Decision Memo · D-2026-04-08
Should we build a dedicated trade landing experience?
Recommending a path on the trade program build before Q3 commitments are locked.
In one sentence
Build a dedicated trade landing experience now, in parallel with the trade hires — the cost is small relative to the upside, and the alternative locks us into another two quarters of underbuilt trade conversion.
01Context
Designer customers are 14% of sessions and 31% of revenue, with a 4.2× retail AOV and 67% 90-day repeat rate. Today they land on the same retail experience as a first-time consumer browsing for a coffee table. There is no trade-specific entry point, no application gate, no relationship manager visibility, and no trade-only inventory call-out.
The pending Q3 trade hires (two account managers + one ops coordinator) will land into a system that has no purpose-built tooling for them. They will spend their first 60 days reverse-engineering the workflows that should have existed before they arrived.
The decision in front of us: commit now to a dedicated trade landing experience that ships before the Q3 hires onboard, or defer it until after the trade program proves itself with the new headcount alone.
02Options considered
A
Defer the build until Q4
Hire the trade team first, let them work the existing retail experience for two quarters, then evaluate whether a dedicated landing experience is needed based on what they observe.
For
- No additional Q2 spend
- Lets the team inform the build with real-world friction points
- Lower risk of building the wrong thing
Against
- Locks in 6+ months of suboptimal conversion
- Hires onboard into broken workflows
- Estimated $400K–$700K in deferred trade revenue
B
Build in parallel with hiring
Ship a dedicated trade landing experience by mid-June, in parallel with the hiring loop. New trade team onboards into a system designed for them.
For
- Hires arrive into a real system, not a workaround
- Trade conversion lift starts in Q3, not Q1 next year
- Estimated payback in 4–5 months on $48K build cost
- Sends a clear signal to designer customers that we’re investing
Against
- $48K Pitashi build cost in Q2
- Risk of building the wrong primary use case
- Pulls 1.5 weeks of Pitashi attention from in-flight work
C
Build the full trade portal now
Skip past the landing experience and commit to a full custom trade portal — CRM, order management, exclusive inventory, designer-only pricing engine, the full set.
For
- Maximum competitive differentiation
- Establishes a true product moat for the trade segment
Against
- $280K+ engagement, 4-month build
- High risk before we have validated demand at scale
- Likely overshoots what designers need today
03Recommendation
Option B — build a dedicated trade landing experience in parallel with hiring, ship by June 22.
Option C is the right destination eventually, but premature today — we don’t have enough signal yet to scope it well. Option A defers the upside without removing the build cost, just shifting it later. Option B is the highest-leverage move available right now.
The build is intentionally narrow: a single landing page with a trade application, designer-only product callouts, lead-time clarity, and a relationship manager contact module. Six weeks of work. The CRM and outreach tooling already in flight feed into it cleanly.
04Next steps if approved
1
Sign Pitashi SOW for landing buildSix-week fixed-fee engagement at $48K. Brief, scope, designs in week one.By April 25 · Sara to sign
2
Brief the existing trade teamPull insights from the current three-person trade team into the discovery phase. Two-hour workshop, no homework.Week of April 28 · Pitashi facilitates
3
Lock launch date in the broader roadmapJune 22 launch coordinates with the email refresh and the new ambassador program rollout. Three teams need to be aligned.By May 1 · Ops lead
4
Set the Q3 success metricTrade application volume + first-order conversion rate at 60 days post-launch. Lock the target before build starts so we know what we’re shooting at.By April 30 · Sara + Pitashi