> And while Dave did gain 739,000 new members in the quarter, it also lost users, for a net increase of 500,000; dividing total marketing spend by the net increase yields the $30 CAC calculation I presented.
Shouldn't CAC use the 739,000 number to avoid double-counting lost users? I thought churn was generally a different stat.
> And while Dave did gain 739,000 new members in the quarter, it also lost users, for a net increase of 500,000; dividing total marketing spend by the net increase yields the $30 CAC calculation I presented.
Shouldn't CAC use the 739,000 number to avoid double-counting lost users? I thought churn was generally a different stat.