Buying the Same Revenue Twice
Retained ARR, new ARR, cash and freed-up time are not the same dollar. Sort that out first, then go read the customers you already have.
You can already see what this has to become. Getting there means decisions across product, systems, marketing and cost at the same time, and everyone advising you has only ever run one of them.
I work with software and SaaS CEOs at $10M to $50M on what the next version has to be, what’s stopping it, and what closing that gap is worth.
So when growth slows we go looking for the department responsible. Pipeline’s weak, that’s a marketing problem. Deals won’t close, sales problem. It’s a reasonable way to think, and I’ve watched it be wrong more often than right. The expensive problems live in the seams between departments, and nobody owns a seam.
Written from the middle of live engagements. Not frameworks, and nothing to download.
Retained ARR, new ARR, cash and freed-up time are not the same dollar. Sort that out first, then go read the customers you already have.
We blame the department showing the bad number. The real cause is usually upstream, in a seam nobody owns, and AI makes it harder to see.
When building gets cheap, the cost stops forcing your choices for you. What’s scarce now is the judgment about what’s actually worth building.
Effort used to be the filter that told you what mattered. AI removes it, and it’s easy to hand over the judgment that was your real value too.
0.97% → 2.73%
Site conversion, on the same traffic. A 77-year-old skincare brand, $20M.
Reconciled against the bank, one “winning” campaign had made $918 on $600 of spend. Paid traffic was converting at a third of the industry floor and nobody had caught it, because the reporting looked fine. So we stopped buying more traffic, fixed what was leaking, brought marketing in-house and taught their own team to run it with AI. Same traffic, conversion from 0.97% to 2.73%. Every number in it reconciles to their own books, and they run it themselves now.
5 → 1
Competing visions, then one accountable owner. A $100M, 60-year engineering consultancy.
A $3–5M software business had grown almost by accident inside a 60-year consultancy. Everyone was working hard. Leadership’s shorthand was blunt: digital doesn’t work. Fifteen interviews in, the lowest scores weren’t in engineering at all. They were above the code. Five leaders held five different visions of what the software business was for, so any of them could veto and none could greenlight. The company had never decided whether it was building a software business. Seven cascading problems, one deferred decision underneath all of them.
Move faster, make more money, get rid of work that shouldn’t exist. Different rooms, same job every time.
Not to grade you. To price the gap.
Ask people what’s holding the company back and you get people-shaped answers: a decision nobody made, a thing nobody owns. Start instead with what the business actually did, the billings, the cohorts, the spend, every lost deal rather than a sample, and the roadmap comes back with numbers on it.
Which matters, because a roadmap without economics is a wish list. The point isn’t the finding. It’s knowing which three things to do first and what each one is worth.
Then your people run it. Every engagement has ended with the client owning a capability they didn’t have: PerformLine’s team still builds on that platform, the skincare brand runs its own marketing, the agency’s designers run the automation. A fix that needs me in the room forever isn’t a fix.
Two of the engagements above are anonymised at the client’s request. Every number reconciles to the client’s own reporting.
Twenty minutes. Tell me where you want this company to be in two years and I’ll tell you what I’d go look at first.