{
  "docId": "019de50e-b3ca-7772-86a1-7cad9f0262cc",
  "docSlug": "8fa43dbad4eb5a55489aa6816f7c2b41",
  "documentTitle": "Lindblad | SPAC Presentation Deck | 37 slides",
  "authorId": "lindblad",
  "authorName": "Lindblad Expeditions",
  "documentKindSlug": "pitchdeck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Pitch deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "investment_bank",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Investment bank",
  "presentationDate": "2015-04-01 00:00:00",
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.2938006,
  "pageNumber": 23,
  "pageCount": 37,
  "prevPage": 22,
  "nextPage": 24,
  "slideType": "competitive_analysis",
  "function": "compare_peers",
  "density": "balanced",
  "nDataPoints": 15,
  "notes": "The slide uses a comparison table to frame Lindblad as a niche, high-yield, low-cost-of-entry operator compared to mass-market competitors.",
  "elementsJson": null,
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019de50e-b3ca-7772-86a1-7cad9f0262cc/23",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019de50e-b3ca-7772-86a1-7cad9f0262cc",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019de50e-b3ca-7772-86a1-7cad9f0262cc.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019de50e-b3ca-7772-86a1-7cad9f0262cc#slide-23",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.03,
        "w": 0.48,
        "x": 0.068,
        "y": 0.94
      },
      "kind": "source-note",
      "text": "Source: Company filings and AMEM Communication. CCL as of 2/28/15. Lindblad, RLL, and NCLH as of 12/31/14. (1) (Revenues – Commissions – Onboard and Other Expenses) / Available Passenger Cruise Days.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "1f7e9b3e-1033-4f2c-9817-0539835497a6",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.45,
        "w": 0.79,
        "x": 0.105,
        "y": 0.372
      },
      "kind": "table",
      "text": "Comparison table of Lindblad vs Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and NCL across 5 metrics.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "comparison",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "85af2810-5d83-4ea5-81cb-6b87423a194f",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.03,
        "w": 0.35,
        "x": 0.068,
        "y": 0.17
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "DIFFERENTIATED BUSINESS MODEL",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "action-title",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "8b3fe423-c725-49a2-acd3-6f0396094f01",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.05,
        "w": 0.45,
        "x": 0.068,
        "y": 0.085
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "UNIQUE POSITIONING",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "d6f6d7a7-3b88-45be-9c6c-ed5be5867fd9",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "2x2 matrix",
      "slug": "matrix-2x2",
      "agent": null,
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "d2dc029b-4a3d-4113-be39-ef42b435a738",
      "evidence": "table/comparison: Comparison table of Lindblad vs Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and NCL across 5 metrics.",
      "confidence": 0.5
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "comparison-frame",
      "slug": null,
      "matchId": "0b36800f-5730-47f3-a9be-342a1abbb760",
      "evidence": "Direct comparison of metrics between the subject company and competitors.",
      "confidence": 0.9
    }
  ],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 24,
      "from": 22,
      "beatId": "40032903-70a9-44c4-8c58-89ea3283d0df",
      "arcName": "The Sequoia Pitch",
      "arcSlug": "sequoia-pitch",
      "beatName": "Market Size",
      "beatSlug": "sequoia-pitch-market-size",
      "evidence": "Market opportunity section highlights the growing demand for expedition cruising",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "parentBeatName": "Evidence",
      "parentBeatSlug": "evidence"
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 30,
      "from": 21,
      "name": "Why Now",
      "slug": "15-why-now",
      "bestFor": "Sales pitches, fundraising, requesting immediate budget approval",
      "matchId": "3173cd3d-f220-4c81-b727-1a1b8ad14df0",
      "evidence": "The deck presents a clear growth strategy and use of funds",
      "position": 0,
      "objective": "Why now is the right time for a SPAC merger",
      "structure": "The Context (Trends) -> The Trigger Event -> The Window of Opportunity",
      "confidence": 0.7,
      "description": "Create temporal urgency by proving that the window of opportunity is opening or closing"
    },
    {
      "to": 25,
      "from": 22,
      "name": "Cost Of Inaction",
      "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction",
      "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation",
      "matchId": "e33b4553-a3d9-45b3-b3fd-33ef3f4d2a69",
      "evidence": "The deck highlights the growing demand and limited supply in the market",
      "position": 1,
      "objective": "The cost of inaction in the expedition cruising market",
      "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point",
      "confidence": 0.6,
      "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}