Objectives
A fast-growing European fintech had reached meaningful scale. Demand remained strong, but growth rates were beginning to flatten. The core product still led its category, yet leadership knew the next chapter would be harder than the last.
The Chief Growth Officer bore significant responsibility. Nearly €20 million in annual spend funded the acquisition, activation, retention, geographic expansion, and exploration of new business models. B2C remained the engine, while B2B and B2B2C ideas waited for oxygen.
There was energy everywhere. What was missing was conviction.
Were these investments building the future, or simply sustaining motion?
Challenges
From the outside, the company looked rigorous. Metrics were everywhere. Teams produced thoughtful analysis, and documentation was extensive.
Inside, the experience felt different. Information was abundant, but clarity was not. Discussions were constructive, yet real tradeoffs rarely surfaced.
Almost every initiative could justify its existence. Funding often followed habit or local logic rather than enterprise comparison.
- The growth team pushed to manage CAC within acceptable limits
- The product team continued to improve the customer experience
- Analytics mapped funnels with precision
But when executives asked where the next wave of material growth would originate, the answers became less certain.
At the same time, market pressure increased. Paid channels were becoming more expensive. Core segments approached saturation. Competitors improved quickly.
The easy wins were behind them.
Decision
We introduced a shift that changed the tone of the conversation. This was no longer primarily an optimization problem. It was a question of future position.
If the current model were maturing, leadership would have to decide where new value would come from and who would capture it.
Several directions were plausible. The company could push into new geographies. It could compete for adjacent user groups. It could deepen partnerships around the existing product.
We proposed moving toward B2B2C. That meant building for the professionals already serving end users and expanding horizontally across the lifecycle. The core product would stay strong, but new revenue would come from broader relationships.
The strategic shift required:
- Moving from optimization to future positioning
- Deciding where new value would originate
- Building a shared, quantified picture of the future
The idea was logical. The implications were disruptive.
Product leaders had spent years building a category winner and were careful not to destabilize it. Growth leaders were accountable for near-term efficiency and did not want experiments to threaten performance.
Both views made sense.
What the organization lacked was a shared, quantified picture of the future.
Execution
Belief was not enough. We gathered evidence.
We worked with country heads to size realistic market opportunities. We modeled share capture and tested different unit economics. We examined where, in the lifecycle, additional services would create natural value.
Customer success teams played a critical role. They understood where users needed more help and where trust already existed.
As these models came together, the room changed. Initiatives that once seemed important looked smaller. Others became central.
Leadership could compare paths using the same lens. The discussion moved from defending the present to designing the portfolio.
Instead of asking how to stretch the current engine, executives began deciding how the mix must evolve over three years.
What Changed
Once the direction felt real, behavior followed.
The Chief Growth Officer clarified what the existing product should continue delivering and what new offerings should contribute. Growth expectations became segmented rather than blended.
Budget logic moved with it. Simply paying more for acquisition stopped being acceptable. Increasing lifetime value through retention and higher value services became the priority.
The company leaned harder into product-led growth. The product began to serve as a channel for acquisition, activation, and expansion.
Alignment improved as well.
Teams had always managed detailed metrics, yet OKRs emerged from the bottom up. It was difficult to see how weekly work connected to enterprise goals and strategy.
We redesigned the OKR structure from the top. The CGO's objectives remained strategic, and his key results became the objectives for his VPs, whose key results cascaded to functional leaders, and so on.
For the first time, quarterly priorities clearly supported a multi-year ambition.
Measurable Outcome
Several concrete shifts followed.
Product-led growth became a formal pillar rather than a side conversation. New B2B2C concepts were added to the funded roadmap.
- Investment moved toward lifecycle value creation and B2B2C initiatives
- Leaders could distinguish between core growth and new engine requirements
- Quarterly planning cycles accelerated
- Tradeoffs became easier with clearer strategic direction
While geographic expansion fell short of expectations, the broader product and customer strategy strengthened the path to unicorn status.
The organization continued optimizing. But it no longer relied on optimization to define the future.
Why This Matters
At scale, companies rarely face a shortage of data, and teams tend to optimize every problem.
When saturation becomes visible, courageous leaders decide what to build next. That decision demands creative and critical thinking, new investment logic, and visible alignment.