# Dr. Kaz — Revelstoke conversion and launch research

Researched 19 September 2026. Primary sources only. This memo is a product recommendation, not confirmation of operator availability, partnership, host participation, guest commitments, or legal clearance. No outreach or transactions were performed.

## The practical product decision

Build a **concierge-led Revelstoke trip**, with a real inquiry and an accountable human follow-up, before building instant booking. The next meaningful upgrade is a reliable path from interested skier to compatible group to a written operator offer. More decorative sections alone will not prove demand.

Keep party size flexible. A guest can join Kaz on an existing departure with other skiers, bring friends, or help fill a standard ski group. Private flying is optional. The operator confirms actual places and grouping; promise time skiing with Kaz only as agreed. The original Northern Escape/Terrace cost model is not a Revelstoke quote.

## What actual operator inquiry flows collect

These observations concern public form content; no forms were submitted and their backend delivery was not tested.

| Official flow | Observed information requested | Dr. Kaz implication |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [Selkirk Tangiers booking inquiry](https://selkirk-tangiers.com/plan-your-trip/book-heli-skiing/) | Name, email, phone, country, optional best calling time; package, group size, preferred start date and two alternatives, comments; separate newsletter option. | Dates, group size and desired format belong in qualification. Flexibility is operationally useful. |
| [Eagle Pass package inquiry](https://eaglepassheli.com/packages/contact-us-package-availability/) | Contact details, country, group size, prior heli/cat skiing, prior Eagle Pass experience, package, primary/alternative dates, discovery source and message. | Prior heli/cat experience and flexible dates help a human find a suitable program. |
| [CMH expert request](https://www.cmhheli.com/talk-to-an-expert) | Prior heli skiing, timeframe, optional dream-trip details, contact/location details and preferred contact method; separate marketing opt-in. | Let first-timers inquire without pretending they are qualified. Offer “help me work it out” instead of forcing invented preferences. |

The following design is our synthesis, not evidence of a particular conversion uplift.

### Recommended first inquiry

Use a compact two-step flow if it genuinely improves mobile clarity; do not require an account.

1. **Trip fit:** preferred month/date window (including flexible), party size, joining an existing departure versus filling a group or requesting private flying, ski/board/both, prior heli/cat experience or honest self-description. Display a clear “operator confirms suitability and group placement” note.
2. **Stay in touch:** name and email required; phone optional unless they select a phone call; optional budget band and a short note. Ask how they found it only if source is not otherwise known.

Budget options are qualification research, not prices: “Under CA$10k”, “CA$10–15k”, “CA$15–20k”, “CA$20k+”, “Help me understand the costs”, explicitly **per person excluding flights**, and explicitly **not a quote**. Adjust these only once the actual operator formats are known. A budget mismatch is a signal to discuss a different trip format, not automatically reject someone.

Do not ask profession, employer, patient information, medical conditions, passport numbers, full birth date or emergency contacts in the first inquiry. Occupation is not a proxy for ski ability or compatible company. Detailed fitness/medical disclosures and waivers belong in the operator’s appropriate process later. These are data-minimization recommendations, consistent with the Canadian privacy regulator’s [limiting-collection guidance](https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/p_principle/principles/p_collection/).

### Honest receipt copy

> Your inquiry is received. Reference: KAZ-…
> We’ll use these details to discuss the Revelstoke trip with you. Dates, operator, final pricing and places are still being confirmed. No reservation or payment has been made.

Only promise a response deadline if Joey accepts ownership and can meet it. A proposed internal target is one business day. An email confirmation should only be claimed when an email provider reports actual acceptance; an on-screen receipt is useful even without email. Inquiry consent is not newsletter consent. The [CRTC’s guidance](https://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com500/info.htm) distinguishes responses to a requested inquiry from general commercial messaging; any future promotional list should have its own clear opt-in and required sender/unsubscribe treatment.

## Functionality sequence

### 1. Real inquiry now — must work end to end

**Guest:** submit preferences; receive durable reference; see accurate success or recoverable failure. Preserve entered values when the server fails. Do not display success after a validation error or failed write.

**Owner:** access the actual stored record through an authenticated private view or export, record status and next action, and identify duplicates. Initial statuses: New → Contacted → Fit discussed → Operator review → Written offer → Booked / Not proceeding. “Booked” requires operator confirmation, not a submitted lead.

**Acceptance checks:** one valid synthetic inquiry creates exactly one private record; repeated submission does not create unwanted duplicates; invalid fields are rejected server-side; no public endpoint exposes the guest list; a failed storage operation returns a failure; success is only shown after confirmed storage; a real owner retrieval can find the test record. Remove or clearly label test records. Avoid logging personal contact data or returning it in public response bodies.

**Operational minimum:** assign one owner, store consent text/version and time with the inquiry, define a retention/deletion process, and describe who uses the information. Keep list access separate from the public site. This is a small private guest queue, not a public social network.

### 2. Make the offer real — next highest value

Create an internal operator-comparison sheet with two date windows, exact group format, ability/pace expectations, rooms, included heli days, full CAD quote, exclusions, taxes/fees, transfers, weather policy, cancellation/deposit terms and validity deadline. Confirm whether the host’s participation is contractual and what a cancellation by Kaz means for guests.

The guest-facing trip page then earns these useful additions:

- A confirmed itinerary with actual arrival/departure constraints.
- “Included / arrange separately” with a full cost breakdown and source date.
- The operator’s actual package and ability assessment route.
- A written explanation of what happens when weather prevents flying.
- Two or three decisions guests can act on: choose the viable date, schedule the fit call, review the written offer.
- A sample packing and arrival checklist clearly separated from confirmed operator instructions.

A simple human-managed date poll is useful before inventory is reserved. A live-looking availability calendar is not useful if it does not read confirmed inventory.

### 3. Booking and guest management later — gated on the actual contract

Prefer evaluating **operator-direct contracts and payments** for the pilot. It simplifies payment reconciliation and allows the operator to control its real inventory, waivers and assessment, but it is not a legal exemption by itself.

After the arrangement is resolved, add the actual operator booking link or invitation, quote expiry, guest status, balance deadline, pre-trip checklist, secure itinerary and operator-controlled waivers. If a separate hosting fee exists, show who earns it, its deliverables, refunds and the result if Kaz cannot attend. A payment processor does not create inventory or replace these terms.

Defer a general marketplace, public crew profiles, automatic matching, flight booking, referral rewards and AI travel-agent promises. A first guest joining Kaz does not require these systems.

## BC travel-selling question: resolve the business model before money moves

Consumer Protection BC says travel supplied to the public can require licensing; its description covers transportation, accommodation and services combined with either. An agent sells another supplier’s travel; a wholesaler acquires resale rights or sells through other agents. Home-based or independent arrangements are not automatically excluded. Ask the regulator to assess the actual entity, business location, marketing, contracts, compensation and money flow. [Consumer Protection BC licensing](https://www.consumerprotectionbc.ca/get-keep-licence/travel/).

The current [Travel Industry Regulation](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/296_2004) defines an agent broadly as selling or otherwise providing another supplier’s travel services. Its section 2 includes a limited exemption for sightseeing/tour guides who provide no other travel services; it does not establish a blanket paid-referral exemption. Do not assume that “social host”, “referral” or operator-direct payment settles classification. The destination being BC alone does not establish every requirement for an entity elsewhere. Applicable home-jurisdiction rules and the actual BC business connection need review.

A practical proposed structure to have reviewed: Dr. Kaz collects nonbinding trip interest and hosts the social experience; a named operator or appropriately licensed travel business provides its written package and takes its own payments; any distinct host fee/commission is disclosed and contractually defined. This is a structure to evaluate, not legal clearance or a workaround.

At sale, [Consumer Protection BC’s contract guidance](https://www.consumerprotectionbc.ca/get-keep-licence/travel/know-your-contracts/) says online/phone/email sales and future-service sales can trigger specific disclosure and contract obligations. Product requirement: before payment, identify the contracting supplier, exact services/dates, total cost and payment schedule, cancellation/refund conditions, applicable changes and contact details; deliver the actual terms and receipt. Use counsel/operator-approved documentation rather than a generic checkbox claiming acceptance of missing terms.

## Medical-networking premise: keep it recreational in substance

The [AdvaMed U.S. Code effective November 1, 2025](https://www.advamed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/AdvaMed-Code-of-Ethics-2025-DHT-Section-Update-Final-PDF.pdf) says its scope includes covered company employees’/agents’ interactions with U.S. healthcare professionals even if personally paid; the recreation section prohibits company-provided skiing and vacation trips. It is an industry code with its own scope, not a rule that every private ski friendship is unlawful. Personal payment is not an automatic safe harbor.

The [HHS OIG overview](https://oig.hhs.gov/compliance/physician-education/fraud-abuse-laws/) explains that knowing and willful remuneration to induce/reward federally reimbursable referrals or business can implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute; remuneration includes noncash benefits. A host subsidy, rep-funded guest benefit or access-to-purchasing promise changes the facts. Keep industry sponsorship and rep-targeted acquisition out of the initial offer pending fact-specific professional review. No CME, case consultation, clinical coverage, referral access or purchasing influence should be a promised benefit.

## Thirty-day launch experiment and measures

These are management targets, not industry benchmarks or forecasts. Start the clock after Kaz approves the trip and there is a feasible operator offer. If dates/contracts are not available, the output is conditional interest, not booking success.

| Stage | Proposed target | Definition |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Relevant warm introductions | 30 across 2 weeks | Known skier or opt-in personal introduction; no unsolicited scraping campaign. |
| Real conversations | 8+ | Discusses dates, ability/pace, cost and reason to join; page views do not count. |
| Qualified interest | 6+ | Suitable proposed budget/time window and likely ability fit, willing to enter operator assessment; no medical-professional requirement. |
| Viable departure | Kaz and the interested guests in a confirmed operator arrangement | Same viable dates and compatible operator-assessed program. Track people separately from inquiries. |
| Written offers | One exact departure offered to the suitable crew | Current quote with full terms, operator, host role and booking deadline. |
| Pilot success | At least one paying guest joins Kaz on a confirmed departure | Operator-confirmed bookings on viable economics; guests paying only a speculative website deposit would not meet this definition. |

Track the reason for every stalled lead: dates, price, ability, insufficient trust, host interest, travel friction or no response. Measure median first-human-response time, number of open leads without a next action, qualified interest per channel, offer-to-booking rate, confirmed contribution after real expenses and host cost, and guest willingness to return/refer after the actual trip. At this volume, a private stage sheet is more informative than a noisy website A/B test.

Use the 30 invitations for qualitative message comparison: half experience-led, half host-led, similar warm contexts. Do not claim statistical significance. Proposed continue gate: a feasible operator offer and at least one qualified prospect ready for assessment; rework the offer when dates/cost prevent a coherent crew; pause acquisition if fewer than three qualified prospects emerge after 30 relevant introductions and eight completed conversations.

## Five highest-value next assets

1. A 45–60 second authentic video from Kaz: why he loves this trip, who enjoys it, and what evenings feel like. Obtain permission; do not fabricate an endorsement.
2. The operator’s written available-place options, grouping arrangements with Kaz, and two precise date windows.
3. A real inquiry queue with a clear owner and follow-up record.
4. One transparent cost-and-terms page based on the actual Revelstoke quote.
5. A first-guest interview script focused on what would make this trip worth choosing over booking the operator alone.

Suggested discovery questions: Which trip would this replace? Who would you normally go with? What is attractive about Kaz/the crew? What total cost and days away are realistic? Which two date windows work? What would stop you booking after the operator confirms details? What extra hosting value would justify a separate fee?