A $4,000 Marketing Budget, a Capacity Ceiling, and a 'Consultant'
Three years ago, Dana opened a meal-prep kitchen with two pickup locations; revenue is $610,000 and net margin 4%. She has $4,000 for Q1 marketing and three proposals. (A) A six-week geofenced social campaign costing $3,800; her last two campaigns produced a 0.6% click-through rate on about 210,000 impressions, and 8% of clickers placed a first order. (B) A $2,500 sponsorship plus $1,200 of booth materials at a regional fitness expo expected to draw 900 attendees; the same expo last year generated 140 booth conversations, 30 trial boxes, and 12 customers still active at 90 days. (C) A $4,000 referral program: printed cards plus a $20 account credit to both referrer and friend; 740 customers are active and the historical referral rate is 4%. Average first-order margin is $22 and estimated 12-month customer value is $340. The kitchen is at 82% of capacity and can add roughly 120 meals a week without new equipment. Dana also pays a 'marketing consultant' $1,500 a month on a 1099; he works 9 to 3 in her office, uses her laptop, and she sets his weekly priorities.
1. Estimate new customers and cost per acquired customer for options A and B, and show how the capacity ceiling changes the arithmetic. Recommend an allocation of the $4,000, stating what you would verify first.
Read the worked answer
Option A (social)
- 210,000 impressions × 0.6% = 1,260 clicks; × 8% = ~101 first orders.
- Naive CAC: $3,800 ÷ 101 = ~$38.
- Reality check: 101 new customers at roughly five meals a week is 500 meals a week; Dana can add only 120. The kitchen can absorb about 24 concurrent new customers, so the campaign either wastes leads or creates a waitlist. If only 24 can be served, the effective CAC for served customers is $3,800 ÷ 24 = ~$158 against $340 of 12-month value - thin but positive.
Option B (expo)
- $3,700 spend for 140 conversations → 30 trials → 12 retained.
- Cost per retained customer: $3,700 ÷ 12 = ~$308; the 12 customers are worth 12 × $340 = $4,080, so the event roughly breaks even on 12-month value alone and the 140 conversations are a small sample.
Option C, the real winner on unit economics. 740 active customers × 4% = ~30 referrals; the credit cost is $40 per converted pair against a $22 first-order margin, but $340 of 12-month value. That is ~$10,200 of value for about $1,200 of credits - if it runs digitally. The $4,000 of printed cards is the weak part of the proposal.
Recommended allocation
- $1,500 on a three-week version of A, paused when 24 slots fill; capture overflow on a waitlist.
- $600 on a digital referral campaign seeded by email and text, with tracking codes.
- $1,200 partial expo presence (share a booth with a fitness partner rather than buying full sponsorship and materials).
- $700 held back for the second half of the quarter.
Verify first: the 0.6% and 8% figures came from small campaigns, and the referral rate of 4% has never been tested with an incentive; treat both as hypotheses with a hard stop-and-measure date.
2. Evaluate what the business has been doing, and recommend how to correct it. Explain the economic reality test.
Read the worked answer
The facts point to employee status. Courts and the IRS weigh the entire relationship, not the label or the 1099.
Behavioral control - Dana sets his hours (9 to 3 in her office) and his weekly priorities, and he works on her premises: strong indicia of control over how the work is done. Financial control - he uses her laptop, has one client (her), is paid a flat monthly amount regardless of output, and appears to bear no real investment risk or unreimbursed cost. Relationship - the arrangement is open-ended rather than project-based, and marketing is central to her business, not an ancillary service.
Consequences of getting it wrong - employer share of FICA (7.65% on $18,000 = about $1,377 a year), federal and state unemployment tax, workers' compensation exposure, penalties and interest, and possible wage-and-hour or benefits claims.
Two defensible fixes
- Reclassify to part-time W-2 employment, set a wage, and put him on payroll.
- Restructure into a genuine vendor relationship: a written scope of work with deliverables and deadlines, a monthly fee tied to outcomes, his own equipment and workspace, freedom to set his own schedule and serve other clients, and evidence of his business (invoices, business license, other customers).
Changing the label without changing the facts does not change the analysis. Given that Dana needs tight control of marketing in a 4%-margin business, reclassification is probably the cleaner answer; restructure only if she genuinely can hand over the 'how.'
3. Capacity, not demand, is Dana's constraint. Compare raising all prices 6% (she expects to lose 8% of customers) with financing an $18,000 combi oven over three years at roughly $570 a month that would add 400 meals a week. Assume food and packaging run about 35% of the meal price and labor is largely fixed.
Read the worked answer
Price increase
- Revenue: $610,000 × 1.06 × 0.92 = $594,872 - down 2.5% in revenue.
- Margin: price rises while food and packaging stay at 35% of the old price, so the contribution ratio rises from 35% to 1 − (0.65 ÷ 1.06) = 38.7%.
- Contribution: $594,872 × 0.387 = $230,215, about $16,700 better than the current $213,500, with labor unchanged and capacity freed.
Oven
- Cost: $570 × 36 = ~$20,500 over three years, about $6,840 a year.
- Breakeven volume: $6,840 ÷ 0.387 = ~$17,700 of sales; at about $12 a meal that is ~1,480 meals a year, or 28 extra meals a week - easily inside the 400-meal capacity if the demand exists.
- But the oven only pays if there are customers waiting to buy, and the scenario shows 82% utilization, meaning only about 120 meals of unmet demand a week are proven. That alone supports the oven, but not by a wide margin once ramp-up is considered.
Judgment Take the price increase first: it raises contribution immediately, requires no capital, and is reversible if attrition exceeds 8%. Verify the attrition guess against a test on one daypart. Then measure the waitlist for four weeks; if it exceeds roughly 100 meals a week, add the oven and finance it out of the added margin rather than from cash reserves. Combining both is coherent - higher prices fund the equipment and the equipment serves the demand the price increase did not drive away. Non-financial factors: lease terms on equipment, kitchen workflow and staffing, menu consistency during the rollout, and whether the capital commitment is prudent at a 4% net margin with limited cash reserves.