> However, "customer acquisition cost" seems to imply that that customer is now "yours"
I’ve confused a few people this ways in conversation lately and I’m not sure what the solution is, but it’s a case of saying, “even the most optimistic scenario is still very bad”.
Keeping someone’s attention is never going to be cheaper than getting it in the first place. The best you can do is spend a maintenance cost to retain them, in which case if enough time passes and enough repeat business happens then the profitability of that customer keeps going up. But you’re going to hit an asymptote that looks like Amdahl’s law, and dictated by those investments.
Thanks. Subscriptions always seemed to me like they were for the business' benefit, not for mine. I'm sure it does make the growth models look really good; you've got this nice, regular stream of money coming in.
However, it does nothing for the customer. I refuse to subscribe to anything, as a rule. Deliver some value, and I'll pay for it when I need it. YMMV.
Have you never spent money at a company precisely because you hope it’ll stick around? Companies you only really need every three years have a hard time sticking around, and you may find that when you need them most they’re having a going out of business sale.
Patronage. Patronage is more than a purely transactional relationship with a company.
I’ve confused a few people this ways in conversation lately and I’m not sure what the solution is, but it’s a case of saying, “even the most optimistic scenario is still very bad”.
Keeping someone’s attention is never going to be cheaper than getting it in the first place. The best you can do is spend a maintenance cost to retain them, in which case if enough time passes and enough repeat business happens then the profitability of that customer keeps going up. But you’re going to hit an asymptote that looks like Amdahl’s law, and dictated by those investments.