A staged marketing plan to move the acquisition engine from destroying capital to creating it, built on the diagnostic and driven by the number, not a workshop.
Where to play, how to win, and what it returnsWhat the plan covers, and the basis it is built on
Source. This plan builds on the Commercial Logic diagnostic and a short marketing intake. Figures are reused from the diagnostic or computed from it; new inputs are limited to channel detail, the marketing time split, confirmed ICPs, and today's new-business goals and challenges.
This specimen. All figures are illustrative, internally reconciled to demonstrate the method, and represent no actual business. Northwind Systems is a fictional Growth-band company.
Why a destructive number stayed invisible
CAC is rarely owned. It seldom appears on the board dashboard. So it is easy to ignore, right up until it is the reason the numbers stop working.
Between finance and marketing, the true cost to win a customer falls in the gap. Finance sees a marketing budget; marketing sees leads, pipeline and campaigns. Neither view answers the only question that matters: is each customer won for less than it returns? The dashboard glows green while the engine quietly destroys capital, because nothing on the dashboard is built to show it.
In the intake we asked a simple question: what is hard about new business today? The answers, on their own, look like ordinary operational friction. Read against the capital number, they are the first symptoms of the burn.
None of these is fatal today. Each can be patched in the short term, with more leads, more salespeople, more effort. But every patch raises the cost of winning a customer, and the ratio quietly worsens. Left unowned, the target gets harder each year, and then it starts to be missed. This plan makes CAC owned, visible, and the centre of the new-business conversation.
A marketing strategy with a capital job
This is a marketing strategy. Its job is a capital problem: to move the acquisition engine from destroying capital to creating it, using the levers marketing controls. Where most strategy work begins with a workshop, this begins with the number.
Break-even needs the true CAC down 47%, or net CLV up 88%, or a blend. No single lever reaches 3:1, so the plan stages it: reach 1:1 first by reallocating Promotion and concentrating on the segments that already work, then climb to 2:1 and 3:1 as the brand rebuild compounds and the board-flag decisions on Price and Product take effect.
It sits alongside the strategy work the market expects, direction, positioning, a roadmap, but every recommendation is anchored to the capital result and carries a named owner.
The blended verdict, broken open
The diagnostic gives one blended ratio. The plan breaks it open. Fully-loaded cost is overlaid on each channel and segment, so the question stops being are we burning capital and becomes where.
| Channel | Media spend | % budget | Customers | Loaded CAC | CLV:CAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earned / PR | £20,000 | 3% | 5 | £32,500 | 0.73 |
| Content / SEO | £60,000 | 9% | 10 | £34,500 | 0.68 |
| ABM / outbound | £30,000 | 5% | 3 | £38,500 | 0.61 |
| Paid social | £140,000 | 22% | 6 | £51,833 | 0.46 |
| Paid search | £210,000 | 33% | 9 | £51,833 | 0.46 |
| Events / field | £180,000 | 28% | 7 | £54,214 | 0.44 |
| Blended | £640,000 | 100% | 40 | £44,500 | 0.53 |
Media + programme of £640,000 reconciles to the reported CAC of £16,000 across 40 customers. Loaded cost is overlaid per customer. No channel reaches break-even; the spread runs 0.44 to 0.73.
| Segment | Customers | CLV:CAC | Share of burn |
|---|---|---|---|
| SMB | 18 | 0.23 | ≈ 49% |
| Mid-market | 15 | 0.60 | ≈ 34% |
| Enterprise | 7 | 0.90 | ≈ 17% |
SMB runs at 0.23:1 and accounts for almost half the burn. Enterprise is closest to break-even at 0.90:1. Where the spend goes, and to whom, is the recovery.
What the plan acts on, and what it flags
The plan acts on Promotion. It brings the capital lens to Price, Product and Place, so the board can choose to have that conversation.
1 · Re-engineer the ICPs. Stop funding SMB acquisition, where the engine runs at 0.23:1, and redirect that effort to Mid-market and Enterprise, which already sit two to four times more efficient. Not a cut to growth: the same budget, aimed where a customer returns more than it costs to win.
2 · Reallocate the channel mix. Shift budget from paid search and events (0.44 to 0.46) toward earned and content (0.68 to 0.73). Test the freed paid budget back in only where it earns its place.
3 · Rebuild brand, remove the brand tax. At 88% activation the engine pays a premium: sales and paid channels working harder, and dearer, because the brand is not pulling its weight. The absence of brand is the tax; rebuilding it is the one move that lowers CAC structurally, compounding rather than resetting each quarter.
Every 10% taken off the controllable CAC recovers about £64,000 a year. The build is designed to find that, and more, from mix rather than from new budget.
The same money, aimed where it returns
A reallocation of the budget already in place, not a request to grow it. The brand-to-activation balance takes a measured first step, and within activation the spend moves from the expensive channels to the efficient ones.
Year 1 lifts brand from 12% to 25%, a measured first step funded by the activation efficiencies, not a budget increase. The 46:54 figure is where B2B spending averages land, shown as a market reference, not a target imposed on this business.
| Channel | Now | Plan | Move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content / SEO | 9% | 19% | +10 |
| Earned / PR | 3% | 11% | +8 |
| ABM / outbound | 5% | 7% | +2 |
| Paid social | 22% | 17% | −5 |
| Events / field | 28% | 21% | −7 |
| Paid search | 33% | 25% | −8 |
| Total | 100% | 100% | £640k |
We do not ask finance to spend more in order to lower CAC. But if brand proves to be the structural lever, there is one defensible case for investment above the line, and it is not made on faith. The brand tax is a premium the business is already paying: roughly £8,000 on every customer, £320,000 a year, because a weak brand makes every other channel work harder. We take finance that number, not a budget ask. The investment is funded by a cost they already bear, and the brand tax is how we prove it is worth removing.
The same money today, re-pointed, and the brand money added
Three views of one budget. The first is where the £640,000 goes today, by channel. The second is the same total re-pointed toward the channels that return more than they cost, with no new money. The third adds the one request for investment above the line, £320,000 of brand, shown as its own wedge so it is clear what it is and where it goes, taking the working budget to £960,000.
| Channel | Today | Re-pointed | With brand |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paid search | 33% · £210k | 25% · £160k | £160k |
| Events / field | 28% · £180k | 21% · £134k | £134k |
| Paid social | 22% · £140k | 17% · £109k | £109k |
| ABM / outbound | 5% · £30k | 7% · £45k | £45k |
| Content / SEO | 9% · £60k | 19% · £122k | £122k |
| Earned / PR | 3% · £20k | 11% · £70k | £70k |
| Brand investment | — | — | £320k |
| Total | £640k | £640k | £960k |
Views 1 and 2 share the same £640,000; re-pointing roughly triples the efficient share, from 12% to 37%, before any new money is raised (see Table 3, previous page). View 3 adds the £320,000 brand wedge on top, the only request for new spend.
Brand investment here is not vague awareness spend. It is four concrete workstreams, weighted to the assets that compound: a distinctive brand and message, owned content that builds memory without continuous spend, earned amplification, and brand-led placements in the efficient channels rather than performance media.
Indicative allocation of the £320k, weighted to compounding assets. It is the one request for new spend, and it is self-funded: it recovers the £320k brand tax the business already pays in inflated CAC. Figures illustrative.
The here and now: fewer, better-paying leads on the same money
Activation is the part of the engine the business feels first: activity, lead generation, the pipeline that keeps sales fed. It is also where the reflex lives. In a tough quarter the call goes up for more leads.
More leads is the wrong answer here. Activation at Northwind is not short of money; it is short of aim. Its share of the budget moves from 88% to 80%, and the same spend is re-pointed to return more, because the unit economics already in hand show where the waste sits. The result is fewer but better-paying customers: more value per pound, not more volume.
Gartner found that 89% of B2B buyers rate the information they meet as high quality, yet that abundance makes them 153% more likely to settle for a smaller, less disruptive purchase than they planned. More volume does not win bigger deals; it shrinks them. Quality first, then enough volume to feed the target, is the better economics.
Nothing here needs a new survey. Each move is read straight from the diagnostic and the intake.
| What the data shows | What it tells us | The activation move |
|---|---|---|
| Segment split: SMB 0.23, Mid 0.60, Ent 0.90 | SMB destroys value; Mid and Enterprise pay back two to four times better | Re-weight demand toward Mid and Enterprise |
| CLV by segment (ACV × tenure × margin) | Which customers are worth winning, not just easy to win | Target the high-CLV profiles, not the cheap leads |
| Cost-to-serve by account | Some are cheap to win and dear to keep, net-negative | Deprioritise low-net-CLV demand even when it converts |
| Channel mix vs loaded CAC | Paid search and events run 0.44 to 0.46; earned and content 0.68 to 0.73 | Move spend off the high-CAC channels onto the efficient ones |
| Rep time split (acquisition vs retention) | Sales acquisition capacity is finite; surplus leads inflate cost-per-won | Match lead volume to what sales can actually convert |
Keeping sales fed. Fewer leads can unsettle sales in the first quarter, so the rule is simple: protect the flow to the best-paying segments, and cut only the waste. Sales stays fed where it matters, and stops being handed demand it was never going to convert.
The reflex of more leads, then more salespeople to work them, raises two cost lines at once against the same weak pipeline, and pushes the cost to win a customer up, not down. Where sales generate little of their own demand, the shortfall falls on activation. The plan breaks that loop by measuring cost per won customer, not lead volume, so spend follows the customers that return more than they cost. Owner: Marketing.
Source: segment, channel and time-split data from the Commercial Logic diagnostic and intake. External support: Gartner (buyer behaviour); Forrester (formal sales-acceptance and stronger lead management raise closed-won throughput, the operating mechanism behind lower CAC). Figures illustrative.
The compounding plan: lowering the cost of every future quarter
Brand does not move the number next quarter. It lowers the cost of every quarter after. It is the one lever that makes acquisition cheaper for good, rather than resetting to zero each time the spend stops.
The case for brand here is not that a benchmark prescribes a number. It is that the absence of brand is already being paid for. With brand at 12% of spend, every deal starts cold: sales works harder, paid channels work harder, and the cost to win sits high across the whole book. That premium is the brand tax, roughly £320,000 a year at run-rate. Brand is not a bet on upside; it is the removal of a cost the business already carries.
The rule is not the benchmark, it is the number. Invest in brand up to the point where the next pound of brand lowers CAC by more than the next pound of activation would. The market reference points the direction; the CAC response decides when to stop.
| The objection | The answer |
|---|---|
| "Our sale is long and considered, so brand doesn't apply." | The opposite. With six to ten buyers and, on the Ehrenberg-Bass evidence, roughly 95% of buyers out of market at any moment, you must be remembered months before anyone is ready to buy. Long, committee buying is where memory matters most. |
| "We can't measure brand, so we won't fund it." | We don't ask you to fund it on faith. We price its absence. The brand tax is what the unbuilt brand already costs in inflated CAC. You are paying for brand either way, on the acquisition line instead of the brand line. |
At 12:88, Northwind invests far less in brand than the typical B2B company, where spending averages nearer 46:54 (Binet and Field). That gap is shown as a reference, not a target: the plan advances only as far and as fast as the CAC response justifies. The measured brand tax is the evidence that closing some of the gap is worth doing.
Year 1 lifts brand from 12% to 25%, funded by activation efficiencies. Beyond that the split advances only as the CAC response justifies. The 46:54 market average is a reference, not a target held over this business.
Source: Binet & Field (46:54), Ehrenberg-Bass / Dawes (the 95-5 rule), System1 / B2B Institute (brand compounding). Brand tax computed from the diagnostic. Figures illustrative.
The two plans on one timeline, staged to 3:1
The activation plan holds the line through year one; the brand plan compounds underneath it. The timeline below is the year-one operating plan: re-point activation and start the brand rebuild, with break-even (1:1) the year-one goal. The fuller climb to 2:1 and 3:1 is staged as goals across the following years, set out beneath the timeline.
Three phases carry the ratio from 0.53:1 to 3:1 over roughly three years. These are goals, not guarantees: each phase advances only as the number confirms the last. Owners are marked on every action, Activation and Promotion sit with Marketing; the board flags on Price, Product and Place are surfaced by Marketing and decided by the board.
Marketing is a growth function, not a next-quarter one. The ratio turns over quarters and years, not weeks. Activation holds the line now; brand, mix and the board levers move the number over the year. Expecting the ratio to flip next quarter treats marketing as sales, the mistake that built the burn.
Marketing's own metrics, read in the capital frame
This is marketing's scoreboard: the metrics marketing recognises and controls, re-framed by the only question that matters to capital, does it lower CAC or lift CLV. The capital outcomes sit alongside as the shared result. Marketing is the steward of those outcomes, not the sole owner, Price, Product and cost-to-serve belong to the board. What marketing owns is the engine that moves them.
Marketing recognises and moves the metrics above the line; the three below are the capital outcomes it stewards with finance. Steward, not sole owner: the board holds Price, Product and cost-to-serve. Figures illustrative; arrows show the direction of the goal, not actuals.
How the number stays owned, and the shape of the work
The gain decays if the measurement lapses. The plan sets a quarterly re-run of the ratio and Burn Velocity, a single shared definition of CAC and CLV across finance and marketing, and one page the marketing leader can take to the board, in the language the money is in. This is the toolkit that lets marketing lead the new-business conversation rather than defend a budget line.
The diagnostic told you how fast the engine was burning. The plan tells you how fast it stops, and what it takes to make it build.