Author: brianw713

As Friedrich Nietzsche once declared, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Given our unplumbed cognizance of Neitzsche’s ontological revelations, we vow to seek other interpretations with the intention of ameliorating our analysis. We looked to Mr. Self for this requisite interpretation. As we presented our model about customer acquisition costs, Mr. Self uncovered a major flaw in our complex analysis: using the number of salespersons to determine the number of new customers. Instead, Mr. Self recommended we alter our data analysis by using marketing expenditures to determine the number of new customers through the sales process. Although this caused major changes in our formulas and code, we created a more realistic model representing the cost structure of MPro5.

During the primordial beginnings of the sixth month, between the ninth and eleventh hour, we undertook a punctilious excursion: spending our time fastidiously beefing up our analysis by crafting an Excel table representing the customer acquisition cost given certain variables (price per deal, semi-burdened cost of hiring a salesperson, commission rates, marketing expenses, and dead period length). Today we mainly focused on forging multi-imbedded IF statements in Excel to show how a variable dead period length would alter the marketing expenses, sales expenses, new customers, and CAC over 12 months. In the afternoon, we hope to use our data to show how gradual yearly changes in the input variables change the CAC.

Today, we principally centralized our focus to applying our graphical and data analysis to OpenRange as opposed to Vector Textiles. This meant discerning the relationship between post-money valuations and price per share and percent ownership. The salient variance was the pre-money valuation of OpenRange, assumed to be at 1 million dollars. This altered the ownership drastically since the investing company would own a higher percentage of the principal amount of shares (ceteris paribus).

Finally, we presented our data and graphs to Mr. Self himself. We presented analytical and mathematical models detailing the individual steaks and optimal choices for the investors and the original shareholders. Mr. Self reacted to our conclusions supercalifragilisticexpialidociously, but suggested we consider and incorporate the human element of start-up investing. We plan to use this in our subsequent models.

After constructing our graphs, we elected to advance our culinary extravaganza in a world-renowned enterprise: Crabtree Valley Mall. To be specific, Adam, Arjun, and Brian had Thai food that consisted of chicken and rice/noodles. According to the aforementioned gentlemen, the food was acceptable during the inceptive mastications; however, the nutriments grew abhorrent over time. Janay and Caleb both ingested chicken sandwiches from an establishment in favor of preserving cows, and both deemed the spicy rendition of the sandwiches insufferable. Paradoxically, Ms. Edwards would later obreptitiously claim the ability to consume a ghost pepper. Through our contentious discourse about food predilections and quality, we bonded as a group. Collectively, we utilized this bond to strengthen our collaborative ability in creating a thought-provoking presentation revealing our graphical and data analysis.