Writing Assistant Case: Improve Grammarly, Then Judge Its Value as a Google Acquisition

You are given a two-part product case about Grammarly, the writing assistant that reviews text as people type in browsers, desktop apps, phone keyboards and workplace tools, and that offers free corrections alongside paid plans for individuals, teams and schools. Answer both parts in order. ### Clarifying Questions - For Part 1, should the improvement grow the number of people using Grammarly, deepen how often existing users rely on it, convert free users to paid plans, or expand business accounts? - May I pick the audience, for example students, professionals who write all day at work, or people writing in English as a second language? - For Part 2, should buying Grammarly be compared with Google extending the writing help it already ships in Docs, Gmail and its AI assistant, or with a partnership? - Is a purchase price on the table, or should I judge strategic value first and treat price as a range? ### Part 1 — Improve Grammarly How would you make Grammarly better? Choose the goal you are optimizing for and the writers you would serve first, describe the problems they run into, propose and prioritize changes, and say how you would know the chosen change worked. ```hint Where writing happens Grammarly works inside other companies' text boxes. Ask which writing moments it still misses, and whose writing is frequent enough to become a daily habit. ``` #### What This Part Should Cover - A goal tied to how Grammarly earns money, and a segment chosen with a stated reason. - Pain points specific to that segment's writing, not general usability complaints. - Solutions ranked by impact and effort, with a reason the top choice holds up now that basic writing help is widely available for free. - A success metric and a guardrail that fit a writing tool. ### Part 2 — Should Google buy Grammarly? Should Google acquire Grammarly? Give a recommendation and the reasoning behind it. ```hint What survives the deal List what Google would be paying for (users, technology, data, distribution, team), cross off what it already has, and ask which of the remaining assets keep their value once Google owns them. ``` #### What This Part Should Cover - Fit with Google's mission and with the Google products where people write. - Build, buy or partner, given the writing features Google already offers. - Value against price, plus the main risks: regulatory review, user trust in a tool that reads everything typed, and the reaction of rival platforms. - A clear recommendation, with the conditions that would change it. ### What a Strong Answer Covers - Consistency between the parts: what makes Grammarly valuable in Part 1 should shape how it is valued in Part 2. - Recognition that large language models have made basic correction a commodity, which changes both the product roadmap and the moat. - Treatment of Grammarly's presence on rival platforms as an asset that ownership could weaken. - Measurable criteria for judging both the product change and the deal. ### Follow-up Questions - If Google already suggests grammar fixes in Docs, why would a Grammarly user switch, or refuse to switch, after the deal? - Suppose Microsoft restricts Grammarly inside Word and Outlook once Google owns it. How does your valuation change? - What would you track in the first year to decide whether the acquisition worked?