The math behind every number on our site.
We publish averages, not peaks. Below: the FTE comparison behind our cost claim, the timeline behind our speed claim, and the distribution behind our performance claim.
Three ways to staff a marketing function. One of them costs ~10% of another.
Our "~50% lower fully-loaded cost" claim compares Marketive against a comparable mid-market full-service agency retainer. Against the cost of building the same team in-house (FTE-loaded), we land closer to 10–15% — the gap is far larger. The math:
Loaded rates assume base salary + benefits + employer taxes + equipment + management overhead, blended US mid-market. Traditional-agency range reflects published mid-market full-service retainers. Specific Marketive engagements vary — most clients land $8–12K/month based on scope.
First channel live in 1–2 weeks.
Per channel, post-kickoff. Full omnichannel orchestration runs 4–6 weeks. The gap vs. a traditional agency isn't AI — it's that we capture brand context up front and start week one without an RFP cycle.
"First channel live" means a single active channel deployment from kickoff. Time-to-live always depends on the client's revision cycle. Full omnichannel orchestration (multi-channel, lifecycle, measurement stack rebuild) runs 4–6 weeks at our pace, 12–16 weeks at a traditional agency.
We publish averages, not peaks.
When we cite ~20% conversion lift, that's the median across recent client engagements after we modernize measurement and apply senior-led optimization. Some clients land below; some land well above. Most agencies cite their best result as if it's typical. We cite the middle.
Distribution illustrative of recent engagements. Specific lifts depend on baseline conversion maturity, channel, traffic mix, and how much measurement modernization is required upfront. We name a median because a median is a number you can build a forecast around.
3:1 is a benchmark, not an outcome.
3:1 LTV:CAC is the industry-standard healthy ratio — not something an agency hands you in a quarter. We orient our work around the benchmark by modernizing measurement first, so the ratio you read is real and not platform-inflated.
Most accounts running unaudited produce a flattering LTV:CAC that doesn't survive incremental testing. Fixing what the number actually means usually comes before optimizing it.
Illustrative example based on common pattern. The 1.6× gap between reported and true ratios is the kind of correction that reshapes budget allocation immediately.
Specific results vary by scope, channel, and baseline.
We publish ranges and medians, not point estimates — because point estimates lie about variance. If you want the underlying data behind any number on the site, ask. We'll send the engagement detail.