US Higher Education Market Research & GTM Strategy — Student Success Products (Physical + EdTech)

ABOUT US Semester Student Planner is a UK-headquartered business supplying bespoke branded physical planners and in-person coaching programmes to universities and colleges in the UK, US and Australia. We work with 35+ institutions and have supplied over 22,000 planners. US customers include Tarleton State University, Prairie View A&M, Wayne State University and Allegheny College. We are expanding in the US and developing an AI-powered student coaching platform. WHAT WE NEED An independent, evidence-based analysis of the US higher education student success market, in three segments, plus a go-to-market recommendation. The output will be used in investor conversations, so figures must withstand scrutiny. Every material number must be traceable to a named, linked source. Where a figure is derived or estimated, show the derivation and label it as such. Where reliable data doesn't exist, say so and give the closest proxy with its limitations. We will reject work containing unsourced figures. SEGMENT A — US PHYSICAL PLANNER & STUDENT STATIONERY MARKET Size the US market for our existing physical product line. In scope: custom/branded academic planners, notebooks and journals bought by institutions (not direct-to-student), including orientation and welcome kit contents. Relevant budgets: student success, FYE, orientation, retention, residential life, student affairs, grant-funded programmes. Out of scope: do not size the general promotional products / "SWAG" market. It runs to tens of billions and includes apparel, drinkware, tech and dozens of categories we will never sell, so it tells us nothing. If SWAG is referenced, narrow it to printed planners, notebooks, journals and directly adjacent printed student materials, and show how you narrowed it. A top-line promotional-products figure presented as our market is a failed deliverable. Deliver: TAM/SAM/SOM with methodology shown Bottom-up build: US institutions by type and enrolment band, realistic penetration rates, realistic per-institution contract values Top-down cross-check, with any divergence explained Buying patterns: who holds budget, procurement cycles, typical order sizes and price points Competing suppliers of custom planners to US institutions, with price points and positioning Whether institutional demand for printed planning tools is growing, flat or declining, on evidence Input provided: we hold prior market-sizing work covering part of this segment. You'll receive it. Validate, correct and extend it rather than reproducing it, and flag where you disagree. SEGMENT B — US EDTECH STUDENT SUCCESS MARKET & GTM Size and analyse the US market for AI-enabled student success, engagement, coaching, retention and wellbeing platforms. Analyse in detail: EdSights, Mainstay (formerly AdmitHub), Gravyty, LearnWise. For each: product and features, target institutions, pricing and known price points, contract sizes, named institutional customers where public, funding history, positioning and claimed outcomes. Map the wider set, including EAB (Navigate), Civitas Learning, TimelyCare, Uwill, Togetherall and others you identify. For these, we want scale (revenue, customers, funding, ownership), what they sell and at what price, whether they represent a plausible future acquirer for a business like ours, and which of their features we could realistically add as we scale. Investment landscape: Annual US EdTech investment volumes over the last 5 years, with the trend and sources Investment specifically into student success / retention / wellbeing, separated from EdTech overall where data allows Which companies have raised most in this sub-sector: round sizes, dates, investors, valuations where disclosed. (Verify EdSights' recent large raise and place it against peers.) What the funding pattern says about which product categories investors currently favour, and how that has shifted over three years Success factors: what it takes to win institutional enterprise deals (integrations, security and compliance, procurement, accessibility, data handling, references, pilots); what separates vendors who achieve real penetration from those who stall; typical sales cycle, deal size, decision-making unit and renewal dynamics; barriers to entry and which are surmountable. Test our thesis: we currently argue that (a) established incumbents are not innovating substantially and (b) the market is moving toward a hybrid of human coaching plus AI tools. Test both against evidence and tell us honestly if they don't hold. We would rather be corrected now than in front of investors. Deliver: TAM/SAM/SOM with methodology; competitive matrix; investment analysis; success factors and barriers; and a GTM recommendation for a UK entrant with existing US institutional relationships (which segments to target first, in what order, through what channels, at what price, positioned how against named competitors). SEGMENT C — US FUNDING ENVIRONMENT (FEDERAL & STATE) Grant funding is our strongest buying trigger, so this segment carries disproportionate weight. Federal: Title III (including HBCU and minority-serving programmes), Title V, TRIO, and any other federal programmes funding student success, retention, FYE, wellbeing or mental health. For each: annual appropriation, typical award size, award cycle and timing, eligible institutions, permitted uses, and critically whether our product categories are an allowable expense. State: identify state-level student success, retention and mental health funding streams (e.g. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and equivalents). Quantify funding volume by state using the most recent available data, with award cycles and administering bodies. Deliver: A US heat map showing student success / retention / wellbeing funding volume by state The underlying data table (state, stream, amount, year, source) — we need the raw data, not just the image A ranked list of states by opportunity, with a recommended order for prioritising sales activity How institutions access and spend these funds, and how a vendor should time its approach to award cycles DELIVERABLES Main report (PDF plus editable source), executive summary at the front Data appendix (Sheets/Excel) with all data, calculations, assumptions and source links Funding heat map plus underlying data table Competitive matrix (spreadsheet) Full source list with links and dates accessed Reconciliation note: we'll share our current internal market-sizing figures after you've derived your own. Compare, explain material differences, and state plainly whether you think our numbers are defensible. Derive independently first — do not anchor on ours. Currency in USD, with conversion basis stated for any converted figures. SOURCES WE EXPECT YOU TO USE IPEDS / NCES (institution counts, enrolment, characteristics); US Department of Education award data and appropriations documents; state higher education agency budget documents; Crunchbase / PitchBook / Tracxn or equivalent for funding data; EdTech investment research (HolonIQ, Reach Capital, GSV) clearly attributed; company sites, product documentation, EDUCAUSE, G2; public procurement and state contract databases for real contract values. TIMELINE Initial draft — 3 August 2026. High-level numbers, headline findings and early market sizing across all three segments. This does not need to be polished; we need usable figures by this date for investor materials. Final report — 25 August 2026. Complete, sourced, all deliverables. Invoice by 25 August 2026 (payment must clear before month end). Work must not begin until the contract is formally awarded. The first deadline is tight. Tell us in your proposal whether it is achievable and what you would realistically have ready by then. SKILLS REQUIRED Market sizing (TAM/SAM/SOM, ideally bottom-up); competitive intelligence; US higher education sector knowledge (strongly preferred); EdTech/SaaS market knowledge; familiarity with US federal and state education funding (strongly preferred); data analysis and visualisation; clear business writing for an investor audience. SCREENING QUESTIONS Describe a market sizing you built bottom-up. What was your method and the biggest sources of uncertainty? What is your experience with US higher education, EdTech, or US federal/state education funding programmes? How would you size the US institutional market for a physical product sold to universities without over-stating it through an overly broad category? Given the scope and the 3 August draft deadline, what is realistically achievable by then, and what would you propose as a timeline and fixed price? If any part of the scope can't be delivered reliably, say which and why. MILESTONES (fixed price) Methodology note and source plan approved — 10% 3 August draft: high-level numbers across all segments — 30% Segment C final: funding environment, heat map, data table — 25% Segments A and B final: market sizing, competitive analysis, GTM — 35% HOW TO APPLY Include: answers to the screening questions; one relevant work sample (market sizing or competitive landscape, redacted if needed); your proposed approach, timeline and fixed price; confirmation you can meet both deadlines. Applications without a work sample will not be considered.