Big Leap

Powered by Decidian Intelligence

Simulated business data | Decidian intelligence demonstration DEMONSTRATION MODE — SAVED RESULTS
Start Big Leap demoBig Leap ERP viewConnectionEvidence ExplorerOwner decisions

Decidian financial intelligence · Simulated data

Show me how Decidian found this

DEC-FIN-007 · INCREMENTAL PROFIT OPPORTUNITY

Simulated demonstration data

Strong campaign metrics can hide low-profit customers

Decision: Which campaigns acquire customers with weak downstream margins?

Financial impact

$216,800

Annualized

Evidence

Exploratory Opportunity

12 source records

Recommendation

Compare campaign customer contribution and retention; test reallocation or better delivery rather than automatically cancelling campaigns.

Assumptions, risks & what would change the recommendation

Assumptions

  • 86% annual retention assumption
  • Attribution cohorts are fictional and mutually exclusive
  • Delivery cost includes non-hour costs; rounded hours are not exact payroll expense

Key risks

  • Losing customers who become profitable over time
  • Attribution bias
  • Reduced future pipeline

Would change it

  • High-cost customers may produce valuable referrals
  • Long-term retention could offset acquisition costs
  • Campaign attribution links are synthetic subsets, not all wins
Stress-test this decision Full evidence

A · The Discovery · Original Finding

$216,800

Incremental profit opportunity · Annualized

SIMULATED DEMONSTRATIONExploratory Opportunity
Finding ID
DEC-FIN-007
Dataset version
BL-DEMO-2026-10-V1
Analysis timestamp · UTC
2026-10-28T18:10:00Z
Calculation version
BL-FIN-V1

Marketing / CRM attribution · Contract / Project accounting

The Business Question

Which campaigns acquire customers with weak downstream margins?

B · What the ERP Shows

Marketing

Leads and wins tracked

CRM

New accounts acquired

Accounting

Some contributions below target

Projects

High delivery effort

C · What Decidian Connects

Campaign spendCustomer acquisitionContract revenueDelivery costContribution margin

12 fictional source records · stable identifiers

View detailed evidence
Record IDSource systemOriginal values
MK-1Marketing / CRM attribution
name:
Search — Agency services
spend:
190,000
leads:
300
wins:
27
acquisition Cost:
7,037.04
linked Client Ids:
CL-0001, CL-0007, CL-0012, CL-0020, CL-0024, CL-0031, CL-0042, CL-0053, CL-0064, CL-0071, CL-0076, CL-0083, CL-0088, CL-0095, CL-0106, CL-0111, CL-0117, CL-0122
cohort Clients:
18
revenue:
1,168,000
delivery Cost:
662,245
contribution:
505,755
margin:
0.43
retention Assumption:
0.86
payback Months:
3.01
MK-2Marketing / CRM attribution
name:
LinkedIn — Marketing leaders
spend:
140,000
leads:
190
wins:
16
acquisition Cost:
8,750
linked Client Ids:
CL-0002, CL-0008, CL-0013, CL-0021, CL-0025, CL-0032, CL-0049, CL-0056, CL-0065, CL-0072, CL-0080, CL-0084, CL-0091, CL-0100, CL-0108, CL-0112, CL-0118, CL-0123
cohort Clients:
18
revenue:
2,005,200
delivery Cost:
1,177,896
contribution:
827,304
margin:
0.41
retention Assumption:
0.86
payback Months:
2.28
MK-3Marketing / CRM attribution
name:
SEO audit offer
spend:
80,000
leads:
220
wins:
22
acquisition Cost:
3,636.36
linked Client Ids:
CL-0004, CL-0010, CL-0015, CL-0022, CL-0026, CL-0038, CL-0050, CL-0059, CL-0068, CL-0074, CL-0081, CL-0085, CL-0092, CL-0102, CL-0109, CL-0114, CL-0119
cohort Clients:
17
revenue:
1,610,400
delivery Cost:
965,523
contribution:
644,877
margin:
0.4
retention Assumption:
0.86
payback Months:
1.15
MK-4Marketing / CRM attribution
name:
Industry events
spend:
120,000
leads:
90
wins:
4
acquisition Cost:
30,000
linked Client Ids:
CL-0009, CL-0030, CL-0039
cohort Clients:
3
revenue:
456,000
delivery Cost:
446,568
contribution:
9,432
margin:
0.02
retention Assumption:
0.86
payback Months:
114.5
MK-5Marketing / CRM attribution
name:
Retargeting — Case studies
spend:
151,000
leads:
120
wins:
4
acquisition Cost:
37,750
linked Client Ids:
CL-0040, CL-0070, CL-0105
cohort Clients:
3
revenue:
444,000
delivery Cost:
415,432
contribution:
28,568
margin:
0.06
retention Assumption:
0.86
payback Months:
47.57
MK-6Marketing / CRM attribution
name:
Partner referrals
spend:
19,000
leads:
80
wins:
7
acquisition Cost:
2,714.29
linked Client Ids:
CL-0006, CL-0011, CL-0017, CL-0023, CL-0027, CL-0041, CL-0052, CL-0061, CL-0069, CL-0075, CL-0082, CL-0087, CL-0094, CL-0104, CL-0110, CL-0115, CL-0120
cohort Clients:
17
revenue:
1,466,400
delivery Cost:
848,068
contribution:
618,332
margin:
0.42
retention Assumption:
0.86
payback Months:
0.9
CL-0009Contract / Project accounting
name:
Ironleaf Dental Group
annual Revenue:
344,400
delivery Cost:
320,398
delivery Hours:
4,005
cost Rate:
80
CL-0030Contract / Project accounting
name:
Driftwood Legal Partners
annual Revenue:
55,200
delivery Cost:
63,960
delivery Hours:
800
cost Rate:
80
CL-0039Contract / Project accounting
name:
Meridian Legal Partners
annual Revenue:
56,400
delivery Cost:
62,210
delivery Hours:
778
cost Rate:
80
CL-0040Contract / Project accounting
name:
Alder Outfitters
annual Revenue:
234,000
delivery Cost:
209,074
delivery Hours:
2,613
cost Rate:
80
CL-0070Contract / Project accounting
name:
Ember Logistics
annual Revenue:
100,800
delivery Cost:
97,048
delivery Hours:
1,213
cost Rate:
80
CL-0105Contract / Project accounting
name:
Alder Roofing Co.
annual Revenue:
109,200
delivery Cost:
109,310
delivery Hours:
1,366
cost Rate:
80

D · What Decidian Discovers

Display and Events are linked to a fictional low-margin acquired-client subset. Attribution is illustrative, not proof the campaign caused low profitability.

Exploratory Opportunity

E · Financial Calculation

$216,800

Incremental profit opportunity · Annualized

CAC = campaign spend / wins. Contribution = linked contract revenue − delivery costs. Payback = CAC / average monthly contribution (no payback if contribution ≤ 0). Reallocation opportunity follows existing OP-5 model: low-yield spend × 0.8, not guaranteed savings.

Baseline decision: Reallocate campaign spending

Implementation: $20,000

Modeled first-year net benefit: $93,820

Ongoing annualized benefit: $151,760

Original financial impact is not itself a guaranteed net benefit. Timing, realization and implementation are modeled separately.

Assumptions

  • 86% annual retention assumption
  • Attribution cohorts are fictional and mutually exclusive
  • Delivery cost includes non-hour costs; rounded hours are not exact payroll expense

F · Recommendation

Compare campaign customer contribution and retention; test reallocation or better delivery rather than automatically cancelling campaigns.

G · Risks and Trade-Offs

  • Losing customers who become profitable over time
  • Attribution bias
  • Reduced future pipeline

What Could Change This Conclusion?

  • High-cost customers may produce valuable referrals
  • Long-term retention could offset acquisition costs
  • Campaign attribution links are synthetic subsets, not all wins

H · Next Decision

TEST THIS DECISION

Optional review sends these fictional records to the existing Decidian connection; it may take 1–2 minutes.

All findings
Three departments are paying for overlapping softwareVendor charges may not match contract termsTechnology spending is growing faster than usageAdditional client work is reducing profitabilityStrong campaign metrics can hide low-profit customersRevenue growth is not translating into cash at the same rateRevenue growth is masking declining profitabilityRenewal timing can lock in unnecessary costSales growth forecasts conflict with delivery capacityActive accounts can still need retention attentionHigh-intent leads have slower follow-upUnderperforming client contractsSoftware & vendor wasteSales-to-operations misalignmentDelayed collectionsContract pricing optimizationImproved sales conversionClient retention improvementsResource utilization improvements

Money you could save

$286K

Gross avoidable annual expenses before timing and costs

Money you may be losing

$420K

Unbilled delivery-cost exposure, within $780K total leakage

Money you could make

$1.24M

Gross existing financial opportunities before overlap and realization

Money at risk

$840K

Annual contract revenue exposed, not a forecast of loss

Different financial categories; may overlap and are never added together. All figures are simulated.

What doesn't add up?

Sales forecast

Healthy growth pipeline

Delivery capacity

Limited sustainable staff capacity

Growth may require labor costs missing from the original forecast.

Department budgets

Software spend within limits

Vendor utilization

Capabilities overlap across teams

Budget compliance may mask company-wide savings.

CRM

Customer remains active

Customer experience

Delays, complaints and falling engagement

An active account can still need retention attention.

Neither source must be wrong. The tension becomes visible when their information is considered together.

Powered by Decidian Intelligence