGOs, embassies, and international firms they can already reach but currently underserve. Their infrastructure delivers it (their share is larger because they host and staff); their rooms get filled with $8,000 work instead of haggled NPR seats. Frame it: "Same building, same teachers — but some of those seats are now dollar-denominated, documented programs instead of price-shopped courses."
Once you've sat with this, the three calls from the partnership model still drive everything: Structure A for Englishers / B for ALC, the headline percentages, and the lanes. With those locked, I'll fold this Two-Markets argument into (a) the partner one-pager and (b) two demo slides — so the pitch flows: here's the product → here are the two markets → here's what you earn helping us reach the second one.
Business modeling, not legal or financial advice. NPR figures are grounded in current market listings; USD figures are illustrative anchors against regional consultant norms. Have a local professional paper any agreement, especially cross-border USD payment and Nepal tax/VAT treatment.