B

Trot Performance Settlement Manager

3.70

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Revitalization of trot performance culture such as 'National Singing Contest'
→
Step 2 Operational tool for local event agencies
→
Step 3 Automated performance settlement and performer fee management service

Problem

With the revival of 'National Singing Contest' and similar shows, the number of trot and pop music performances by local small-scale event agencies (1-3 employees) is surging. However, manually processing performer fees, local government subsidies, sponsor distributions, and ticket revenue settlements in Excel takes 3-5 days per performance, and settlement errors lead to disputes 2-3 times a year. Only the labor cost for settlement per performance wastes 300,000-500,000 KRW (approx. $225-$375).

Solution

(1) Enter income (tickets, sponsors, subsidies) and expenses (performer fees, equipment, venue) items per performance using templates to automatically generate settlement statements for each performer and staff member; (2) automatically calculate withholding tax (3.3%) and integrate with tax invoices; (3) automatically send settlement details to performers via KakaoTalk/SMS. The differentiation is performance-specific settlement templates and withholding tax automation compared to general accounting software.

Target: Representatives of local small-scale event agencies (1-3 people) that plan 10 or more performances per year, and management companies specializing in trot and pop music.
Revenue Model: SaaS monthly subscription: 39,000 KRW per account (approx. $29.25) per month (includes 5 performances per month), additional performances 5,000 KRW (approx. $3.75) each. 20% discount for annual payment.
Ecosystem Role: Infrastructure
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
3.0/5
U Urgency
4.0/5
M Market
3.0/5
R Realizability
4.0/5
V Validation
4.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20

Feasibility (74%)

Tech Complexity
34.7/40
Data Availability
19.4/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (71/100)

Competition
10.0/20
Market Demand
19.4/20
Timing
14.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
10.5/15
Solo Buildability
7.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Backend [medium] Frontend [low] Infrastructure [low]
Dashboard