The Lean LaunchPad Lecture 2: Value Proposition Steve Blank Jon Feiber Ann Miura-Ko John Burke Jerry Engel Jim Hornthal Oren Jacob
Aug 21, 2015
The Lean LaunchPad
Lecture 2: Value Proposition
Steve Blank
Jon Feiber
Ann Miura-Ko
John Burke
Jerry Engel
Jim Hornthal
Oren Jacob
Agenda
• Team Bus Model Presentations• Value Proposition
– Product– Service– Ecosystem
VALUE PROPOSITIONS
images by JAM
what are you offering them? what is that getting done for them? do they care?
Step 1. Spec. the Value Proposition
• Product(s)?• Service(s)?• Ecosystem?
• Is it a company or product?
Value Proposition – Common Mistake
• Is it just a feature of someone else’s product• Is it a “nice to have” product• Is it a “got to have” product• Can it scale to a company?
Value Proposition - Discovery
• Product – Long term vision– features – Benefits– Minimum Viable Product spec
• For a web/mobile app– Low fidelity MVP live and running
• Understand Customer Problem and Solution• Test Market Type
Product
• Problem Statement: What is the problem?
• Technology / Market Insight: Why is the problem so
hard to solve?
• Market Size: How big is this problem?
• Competition: What do customers do today?
• Product: How do you do it?
Step 2: What’s the Minimum Viable Product – Physical
• First, test your understanding of the problem• Next test your understanding of the solution
– Proves that it solves a core problem for customers – The minimum set of features needed to learn from
earlyvangelists
- Interviews, demos, prototypes, etc- Lots of eyeball contact
Step 2: What’s the Minimum Viable Product – Web/Mobile
• NOW “low fidelity” web/app for customer feedback– First, tests your understanding of the problem
• LATER, “high fidelity” web/app tests your understanding of the solution– Proves that it solves a core problem for customers – The minimum set of features needed to learn from
earlyvangelists
- Avoid building products nobody wants- Maximize the learning per time spent
Step 2: What’s the Testing the Minimum Viable Product – Web/Mobile
• Smoke testing with landing pages using AdWords• In-product split-testing• Prototypes (particularly for hardware)• Removing features• Continued customer discovery and validation• Surveys• Interviews
Step 2: What’s the Testing the MVP– Web/Mobile - Tactics
• Interview customers – make sure they have a matching core problem
• Set up web site landing page to test for conversion– What offers are required to get customers to use the product
(e.g. prizes, payment)– Use problem definition as described by customers to identify key
word list – plug into Google search traffic estimator - high traffic means there is problem awareness
• Drive traffic to site using Google search and see how deep into a registration process customers are willing to go through
Pivot ExampleRobotic Weeding
Talked 75 Customers in 8 Weeks
Our initial plan
20 interviews, 6 site visits…We got OUR Boots dirty
WeedingVisited two farms in Salinas Valley to better understand problem
Interviewed:• Bolthouse Farms, Large Agri-Industry in Bakersfield• White Farms, Large Peanut farmer in Georgia• REFCO Farms, large grower in Salinas Valley• Rincon Farms, large grower in Salinas Valley• Small Organic Corn/Soy grower in Nebraska• Heirloom Organics, small owner/operator, Santa Cruz Mts• Two small organic farmers at farmers market• Ag Services of Salinas, Fertilizer applicator
MowingInterviewed:• Golf: Stanford Golf course • Parks: Stanford Grounds Supervisor, head of maintenance
and lead operator (has crew of 6)• Toro dealer (large mower manufacturer) • User of back-yard mowing system• Maintenance Services for City of Los Altos• Colony Landscaping (Mowing service for stadiums)
Autonomous Vehicles for Mowing & Weeding
We reduce operating cost- Labor reduction- Better utilization of assets (mow or weed at nights)- Improved performance (less rework, food safety)
Mowing- Owners of public or commercially used green spaces (e.g. golf courses)- Landscaping service provider
Weeding- Farmers with manual weeding operations
Dealers sell, installs and supports customer
Co. trains dealers, supports dealers
- Mowing Dealers- Ag Dealers
- Innovation- Customer Education- Dealer training
Dealer discount COGS seek a 50-60% Gross MarginHeavy R&D investment
- Dealers (Mowing and Ag)- Vehicle OEMs (John Deere, Toro, Jacobsen, etc)
- Research labs
Asset saleOur revenue stream derives from selling the equipment
Engineers on Autonomous vehicles, GPS, path-planning
Found weeding in organic crops is HUGE problem; 50 - 75% of costs
Crews of 100s-1000
Back-breaking task
(Ilegal) labor harder to get
1-5 weedings per year/field
$250-3,500 per acre and increasing
Food contamination risk
Decision to make – mowing vs weeding
Application If ROI is < 1 yr they will buy
Labor costs significant?
Autonomous would solve
problem?
TAM
Mowing of large fields
Yes.Professionally
run organizations
Yes Yes Adjusted up toxxx
Weeding in Agriculture
Agri Industry: YES!
Large Growers: Yes
Small Growers: No
YES! for organic crops
They are spending $500/ac!
Not necessarily
Key need is weed vs. crop
differentiation
TAM increased to $2.6 B (Total
organic)
Target Market (organic
specialty) 162 M/yr
18%/yr growth
Autonomous vehicles WEEDING
We reduce operating cost- Labor reduction (100 to 1)- Reduced risk of contamination- Mitigate labor availability concerns
- Low density vegetable growers- High density vegetable growers- Thinning operations- Conventional vegetables
Dealers sell, installs and supports customer
Co. trains dealers, supports dealers
- Ag Dealers- Ag Service providers
- Innovation- Customer Education- Dealer training
Dealer discount COGS seek a 50-60% Gross MarginHeavy R&D investment
- Ag Dealers- Ag Service providers
- Research labs
Asset saleOur revenue stream derives from selling the equipment
Engineers on Machine VisionTwo problems:- Identification- Elimination
1 Week – 1 CarrotBot
Confidential
CarrotBot
• Machine Vision data collection platform– Monochrome & Color
Cameras– Laser-line sweep (depth
measurement)– Encoders
(position/velocity)– Onboard data
acquisition & power
CarrotBot 1.0
The Canvas Updated
•Research Labs•Equipment Manufacturers•Distribution Network•Service Providers
•Technology Design•Marketing•Demo and customer feedback
•Cost Reduction•Remove labor force pains•Eliminate bio-waste hazards
•IP – Patents•Video Classifier Files•Robust Technology
•Farming conventions.•Demo, demo, and demo!!•Proximity is paramount
•Organic Farmers•Weeding Service Providers•Conventional Farmers
•Dealers•Direct Service•Indirect Service• … then Dealers
•Asset Sale•Direct Service with equipment rental•… then Asset Sale
Value-Driven
Visit Highlights
Above: Organic Carrots, 7wks. Top right: Conventional carrotsBottom Right: Very weedy. Will require multiple passes of hand weeding
Visit Highlights
Carrot vs. WeedsDue to small root systems, carrots have no chance against weeds
Visit Highlights
Organic Broccoli, closely cultivated. Weeds close to plants are hand-picked
Visit Highlights
State of the Art in Weeding Technology for Organic Crops
Customer Hypothesis
Hypothesis Confirmed• Growers interested in own equipment
• Industrial (10,000s of acres) • Large (1,000s of acres)• Willing to pay $100k for one
unit
• Smaller growers (100s of acres) usually subcontract the labor services or rent equipment
• All purchases through local dealers• Customer service is essential
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Customer Map #1 – Industrial Growers
Example: Bolthouse Farms – Large Industrial Carrot Producer – 8K acres/yr
• Equipment Operator
• Director, Ag Technology• Justin Grove, interviewed
• VP, Growing Operations
• CFO, CEO (Jeff Dunn)
• Local Farm Mgr• Cliff Kirkpatrick, visited
Equipment Operator
Cliff, Farm Mgr
Customer Map #2 – Service Providers
Example: Ag Services – Service Provider, Salinas Valley
• Equipment Operator
• Service Mgr
• ?? (service mgr’s boss)
Me (left), Marty (middle, Service Mgr), Doug (right, Grower)
• Grower
The Business Plan Canvas Updated
•Research Labs•Equipment Manufacturers•Distribution Network•Service Providers
•Technology Design•Marketing•Demo and customer feedback
•Cost Reduction•Remove labor force pains•Eliminate bio-waste hazards
•IP – Patents•Video Classifier Files•Robust Technology
•Farming conventions.•Demo, demo, and demo!!•Proximity is paramount
•Mid/Large Organic Farmers•Agricultural corporations•Weeding Service Providers
•Mid/Large Conventional Farmers
•Direct Service•Indirect Service• … then Dealers
•Direct Service with equipment rental•($1,500/d; 120d/yr )•Low density: $1,500/d•High density: $6,000/d
Value-Driven
World Ag Expo interviews:the need is real and wide spread
• 10+ interviews at show– Everyone confirmed the need– Robocrop, UK based, crude
competitor sells for $171 K
• Revenue Stream– Mid to small growers prefer a
service– Large growers prefer to buy, but
OK with service until technology is proven
– Charging for labor cost saved is OK, as we provide other benefits (food safety, labor availability)
The Business Canvas Updated
•Research Labs•Equipment Manufacturer•Distribution Network•Service Providers• 2 or 3 Key Farms
•Technology Design•Marketing•Demo and customer feedback
•Cost Reduction•Remove labor force pains•Eliminate bio-waste hazards•IP – Patents
•Video Classifier Files•Robust Technology
•Farming conventions.•Demo, demo, and demo!!•Proximity is paramount
•Mid/Large Organic Farmers•Agricultural corporations•Weeding Service Providers
•Mid/Large Conventional Farmers
•Direct Service•Indirect Service• … then Dealers
•Direct Service with equipment rental•Low density: $1,500/d•High density: $6,000/d
Value-Driven• R&D• Bill of Materials• Training & Service• Sales
Autonomous weeding - Final
We reduce operating cost- Labor reduction (100 to 1)- Reduced risk of contamination- Mitigate labor availability concerns
- Low density vegetable growers- High density vegetable growers- Thinning operations- Conventional vegetables
Direct- Provide high quality service at competitive price
Direct - Alliance with service providers- Eventually sell through dealers
- Innovation- Customer Education- Dealer training
Costs for service provisionCOGS seek a 50-60% Gross MarginHeavy R&D investment
- Ag Service providers
- Research Institutes (eg UC Davis, Laser Zentrum Hannover)
- 3-4 key farms
Service provision- Charge by the acre with modifier according to weed density - Eventually move to asset sale
Engineers on Machine VisionTwo problems:- Identification- Elimination
Market Type
Definitions: Four Types of Markets
• Clone Market– Copy of a U.S. business model
• Existing Market– Faster/Better = High end
• Resegmented Market– Niche = marketing/branding driven– Cheaper = low end
• New Market– Cheaper/good enough, creates a new class of product/customer– Innovative/never existed before
Clone Market
Existing Market Resegmented Market
New Market
Market Type determines: Rate of customer adoption
Sales and Marketing strategies Cash requirements
Market Type
Existing Resegmented New
Customers Known Possibly Known Unknown
Customer Needs
Performance Better fit Transformational improvement
Competitors
Many Many if wrong, few if right
None
Risk Lack of branding, sales and distribution ecosystem
Market and product re-definition
Evangelism and education cycle
Examples Google Southwest Groupon
Market Type - Existing
• Incumbents exist, customers can name the mkt• Customers want/need better performance• Usually technology driven
• Positioning driven by product and how much value customers place on its features
• Risks:– Incumbents will defend their turf– Network effects of incumbent– Continuing innovation
Market Type – Resementing Existing
• Low cost provider (Southwest)• Unique niche via positioning (Whole Foods)
• What factors can:– you eliminate that your industry has long competed on?– Be reduced well below the industry’s standard?– should be raised well above the industry’s standard?– be created that the industry has never offered? (blue ocean)
Market Type – New
• Customers don’t exist today• How will they find out about you?• How will they become aware of their need?• How do you know the market size is compelling?
• Which factors should be created that the industry has never offered? (blue ocean)
For Tomorrow’s Presentation
• What were your value proposition hypotheses? • What did potential customers think about your
value proposition hypotheses?– Get out of the building and begin to talk to customers
for Oct 12th – Talk to 10-15 customers more by Oct 18th – Follow-up with Survey Monkey (or similar service) to
get more data
• Submit interview notes, present results in class.• Update your blog/wiki/journal with progress
customers and value prop
Examples
Group Privacy: Nan, Jim, Sundaresan
• Protect privacy for users of location-based services (LBS)
The Business Model Canvas: ver 0.0
Privacy-concerned customers
who use LBS
Creating awareness
Own website
educationalIncreased privacy
Technology
Privacy advocacy
groups
Developing costs
Marketing costs
App revenue (direct or shared)
LBS App Providers
Bundling with LBS apps
trust
Building trust
The Business Model Canvas: ver 0.1
Privacy-concerned customers
who use LBS
Creating awareness
Own website
educationalIncreased privacy
Technology
Privacy advocacy
groups
Developing costs
Marketing costs
App revenue (direct or shared)
LBS App Providers
Bundling with LBS apps
trust
Building trust
Smart phone users uneasy about privacy
Subscription
No loss of service quality
How to Test
Large number of privacy-concerned LBS users
Willing to pay for protecting locations Directly or indirectly
Able to reach them with low cost Able to ease their concerns through
education endorsement by privacy watchdog
groups
LBS app developers are willing to partner
Privacy groups are willing to endorse
Existing market researchTalk to customers
Bid on Google AdWords for location privacy(now no ads)
Talk to customersTalk to privacy advocacy groups (e.g.,25,000 adults stalked by GPS)
Talk to LBS app developers
Talk to privacy advocacy groups
Methodologies
• User interviews at Tresidder and I-Corps (11)• LBS Domain Expert Interviews (1)• Google AdWords (up and running)• Online Survey (32 responses)• Privacy Group Interviews (pending)
Hypothesis 1:Large number of privacy-
concerned LBS users
• User Interviews - Reasons for lack of concern– Trust the provider– Don’t believe that data can
be used against them– Never crossed their mind– Don’t use LBS– Don’t have smartphone– Data already available to
carriers & government• Survey: 66% not concerned
• User Interviews – Reasons for concern– Uncertainty how data
used/misused– General unease
• Survey: 34% concerned– 37% chose not to use a
LBS because of privacy concerns
Most had low concern about location privacy
Hypothesis 2:Willing to pay for protecting locations
• User Interviews – Unwilling to pay– Not interested in even a
free service– Not concerned enough to
pay– Not enough value add
• Survey: 28% would not use it even if it is free, 54% would not pay
• User Interviews – Willing to pay:– $15/month for total privacy
protection, only a “few bucks/month” for location privacy
– $1/week– $5 one time payment
• Survey: 46% willing to pay– 9%: $1– 19%: $10– 9%: $1/month– 9%: $5/month
Even some unconcerned customers are willing to pay!
Hypothesis 3: Able to reach them with low
cost• Yes – at least at first• Google Ad Words:
– Should be cheap at first - We are the only advertiser for “location privacy” (and related)
– Location privacy is a popular search term
Hypothesis 4:Able to raise awareness through education
• Yes• User Interviews – education may prove effective to
some, as many did not think about or understand that LBS providers would get their location data, and indicated more concern
Hypothesis 5: Able to ease concerns through endorsement
• Yes• User interviews – endorsement from “famous
people” and “serious organizations” would help ease concerns on the effectiveness of privacy protection.
Hypothesis 6: LBS app developers are willing to partner
• No – so far• Domain expert interview:
– LBS app developers will hate our service– Increase LBS app’s operational cost
• User interviews– Overwhelming issue – not lack of privacy protection
• But lack of perceived LBS value– Secondary: LBS reputation and trust
Hypothesis 7: Privacy groups are willing to endorse
• Unknown
Market Size Estimation
Number of Users Entire market
> 100m unique Google Maps mobile visitors/month
Served available market 55% users concerned about
sharing location information [Nielsen 2011]
Target market Open Question, but rapidly
growing market
Pricing• Originally considered 1x
payment• But customers naturally
assumed subscription service
• Possible to charge more?– Reduced price --/-->
willingness to use
Pivot Point?
• Not yet, but if user interview data trends against our hypotheses…
• Two new models to consider– Licensing– Location based monitoring
• Privacy scorecard• Hyperlocal news
Hypotheses:
• Improved novel (integrated) thermal dissipation technology can significantly improve LED lighting performance and reduce cost
• Our technology allows direct replacement of commercial high lumen but low efficiency incandescent bulbs with LEDs without light quality/output compromises
• This can deliver a scalable business model
ARKA LightsHigh Performance Heat Dissipation Technology for LED Lighting
Reduced number of LEDs
Higher lumens in the same form factor
Commercial Customers
-Replacement Lamps
- Indoor Applications
Trade Presence, publications, shows
Direct Sales to Institutions
Web based demos, education
OEMS
Luminaires Manufacturers
System integration
Requires no infrastructure changes
ASME, Professional Groups
Environmental conscious Groups
Systems Design
IP
Government Agencies (DOE)
Cost of Sales
LED manufacturers
Luminaire Manufacturers
Developments Costs
Sale of Products
Suppliers Certifications
Awareness Building
Increased reliability
Experienced manufacturer as a partner
Component supplier costs
CANVAS FOR ARKA – Version 1
• We’re talking to (some combination of):– OEMS– Architects (Rita Koltai – Koltai Lighting Design)– Technical Experts/Consultants (Stanford
University), Prof. Robert Davis, (CMU)– Lighting designers and manufacturers (Greenray
Lighting)– Lighting Distributors (Stanford Lighting)– Facility Managers (Sheraton Hotel)– Retail Outlets (Pottery Barn)
GETTING OUT OF THE BUILDING
1) Prof. Robert Davis, Founder of CREE – a leading LED company- Heat transfer is a major issue. Not sure whether the internal phonon reflectance may in fact be the leading thermal limit.
2) Prof. James Harris, EE Department, Stanford University- Heat transfer issue – The phonon reflection increases significantly with the doping of new materials. This reduces thermal conductivity of the LED. Eventually it becomes the limiting factor. Need to include reduction in the thermal conductivity in the heat transfer modeling.- Bought six PAR38 lights for his family room last week. Wants them to last 20-30 years as changing them with a ladder was a major hassle.- Light intensity was lower than incandescent bulbs it replaced. Not happy about that.
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
3) Mr. Mo, Co-owner of Greenway Lighting, Santa Rosa, California
- T8 lighting (tube light replacement) is their main product. PAR38 replacement is needed, but not available today. They recommend PAR30, a much lower intensity product. The available PAR38 do not meet the lighting intensity and light quality demands for replacing the current incandescent lights.
- Replacing light bulbs is a major hassle. Costs $400 to rent a cherry picker to replace bulbs – makes very expensive. Need to have longer life.
- Offered a business proposition to do thermal design of his LED lights on a consultation basis (Not an attractive business model for us due to very low returns and limited scalability).
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
4) Prof. George Tayo, ME Center for Design, Stanford University
- LEDs are evolving very rapidly. Thermal issues are similar to PCs – cooling will remain major issues as performance and quality envelope will continue to expand.
5) Mr. Bruno (maintenance supervisor) – Sheraton Hotel, Palo Alto
- Use 100’s of PAR38 in this hotel. Replace every 6 months or so. Would be happy with longer life product
- Current weight of LEDs might prevent them from being used in establishments with high ceiling. (Heavy aluminum heat sink adds significantly to weight).
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
6. Pottery Barn Staff – Pottery Barn, Palo Alto Title 24 has changed the procurement patterns of corporate
headquarters regarding light fixtures – no dimming or two-way switches (Need to become familiar with local laws)
Use incandescent lights for all general illumination (counted 34 in front foyer alone) without dimming or daylight control. Extensive use of CFLs in displays (not directional so less suitable for task lighting).
7. Paul (salesperson) – Stanford Electricals - • Advocate of LEDs; largely ‘self-educated’• Indicated that rising prices (~30% in last 6 mths) of fluorescents
(due to phosphor costs) and falling LED prices will boost LED sales• Indicated unwillingness of smaller retailers to experiment with new
suppliers products’ • Highlighted form factor of LEDs and emphasized that products need
to be used without changing current infrastructure. • Seeing significantly increased adoption of LEDs by customers
(particularly over last 5 mths)
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
Lower purchase cost
Higher lumens in the same form factor
Commercial Customers
-Replacement Lamps (PAR38)
- Indoor Applications
Trade Presence, publications, shows
Direct Sales to Institutions
Web based demos, education
Luminaire Manufacturers
System integration
Requires no infrastructure changes
ASME, Professional Groups
Environmental conscious Groups
Systems Design
IP
Government Agencies (DOE)
Cost of Sales
LED manufacturers
Luminaire Manufacturers
Developments and Certification Costs
Sale of Products
Suppliers
Certifications
Increased reliability
Experienced manufacturer as a partner
Component supplier costs
CANVAS FOR LED – Version 2
Reduced weight
Awareness Building
Thermal modeling of LED cooling
IMMEDIATE Next steps
• Conduct further interviews to asap validate value proposition and channel hypotheses– OEMS and Institutions– Specifiers and Contractors
• Begin work on key activities including reduction of technology to practice (prototyping)
Summary
• Contacted 8 diverse feedback nodes (experts, customers, supply chain)
• Partially validated three components of the initial canvas. – Learned more about possible value proposition. – Modified key activities to include thermal modeling– Recognized need for engaging with OEMs asap
Disclaimer – The conclusions drawn here are based on a limited data collected. Further validation will be conducted.
I-Corps 10/11/2011
Ground Fluor Pharmaceuticals
Advanced Chemistry for Pharmaceutical Progress
Team: Kiel Neumann (EL)
Stephen DiMagno (PI)
Allan Green (Mentor)
I-Corps 10/11/11 68
PET is a non-invasive medical diagnostic technique for cardiac, brain, and tumor imaging
GFP technology makes new (unknown) and known (but clinically inaccessible) [18F]-labeled radiotracers readily available
Fast, multiplatform, high efficiency synthesis of these fleeting, precious agents.
Initial target indications: pediatric neuroblastoma, Parkinson’s disease.
Ground Fluor Pharmaceuticals
General methodology for adding fluorine to
lead compounds of interest
The Business Model Canvas
Accessibility (RCY)PuritySpeedPET/SPECTMultiplatformSensitivity (nca)Specific compounds
IPPoP dataRegulatory planUnderstanding of the regulatory process
Contract cGMP precursor manufactureSalary, RentsClinical trials
SOPs for precursors and drugsRecruit clinical sitesIn vivo animal studiesDevelop regulatory plan for pre IND meetingID cGMP CROFund-raising
cGMP manufacturerRadiopharmaciesNuclear Medicine and Radiology departments
Technical Assistance (Image Atlas)FDA regulatory support
Radiopharmacies
Equipment producers
Prescribing physicians
Radiologist who perform studies
Sales of intermediates
Technology license
Product license (royalty)
Direct sales of precursor
R&D and clinical studies presented in journals and meetings
Drug developers
Pharmaceutical development companies
IPPoP data
Radiologists
Technical assistance
- Face to face with attending Radiologist at Stanford University
- Face to face with radiopharmacist at UCSF
- Conference call with Nuclear Radiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering
- Conference call with president of medium size drug company with PET
product at the FDA- Telephone conference with cGMP facility
Out of the Building
I-Corps 10/12/11 71
Out of the Building
I-Corps 10/12/11 72
- Immediate need for our product- Currently used SPECT product for neuroblastoma is limited by
absence of correlative CT data
- Our lead PET agent would provide more information on existing imaging equipment base
- Two customers offered to participate in clinical trials- Potential for further development of other tracers identified
in interviews- Actual need for the general procedure
- Allow access to previously unknown tracers
-Initially seeking to market method technology-too diffuse, but many opportunities (i.e. product-driven opportunities more than general technology-driven)
-Need to identify specific imaging product opportunities-Validated hypothesis for immediate need of tracers-Raised question on identity of lead compound pipeline for Parkinson’s disease-Recruited two potential partners for clinical trials
Impact on the Value Proposition Hypothesis
73
I-Corps 10/11/11 74
Total Market in PET imaging
Approximately 2.2 million procedures in the US.
Drug costs range from $700 (on-patent) to ~$150 (generic FDG)
US sales of radiopharmaceuticals for PET and SPECT $1.2 billion
US sales expected to grow to $6 billion by 2018
Global numbers approximately 2x
Source: Bio-Tech Systems Report #330; data for 2010.
I-Corps 10/11/11
75
Accessible Market in PET imaging
• 2500 installed PET scanners• PET radiopharmacies cover the entire US market• Radiopharmacies have an interest in proprietary agents as a
basis of competition in their market.
I-Corps 10/11/11
76
Target Market in PET imaging
Neuroblastoma
Prevalence: about 6000 US cases about 1000 new cases per year
Subjects receive 3-6 images/yearto follow response to therapeutic protocols
World market at U.S. x 2 gives potential of 40,000-70,000 scans/year
Drug costs $500/per gives ~$20 - $35 M
Parkinson’s Disease
DatSCAN sales in Europe ~$100 M
The world's highest recorded prevalence of Parkinson's Disease of any region is in Nebraska, with 329.3 people per 100,000 population
US – 600,000 patients 1 scan per year @ $500 = $300 M
Target CustomerFast Market Expansion
8 Million
Severe OSA
686,000
Treated
Untreated
7.4 Million
Home Diagnosis Device Market Growing at CAGR of 7%
Frost & Sullivan
8 Million
Severe OSA
686,000
Treated
Untreated
7.4 Million
Target CustomerCurrent treatment ineffective
Option #1: CPAPContinuous Positive
Airway Pressure
Therapeutic treatment of OSA growing at CAGR of 17%
Frost & Sullivan
Option #2: SurgeryUvulopalatopharyngoplastyMaxillomandibular AdvancementTonsillectomy
8 Million
Severe OSA
686,000
Treated
Untreated
7.4 Million
412,000
Treatment Effective60%
274,000
Treatment Ineffective
40%
Initial Target CustomerCurrent treatment ineffective
8 Million
Severe OSA
686,000
Treated
Untreated
7.4 Million
412,000
Treatment Effective60%
274,000
Treatment Ineffective
40%
Target Customer
Initial Target CustomerCurrent treatment ineffective