Hi there, author of article here - I definitely see your point. I might have been a bit to general here, it's like another poster here says, it's very much napkin math. Yes, "better leads" are ofc always better than randos - but these numbers are from of a made up business, not the company mentioned in the beginning so if we imagine that 90% of the users already comes form paid, then we might want to invest more in paid. And if organic, maybe we invest in content and SEO instead.
Overall, when setting objectives it is still very important to have some numbers to target - you can even change these targets later if it turns out there is a better way of getting those 1066 customers.
My point was that the model used was oversimplified so much that it was worthless and would fall at the first hurdle.
Your conversion rate is a function of the traffic. You can’t change the traffic without impacting the conversion rate.
I would estimate that you might need 10-1000x the traffic depending on the quality of the traffic in your paid campaign, so these aren’t little numbers these are huge oversights.
Agreed, but again it obv depends on the situation - and as this is a made up scenario, this might look very different for real companies. Maybe they want to focus on another conversion metric to get to 1066 customers altogether. I just put website visitors as it fits nicely with the strategies and examples I'm planning to talk about in following articles :)
Overall, when setting objectives it is still very important to have some numbers to target - you can even change these targets later if it turns out there is a better way of getting those 1066 customers.