The approach

Nothing to take on faith. The whole argument is on the table.

Four working papers make the case, and let you check it. Why the CLV:CAC ratio is the most important metric in B2B marketing. Why yours is almost certainly wrong. And what to do the day the diagnostic proves it.

01 · The argument

Four papers. One argument you can audit.

  1. 01

    The metric that changes everything

    One number answers the CFO's question directly, and it is almost always flattered: understated on CAC, overstated on CLV. This paper shows you exactly where, and what a calculation you can defend actually requires.

    Read the paper
  2. 02

    Business is good. Why would I look harder?

    Because the numbers keeping you comfortable are lagging indicators. By the time EBITDA softens and churn rises, the problem has been compounding quietly for two to three years. Comfort is not the same as safety.

    Read the paper
  3. 03

    Read the warning light

    Six symptoms give away deteriorating unit economics, and each one gets waved off as an execution problem you can hustle your way out of. It usually isn't. This paper names the marketing lever that actually moves each one.

    Read the paper
  4. 04

    Before you optimise

    The standard improvement programme sharpens the marketing without asking whether the marketing is creating or destroying value at the customer level. Answer that first, or you optimise your way deeper into a loss.

    Read the paper
02 · Why earlier is always better

The longer you wait, the more it costs to fix.

Refine the ICP at 2.8:1 and it is a spreadsheet exercise. Leave it until 1.4:1 and the same fix means exiting segments, repricing, and rebuilding the pipeline from a worse starting point. Same problem. A far larger bill.

Intervention cost rises as the ratio deteriorates

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

One method. Finance and marketing both sign it off.

The same conventions, applied the same way, every time. So your result stands up next to last quarter's and next to any business you care to compare against.

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

The blended number is hiding your real CAC.

The Commercial Logic tool pulls acquisition spend out from retention and 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

Stop reading about the ratio. See yours. Ten minutes, your CLV:CAC position, and four prioritised actions. The argument above, pointed at your business.

Begin Calibrate 28 questions · 10 min · emailed result

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