501 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
501 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
# Financial Unit Economics Methodology
|
||
|
||
Advanced techniques for calculating, analyzing, and optimizing unit economics.
|
||
|
||
## Table of Contents
|
||
1. [Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC)](#1-customer-acquisition-cost-cac)
|
||
2. [Lifetime Value (LTV)](#2-lifetime-value-ltv)
|
||
3. [Contribution Margin Analysis](#3-contribution-margin-analysis)
|
||
4. [Cohort Analysis](#4-cohort-analysis)
|
||
5. [Interpreting Unit Economics](#5-interpreting-unit-economics)
|
||
6. [Advanced Topics](#6-advanced-topics)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC)
|
||
|
||
### Fully-Loaded CAC Components
|
||
|
||
**Formula**: CAC = (Total S&M Costs) ÷ New Customers Acquired
|
||
|
||
**Sales & Marketing (S&M) Costs to include**:
|
||
- **Marketing spend**: Paid ads (Google, Facebook, LinkedIn), content marketing, SEO tools, events, sponsorships
|
||
- **Sales team compensation**: Base salaries, commissions, bonuses, benefits, taxes
|
||
- **Marketing team compensation**: Marketers, designers, writers, contractors
|
||
- **Sales tools**: CRM (Salesforce, HubSpot), sales engagement (Outreach, SalesLoft), analytics
|
||
- **Marketing tools**: Marketing automation (Marketo, Pardot), analytics (Google Analytics, Mixpanel), advertising platforms
|
||
- **Overhead allocation**: Portion of office space, admin support, IT costs attributable to S&M teams
|
||
- **Agency/consultant fees**: External agencies, freelancers, consultants for marketing or sales
|
||
|
||
**What NOT to include** (not acquisition costs):
|
||
- Engineering/product development (build the product, not acquire customers)
|
||
- Customer success/support (retain customers, not acquire)
|
||
- General & administrative (not directly related to acquisition)
|
||
|
||
### Time Period for CAC
|
||
|
||
**Match costs to revenue period**: If calculating monthly CAC, use monthly S&M costs and monthly new customers.
|
||
|
||
**Lag effect**: CAC spent today may yield customers next month. Adjust if significant lag (e.g., long sales cycles). Use 1-3 month lag for enterprise sales.
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- Month 1: $50k S&M spend, 100 customers acquired → CAC = $500
|
||
- But if customers from Month 1 spend came from ads run in Month 0, adjust accordingly.
|
||
|
||
### CAC by Channel
|
||
|
||
Breaking down CAC by channel reveals which channels are efficient vs. inefficient.
|
||
|
||
**Method**: Track spend and new customers per channel.
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
|
||
| Channel | S&M Spend | New Customers | CAC | LTV | LTV/CAC |
|
||
|---------|-----------|---------------|-----|-----|---------|
|
||
| Paid Search | $30k | 100 | $300 | $900 | 3.0 |
|
||
| Organic | $10k | 100 | $100 | $1,200 | 12.0 |
|
||
| Referral | $5k | 50 | $100 | $1,500 | 15.0 |
|
||
| Paid Social | $20k | 50 | $400 | $700 | 1.75 |
|
||
|
||
**Insight**: Organic and Referral have best economics (low CAC, high LTV). Paid Social is unprofitable (LTV/CAC <2:1). Action: Increase organic/referral investment, pause paid social.
|
||
|
||
### CAC Trends Over Time
|
||
|
||
**Monitor CAC trends**: Is CAC increasing or decreasing over time?
|
||
|
||
**Causes of rising CAC**:
|
||
- Market saturation (exhausted easy channels)
|
||
- Increased competition (competitors bidding up ad costs)
|
||
- Product-market fit weakening (harder to acquire customers)
|
||
- Inefficient spend (poor targeting, low conversion rates)
|
||
|
||
**Causes of falling CAC**:
|
||
- Improved conversion rates (better landing pages, messaging)
|
||
- Brand awareness (more direct/organic traffic)
|
||
- Product-led growth (virality, word-of-mouth)
|
||
- Channel optimization (focusing on best-performing channels)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2. Lifetime Value (LTV)
|
||
|
||
### LTV Calculation Methods
|
||
|
||
**Method 1: Simple LTV (Subscription)**
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
LTV = ARPU × Gross Margin % ÷ Monthly Churn Rate
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**When to use**: Early-stage SaaS, limited data, need quick estimate.
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- ARPU = $50/month
|
||
- Gross Margin = 80%
|
||
- Monthly Churn = 5%
|
||
- LTV = $50 × 80% ÷ 0.05 = $50 × 80% × 20 months = $800
|
||
|
||
**Method 2: Cohort-Based LTV (More Accurate)**
|
||
|
||
Track actual retention by cohort, sum revenue over observed periods.
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
LTV = ARPU × Gross Margin × Σ(Retention at month i)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Example Cohort** (acquired Jan 2024):
|
||
|
||
| Month | Retention % | Revenue (ARPU × Retention) | Cumulative |
|
||
|-------|-------------|----------------------------|------------|
|
||
| 0 | 100% | $50 × 1.0 = $50 | $50 |
|
||
| 1 | 95% | $50 × 0.95 = $47.50 | $97.50 |
|
||
| 2 | 88% | $50 × 0.88 = $44 | $141.50 |
|
||
| 3 | 80% | $50 × 0.80 = $40 | $181.50 |
|
||
| 6 | 60% | $50 × 0.60 = $30 | ~$280 |
|
||
| 12 | 40% | $50 × 0.40 = $20 | ~$450 |
|
||
|
||
LTV = $450 × 80% gross margin = **$360**
|
||
|
||
Note: This is more conservative than simple LTV ($800) because early churn is higher than average.
|
||
|
||
**Method 3: Predictive LTV (Machine Learning)**
|
||
|
||
Use historical data to predict future retention and spending patterns. Advanced approach for companies with large datasets.
|
||
|
||
**Inputs**: Customer attributes (demographics, behavior, acquisition channel), historical purchase/churn data.
|
||
|
||
**Model**: Regression, survival analysis, or ML model predicts LTV for each customer segment.
|
||
|
||
### LTV for Different Business Models
|
||
|
||
**Transactional (E-commerce)**:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
LTV = AOV × Purchase Frequency × Gross Margin % × Customer Lifetime (years)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- AOV = $100
|
||
- Purchases/year = 3
|
||
- Gross Margin = 50%
|
||
- Lifetime = 2 years
|
||
- LTV = $100 × 3 × 50% × 2 = $300
|
||
|
||
**Marketplace**:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
LTV = GMV per user × Take Rate × Gross Margin % ÷ Churn Rate
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Example** (ride-sharing):
|
||
- Monthly GMV per rider = $200 (total rides)
|
||
- Take Rate = 25%
|
||
- Gross Margin = 80% (after payment processing)
|
||
- Monthly Churn = 10%
|
||
- Lifetime = 1 ÷ 0.10 = 10 months
|
||
- Monthly Revenue = $200 × 25% = $50
|
||
- LTV = $50 × 10 months × 80% = $400
|
||
|
||
**Freemium**:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Blended LTV = (Free-to-Paid Conversion % × Paid User LTV) - (Free User Costs × Avg Free User Lifetime)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- 100 free users, 5% convert to paid
|
||
- Paid LTV = $1,000
|
||
- Free user cost = $2/month (hosting), avg lifetime 6 months
|
||
- Blended LTV = (0.05 × $1,000) - ($2 × 6) = $50 - $12 = $38 per free user
|
||
|
||
### Improving LTV
|
||
|
||
**Levers to increase LTV**:
|
||
|
||
1. **Reduce churn**: Improve onboarding, product engagement, customer success. 1% churn reduction → 10-25% LTV increase.
|
||
2. **Increase ARPU**: Upsells, cross-sells, premium tiers, usage-based pricing.
|
||
3. **Improve gross margin**: Reduce COGS, optimize infrastructure, negotiate better rates.
|
||
4. **Extend lifetime**: Long-term contracts, annual billing (locks in customers).
|
||
|
||
**Example impact** (SaaS):
|
||
- Current: ARPU $50, Churn 5%, Margin 80% → LTV = $800
|
||
- Reduce churn to 4%: LTV = $50 × 80% ÷ 0.04 = $1,000 (+25%)
|
||
- Increase ARPU to $60: LTV = $60 × 80% ÷ 0.05 = $960 (+20%)
|
||
- Both: LTV = $60 × 80% ÷ 0.04 = $1,200 (+50%)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 3. Contribution Margin Analysis
|
||
|
||
### Contribution Margin Formula
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Contribution Margin = Revenue - Variable Costs
|
||
Contribution Margin % = (Revenue - Variable Costs) ÷ Revenue
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Variable costs** (scale with each unit):
|
||
- COGS (cost of goods sold)
|
||
- Hosting/infrastructure per user
|
||
- Payment processing fees (2-3% of revenue)
|
||
- Customer support (per-customer time)
|
||
- Shipping/fulfillment
|
||
- Transaction-specific costs
|
||
|
||
**Fixed costs** (do NOT include):
|
||
- Engineering salaries (build product once)
|
||
- Rent, utilities
|
||
- Admin, HR, finance teams
|
||
|
||
### Contribution Margin by Business Model
|
||
|
||
**SaaS**:
|
||
- Revenue: $100/month subscription
|
||
- Variable costs: $15 hosting + $3 payment fees = $18
|
||
- Contribution Margin: $100 - $18 = $82
|
||
- Margin %: 82%
|
||
|
||
**E-commerce**:
|
||
- Revenue: $80 product sale
|
||
- Variable costs: $30 COGS + $5 shipping + $2.40 payment fees = $37.40
|
||
- Contribution Margin: $80 - $37.40 = $42.60
|
||
- Margin %: 53%
|
||
|
||
**Marketplace**:
|
||
- GMV: $200 transaction
|
||
- Take Rate: 20% → Revenue = $40
|
||
- Variable costs: $2 payment fees + $3 support = $5
|
||
- Contribution Margin: $40 - $5 = $35
|
||
- Margin %: 87.5% (of platform revenue)
|
||
|
||
### Improving Contribution Margin
|
||
|
||
**Levers**:
|
||
1. **Increase prices**: Directly increases revenue per unit.
|
||
2. **Reduce COGS**: Negotiate supplier costs, economies of scale, vertical integration.
|
||
3. **Optimize infrastructure**: Right-size hosting, use cheaper providers, optimize usage.
|
||
4. **Automate support**: Self-service, chatbots, knowledge base reduce manual support time.
|
||
5. **Negotiate fees**: Lower payment processing rates (volume discounts), reduce transaction costs.
|
||
|
||
**Example** (E-commerce):
|
||
- Current: Revenue $80, COGS $30, Margin 53%
|
||
- Negotiate COGS to $25: Margin = ($80 - $32.40) / $80 = 59.5% (+6.5pp)
|
||
- Increase price to $90: Margin = ($90 - $37.65) / $90 = 58% (+5pp)
|
||
- Both: Margin = ($90 - $32.65) / $90 = 63.7% (+10.7pp)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 4. Cohort Analysis
|
||
|
||
### Why Cohort Analysis Matters
|
||
|
||
**Problem with averages**: Blending all customers hides important trends. Early customers may have different behavior than recent customers.
|
||
|
||
**Cohort analysis**: Track customers grouped by acquisition period (month, quarter) to see how metrics evolve.
|
||
|
||
**Benefits**:
|
||
- Detect improving/worsening trends
|
||
- Compare channels/segments
|
||
- Forecast future LTV based on observed behavior
|
||
|
||
### Building a Retention Cohort Table
|
||
|
||
**Structure**: Rows = cohorts (acquisition month), Columns = months since acquisition.
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
|
||
| Cohort | M0 | M1 | M2 | M3 | M6 | M12 |
|
||
|--------|----|----|----|----|----|----|
|
||
| Jan 2024 | 100% | 92% | 84% | 78% | 62% | 42% |
|
||
| Feb 2024 | 100% | 90% | 81% | 75% | 60% | - |
|
||
| Mar 2024 | 100% | 93% | 86% | 80% | 65% | - |
|
||
| Apr 2024 | 100% | 91% | 83% | 77% | - | - |
|
||
|
||
**Insights**:
|
||
- **Improving retention**: Mar cohort (93% M1 retention) > Jan cohort (92%). Product improvements working.
|
||
- **Stable long-term retention**: ~60% at M6 across cohorts. Predictable LTV.
|
||
|
||
### Calculating LTV from Cohorts
|
||
|
||
**Method**: Sum revenue at each time period, weighted by retention.
|
||
|
||
**Example** (Jan 2024 cohort, ARPU $50, Margin 80%):
|
||
|
||
LTV = $50 × 80% × (1.0 + 0.92 + 0.84 + 0.78 + ... + 0.42 at M12)
|
||
|
||
Approximate sum of retention % = ~9.5 months equivalent
|
||
|
||
LTV = $50 × 80% × 9.5 = **$380**
|
||
|
||
**More accurate**: Sum all observed months, extrapolate tail based on churn rate stabilization.
|
||
|
||
### Cohort Analysis by Channel
|
||
|
||
Compare retention and LTV across acquisition channels.
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
|
||
| Channel | M0 | M1 | M3 | M6 | M12 | LTV |
|
||
|---------|----|----|----|----|-----|-----|
|
||
| Organic | 100% | 95% | 85% | 70% | 55% | $450 |
|
||
| Paid Search | 100% | 88% | 75% | 55% | 35% | $300 |
|
||
| Referral | 100% | 97% | 90% | 75% | 60% | $500 |
|
||
|
||
**Insight**: Referral has best retention and LTV. Paid Search has worst retention (high early churn). Focus on referral growth.
|
||
|
||
### Trends to Monitor
|
||
|
||
1. **Retention curve shape**: Does churn stabilize (flatten) after a few months, or continue accelerating?
|
||
2. **Cohort improvement**: Are newer cohorts retaining better than older cohorts? (Product improvements working)
|
||
3. **Channel differences**: Which channels yield stickiest customers?
|
||
4. **Time to payback**: How long until cumulative revenue (× margin) > CAC?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 5. Interpreting Unit Economics
|
||
|
||
### LTV/CAC Ratio Benchmarks
|
||
|
||
| Ratio | Assessment | Recommendation |
|
||
|-------|------------|----------------|
|
||
| <1:1 | **Unsustainable** | Losing money on every customer. Fix or pivot. |
|
||
| 1-2:1 | **Marginal** | Barely profitable. Don't scale yet. |
|
||
| 2-3:1 | **Acceptable** | Unit economics work. Optimize before scaling. |
|
||
| 3-5:1 | **Good** | Can profitably grow. Scale marketing spend. |
|
||
| >5:1 | **Excellent** | Strong economics. Aggressive growth, raise capital. |
|
||
|
||
**Why 3:1 is the target**:
|
||
- 1× covers CAC
|
||
- 1× covers operating expenses (R&D, G&A, customer success)
|
||
- 1× profit
|
||
|
||
**Context matters**:
|
||
- **Payback period**: 10:1 LTV/CAC with 24-month payback is worse than 4:1 with 6-month payback (cash strain).
|
||
- **Market size**: Low LTV/CAC acceptable if huge market (can still build large business).
|
||
- **Stage**: Early-stage startups may accept 2-3:1 while finding product-market fit. Growth-stage should target >3:1.
|
||
|
||
### Payback Period Benchmarks
|
||
|
||
| Payback | Assessment | Cash Impact |
|
||
|---------|------------|-------------|
|
||
| <6 months | **Excellent** | Can reinvest quickly, fuel rapid growth. |
|
||
| 6-12 months | **Good** | Manageable, standard for SaaS. |
|
||
| 12-18 months | **Acceptable** | Need patient capital, slower growth. |
|
||
| >18 months | **Challenging** | High cash burn, risky. Hard to scale. |
|
||
|
||
**Why payback matters**: Short payback = fast capital recovery = can reinvest in growth without needing external funding.
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- Company A: LTV/CAC 8:1, Payback 18 months → High cash burn, slow reinvestment despite good ratio.
|
||
- Company B: LTV/CAC 4:1, Payback 6 months → Faster reinvestment, can scale more aggressively.
|
||
|
||
### Cash Efficiency Metrics
|
||
|
||
**CAC Payback (SaaS-specific)**:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
CAC Payback (months) = S&M Spend ÷ (New ARR × Gross Margin %)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- Q1 S&M spend: $100k
|
||
- New ARR added: $120k
|
||
- Gross Margin: 80%
|
||
- CAC Payback = $100k ÷ ($120k × 80%) = 1.04 quarters = ~3.1 months
|
||
|
||
**Sales Efficiency (Magic Number)**:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Sales Efficiency = (New ARR in Quarter) ÷ (S&M Spend in Prior Quarter)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Benchmarks**:
|
||
- <0.75: Inefficient, unprofitable growth
|
||
- 0.75-1.0: Acceptable
|
||
- >1.0: Efficient, profitable growth
|
||
- >1.5: Highly efficient
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- Q1 S&M spend: $200k
|
||
- Q2 new ARR: $180k
|
||
- Sales Efficiency = $180k / $200k = 0.9 (acceptable)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 6. Advanced Topics
|
||
|
||
### Net Revenue Retention (NRR)
|
||
|
||
**Formula**:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
NRR = (Starting ARR + Expansion - Contraction - Churn) ÷ Starting ARR
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Components**:
|
||
- **Starting ARR**: Revenue from cohort at start of period
|
||
- **Expansion**: Upsells, cross-sells, usage growth
|
||
- **Contraction**: Downgrades, reduced usage
|
||
- **Churn**: Customers leaving
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- Starting ARR (Jan 2024 cohort): $100k
|
||
- Expansion (upsells): +$25k
|
||
- Contraction (downgrades): -$5k
|
||
- Churn (lost customers): -$10k
|
||
- Ending ARR: $100k + $25k - $5k - $10k = $110k
|
||
- NRR = $110k / $100k = **110%**
|
||
|
||
**Benchmarks**:
|
||
- <100%: Shrinking revenue from existing customers (bad)
|
||
- 100-110%: Stable, small growth from expansion
|
||
- 110-120%: Good, strong expansion
|
||
- >120%: Excellent, revenue grows even without new customers
|
||
|
||
**Why NRR matters**: >100% NRR means you can grow revenue without adding new customers. Powerful compounding effect.
|
||
|
||
### Unit Economics for Different Stages
|
||
|
||
**Early-stage (finding product-market fit)**:
|
||
- Target: LTV/CAC >2:1
|
||
- Focus: Find repeatable, scalable channels
|
||
- Acceptable: Higher CAC, longer payback while iterating
|
||
|
||
**Growth-stage (scaling)**:
|
||
- Target: LTV/CAC >3:1, Payback <12 months
|
||
- Focus: Optimize channels, improve retention
|
||
- Need: Efficient growth to justify increasing spend
|
||
|
||
**Late-stage (mature)**:
|
||
- Target: LTV/CAC >4:1, Payback <6 months, NRR >110%
|
||
- Focus: Profitability, margin expansion
|
||
- Optimize: Every channel, reduce CAC, maximize LTV
|
||
|
||
### Multi-Product Unit Economics
|
||
|
||
**Challenge**: Customers may buy multiple products. How to attribute value?
|
||
|
||
**Approaches**:
|
||
|
||
1. **Customer-level LTV**: Sum revenue across all products purchased by customer.
|
||
- LTV = Total revenue from customer × Margin
|
||
|
||
2. **Product-level LTV**: Track LTV separately per product.
|
||
- Useful if products have different margins, retention patterns.
|
||
|
||
3. **Blended LTV**: Weight by product mix.
|
||
- Blended LTV = (% Product A × LTV_A) + (% Product B × LTV_B) + ...
|
||
|
||
**Example** (SaaS with two tiers):
|
||
- 70% subscribe to Basic ($50/month, LTV $800)
|
||
- 30% subscribe to Pro ($150/month, LTV $2,400)
|
||
- Blended LTV = (0.7 × $800) + (0.3 × $2,400) = $560 + $720 = $1,280
|
||
|
||
### Sensitivity Analysis
|
||
|
||
Test how changes to assumptions impact unit economics.
|
||
|
||
**Variables to test**:
|
||
- Churn rate (+/- 1-2%)
|
||
- ARPU (+/- 10-20%)
|
||
- CAC (+/- 10-20%)
|
||
- Gross margin (+/- 5-10%)
|
||
|
||
**Example**:
|
||
- Base case: LTV $1,000, CAC $250, Ratio 4:1
|
||
- Churn increases 5% → 4%: LTV drops to $800, Ratio 3.2:1 (still acceptable)
|
||
- Churn increases 5% → 6%: LTV drops to $667, Ratio 2.7:1 (marginal)
|
||
- CAC increases 20% to $300: Ratio drops to 3.3:1 (still good)
|
||
|
||
**Insight**: Unit economics are sensitive to churn. Small churn increases significantly hurt LTV.
|
||
|
||
### Competitive Dynamics
|
||
|
||
**CAC increases over time** due to:
|
||
- Market saturation (easier customers already acquired)
|
||
- Competition (bidding wars on ads, higher sales/marketing costs)
|
||
- Channel exhaustion (diminishing returns on channels)
|
||
|
||
**Strategies**:
|
||
1. **Build moats**: Brand, network effects, switching costs reduce reliance on paid acquisition.
|
||
2. **Product-led growth**: Virality, word-of-mouth, organic growth reduce CAC.
|
||
3. **Expand TAM**: Enter new markets, segments to access untapped customers.
|
||
4. **Improve conversion**: Better product, messaging, sales process → more customers from same spend.
|
||
|
||
**Example** (competitive landscape):
|
||
- Year 1: CAC $200, LTV $1,000, Ratio 5:1
|
||
- Year 3: CAC $350 (competition), LTV $1,200 (retention improvements), Ratio 3.4:1
|
||
- Year 5: CAC $500, LTV $1,500, Ratio 3:1
|
||
|
||
**Insight**: Even with rising CAC, improving LTV (retention, upsells) maintains healthy ratio.
|
||
|
||
## Key Takeaways
|
||
|
||
1. **CAC must be fully-loaded**: Include all S&M costs (salaries, tools, overhead). Break down by channel.
|
||
2. **LTV requires cohort data**: Track retention by cohort, extrapolate conservatively. Don't rely on averages.
|
||
3. **Contribution margin sets ceiling**: Need high margin (>60% SaaS, >40% ecommerce) for viable economics.
|
||
4. **Both ratio and payback matter**: 5:1 ratio with 24-month payback < 3:1 with 6-month payback (cash efficiency).
|
||
5. **Retention > Acquisition**: Small churn improvements have exponential LTV impact. Prioritize retention.
|
||
6. **Channel-level analysis**: Blended metrics hide truth. Analyze CAC/LTV per channel, optimize spend accordingly.
|
||
7. **Update quarterly**: Unit economics evolve with scale, market changes, competition. Re-calculate regularly.
|