A campaign producing $50 leads can look more efficient than one producing $150 leads without creating more commercial value. Jehan Lalkaka, VP of Product Marketing at Ninety, uses this hypothetical comparison to challenge how marketers assess demand generation. His argument concerns what those costs leave unanswered: whether prospects have a buying need and will consider the company.
Lead Costs Measure Responses, Not Buying Readiness
Lalkaka argues that concentrating on cost per lead can steer teams toward easily counted responses. Downloads produce contact details, but those details don’t establish a prospect’s reason to purchase.
His hypothetical accounting software example makes the trade-off concrete. A sponsored newsletter article addresses missed deadlines, while paid social promotes a downloadable productivity checklist. Under a lead-volume target, the checklist could receive more credit because it generates measurable contacts.
The newsletter might instead help readers connect the vendor with a problem they later need to resolve. Lalkaka doesn’t claim that sponsorship necessarily produces better results. Neither example includes measured revenue, conversion rates, or evidence of stronger buyer recall.
CPL therefore supports a narrower conclusion: how much a campaign spends to acquire a lead. It cannot independently establish which campaign creates greater business value.
Connect Messaging to the Event That Starts a Search
Lalkaka proposes building recognition around circumstances that prompt buyers to seek a solution. He connects these buying occasions with category entry points: needs or situations that bring a category into consideration.
For an accounting firm, a missed client deadline could make project management software relevant. Limited visibility into delayed engagements could create another reason to investigate.
These are illustrative situations, not reported customer findings. Their strategic value lies in making the message specific enough to connect a product with an actionable problem.
Lalkaka argues that repeated exposure to useful content about these circumstances could improve later consideration. He identifies newsletter sponsorships, LinkedIn content, webinars, and other channels as possible vehicles.
The practical response is message consistency across relevant channels. Changing the central message solely to increase immediate responses may weaken that association, in Lalkaka’s view.
Use Customer Interviews to Choose the Message
Broad promises about productivity or collaboration don’t necessarily explain why a buyer starts searching. Lalkaka recommends customer interviews to identify the circumstances behind that decision.
For demand generation leaders, one concrete action follows: interview customers about what changed before their search began. Organize that discussion around:
- The incident or difficulty that made a purchase relevant.
- The reason existing arrangements became unacceptable.
- The connection between that situation and the solution selected.
Use those answers to choose a specific buying situation for campaign messaging. This gives creative execution a customer-grounded starting point rather than an assumed benefit.
Keep Commercial Value Separate From Response Efficiency
Lalkaka’s argument supports expanding campaign evaluation beyond immediate lead acquisition. It doesn’t establish a proven revenue advantage for campaigns built around buying occasions.
A more expensive campaign still needs scrutiny. A cheaper campaign still needs evidence of buyer relevance.
Demand teams can retain CPL while examining whether their messaging reflects the circumstances customers describe before purchasing. The practical takeaway is to use lead costs as an efficiency measure, without treating them as sufficient evidence of commercial value.
