{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “AnalysisNewsArticle”, “mainEntityOfPage”: { “@type”: “WebPage”, “@id”: “https://martech.org/why-your-cac-keeps-rising-while-deals-dont-improve/” }, “headline”: “Why your CAC keeps increasing but deals don’t improve not”, “description”: “A diagnosis of the growing structural inefficiency between customer acquisition costs and pipeline performance in enterprise environments. It examines how legacy attribution modeling failures and misaligned cross-functional metrics create artificial performance loops that inflate spend without increasing contract value. “Person”, “name”: “Mark Stouse”, “jobTitle”: “President and CEO”, “worksFor”: { “@type”: “Organization”, “name”: “Proof Analytics” }, “sameAs”: “https://www.linkedin.com/in/markstouse/” }, “publisher”: { “@type”: “Organization”, “name”: “MarTech”, “url”: “https://martech.org”, “logo”: { “@type”: “ImageObject”, “url”: “https://martech.org/wp-content/themes/martech/images/martech-logo.png” } }, “backstory”: { “@type”: “CreativeWork”, “text”: “This analysis leverages aggregated marketing mix modeling data and long-cycle enterprise pipeline telemetry compiled from technology vendors B2B. It correlates historical declines in CAC effectiveness with cross-functional panel interviews that track barriers to aligning revenue operations. }, “speakable”: { “@type”: “SpeakableSpecification”, “cssSelector”: ( “h1”, “.article-content p:first-of-type” ) } }
Customer acquisition cost (CAC) is increasing in virtually every B2B category. The industry diagnosis: more competition, more chains and more noise. The prescribed remedies: better targeting, more content, tighter ideal customer profiles (ICPs) and more precise messages.
But here’s the question the B2B go-to-market (GTM) profession isn’t asking: If CAC increases, where is the corresponding improvement in transaction volume, speed and size? You spend more to acquire customers. Transactions do not become more numerous, faster or larger. At some point, it’s no longer a problem of market conditions. It’s a problem of proof – and the profession doesn’t have an answer because it doesn’t ask the question.
The root cause is that the B2B GTM profession operates from a thesis so deeply ingrained that it is rarely examined: awareness and information equal purchasing intent. Let potential customers know it, and they’ll want it.
The truth is that this has always been a thin premise. Decades of declining GTM effectiveness confirm that this was false. Awareness is necessary, but it is far from sufficient. Disseminating information does not build trust. And neither awareness nor confidence is confidence. The profession has grouped three distinct epistemic conditions into one and built its entire methodology on this amalgam.
Here are those three conditions – and why confusing them is costly in terms of pipeline, speed and deal size. Your CAC is the bill.
10X your SEO with Semrush for business.
The world’s most powerful SEO platform, built specifically for businesses.
@media (maximum width: 768 px) { .headline-responsive { font-size: 30px !important; line-height: 1.3 !important; } }
The three conditions that motivate B2B purchases
The three conditions of awareness, trust and confidence are not interchangeable. Nor do they constitute a spectrum.
Rather, they form a three-legged stool with a strict causal order: Awareness → Confidence → Confidence.
Most GTM frameworks treat these three distinct conditions as a single combined concept called buyer readiness, trust, or relationship. This confusion is not a semantic quibble. It is a structural error with measurable consequences. Here’s what each leg actually means.
Awareness
Consciousness is the threshold condition. A buyer who has not sufficiently perceived and understood the problem you are solving cannot evaluate your solution. It’s not just about logo awareness. It is awareness of problems, awareness of categories and awareness of issues. Failing at the awareness stage means you’re selling to people who don’t yet know they should buy.
Trust
Trust is epistemological. This is the buyer’s internal evaluation that determines whether your claims are valid, whether the logic holds, whether the evidence is credible, or whether the mechanism makes sense.
Confidence is formed before you enter the room. It can be built or destroyed without any human interaction. It is calibrated based on content, evidence, peer cues, and perceived explanatory power.
Daniel Kahneman’s research on judgment under uncertainty clearly shows that trust operates through different cognitive systems and responds to entirely different stimuli. Treating them as a single concept results in interventions that miss both targets.
Trust
Trust is relational. This requires your people: your account executives, your customer service executives, and company leadership. This involves an ongoing evaluation by the buyer of the competence, intentions and reliability of your company as a counterparty.
The philosopher Baroness Onora O’Neill, whose work on trust is among the most rigorous in the literature, makes the distinction precisely: trust is granted by the buyer. Reliability is demonstrated by the seller. You can’t make it. You can only create conditions that make it rational for a buyer to extend it. Critically, O’Neill explicitly argues that more information does not automatically create these conditions.
Information that cannot be evaluated, contextualized or tested does not build trust. Instead, it creates noise that the buyer must filter out. The GTM profession generates this noise on an industrial scale and calls it “nurture.”
Building trust is where GTM stands out
Most GTM movements invest heavily in awareness raising. Then they hand the buyer over to sales and call that building trust. Trust is almost entirely ignored, or teams assume good content and a strong brand automatically produces it.
It doesn’t work that way. Trust is the bridge. This is where the buyer decides whether your complaints merit serious evaluation. If that bridge isn’t built before the sales conversation, your account manager spends the first two meetings doing work that should have happened upfront: rebuilding credibility from scratch, re-establishing the problem frame, and justifying the category.
This is not a problem of commercial efficiency. This is a lack of trust disguised as a pipeline problem. An undiagnosed trust gap manifests itself directly in deal speed (cycles that drag) and deal size (commitments that diminish because the buyer never fully resolved their doubt).
Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, including organizational trust model remains the most cited in academic literature, identifies competence, benevolence and integrity as the foundations of trustworthiness. Note that skill comes first. Buyers evaluate whether you know what you’re doing before they want to evaluate whether they like you.
It’s a judgment of confidence, not a judgment of confidence. If your GTM treats them as the same thing, you’re not sequencing them correctly and you’re measuring the wrong things when trying to diagnose why transactions are blocking.
What impact does neglecting trust have on your numbers?
When trust is lacking, transactions do not die cleanly. They drag on. Buyers recommit purchases. They add evaluation steps. They bring in the competitors late. They are asking for more references, more evidence and more pilots.
Each of these friction points increases CAC. Each extended sales cycle adds to the CAC. Every deal closed at a discount because the buyer never fully committed increases the CAC. Yet none of this improves transaction volume, speed, or size because it does not represent an improvement. This is the price of a structural diagnosis that was never carried out.
Judea Pearl’s causal inference framework is useful here because it will not allow you to hide from the mechanism. Correlational GTM analyzes indicate that trust scores and transaction speed vary and recommend increased relationship investment. Causal models raise the most difficult question: at what point did buyer engagement actually stop? Was it the awareness stage – they never fully understood the issues? Or did trust never fully develop because they found the claims insufficiently substantiated? Or was trust never fully developed due to a relationship breakdown with a specific person at a specific time?
These are three different diagnoses and they require three different interventions. Mixing them into one construct of “trust” means you are prescribing the wrong remedy most of the time, and your CAC will continue to increase while volume, speed, and transaction size remain stable.
The indictment
The GTM industry has spent a decade optimizing awareness with increasing sophistication through intent data, account-based marketing, and signals-driven selling. The company has also invested heavily in the trust component with relational intelligence, sales coaching and executive alignment programs.
However, the GTM industry has systematically neglected the trust component, treating it as something that happens automatically or is owned by the brand.
Confidence does not come automatically. It’s not just about the brand. And it cannot be clawed back into the sales conversation without paying for it in time, rebates, and lost trades, none of which improve transaction volume, speed, or size.
The basic thesis – that raising awareness and informing people means they will want to buy – has always been a category error. Information is not motivation. To know is not to want.
The B2B GTM profession has inherited a model from classical economics: the rational and fully informed agent who, after receiving sufficient information, optimizes towards the best choice. Cognitive science has refuted this model since the 1970s. The profession found correlative evidence that sometimes more information produced more sales, called it confirmation, and continued to grow.
The CAC continued to rise. The deals did not follow. It was never a coincidence.
The position Why your CAC continues to increase while transactions don’t improve appeared first on MarTech.
