The approach

The argument is documented. The method is transparent.

Four working papers set out the full case for why the CLV:CAC ratio is the most important metric in B2B marketing, why it's almost always wrong, and what to do when the diagnostic finds a problem.

01 · The argument

Four papers. One connected argument.

  1. 01

    The metric that changes everything

    The CLV:CAC ratio is the only number that answers the CFO's question directly. This paper explains why it's almost always understated on CAC and overstated on CLV, and what a correct calculation actually requires.

    Read the paper
  2. 02

    Business is good. Why would I look harder?

    The metrics that generate comfort are lagging indicators. By the time EBITDA softens and churn rises, the underlying problem has typically been compounding for two to three years.

    Read the paper
  3. 03

    Read the warning light

    Six symptoms signal deteriorating unit economics in most B2B businesses. Each is routinely misdiagnosed as an execution problem. This paper identifies the marketing levers that address each one.

    Read the paper
  4. 04

    Before you optimise

    The standard marketing improvement programme answers the wrong question. The prior question, is marketing creating or destroying value at the customer level, must be answered first.

    Read the paper
02 · Why earlier is always better

The intervention cost curve rises steeply.

An ICP refinement when the ratio is at 2.8:1 is an analytical exercise. The same intervention at 1.4:1 may require exiting customer segments, repricing, and rebuilding the pipeline from a fundamentally different starting point.

Intervention cost rises as the ratio deteriorates

Exhibit 01Cost of intervention vs. time
act early act late
→ time / deterioration↑ cost & disruption
03 · The method

A defined methodology. Agreed by finance and marketing.

The same conventions applied consistently across every engagement, so results are comparable across businesses and reporting periods.

Customer Acquisition Cost

Fully-loaded CAC

Goes inAll sales and marketing headcount, programme spend, agency fees, and technology attributable to acquisition.
Stays outRetention, renewal, and customer success costs.
PeriodTrailing 12 months, normalised for seasonality.
The ratio
CLV : CAC
3:1minimum benchmark
Customer Lifetime Value

NPV-adjusted CLV

BasisGross margin per period, not revenue.
Discount10% per annum applied to future cash flows.
LessCost-to-serve, separated out; capped at 5 years.
04 · The method, computed

Where the blended number hides the truth.

The Commercial Logic tool separates acquisition spend from retention, then isolates the one CAC figure that belongs in the ratio. Set against net lifetime value, that figure drives both headline outputs: the CLV:CAC ratio and the Capital Burn Velocity.

Administrator
alan@why-marketing.com
Log out
Tool Admin
Customer Acquisition Cost, the full picture
Blended hides it. Isolated reveals it.

The blended number is a diagnostic comparator only. New Customer CAC is the figure that belongs in the ratio.

Blended CAC
£63,750
Total S&M ÷ new customers. Comparator only.
USED IN RATIO
New Customer CAC
£44,500
Acquisition-only spend. The correct metric.
CAC Distortion
+30.2%
Overstatement when retention cost is blended in.
Start here

Calibrate

Ten minutes to your CLV:CAC position and four prioritised actions. The argument above, applied to your business.

Begin Calibrate 28 questions · 10 min · emailed result

We use privacy-friendly analytics. No tracking cookies. Privacy