Which demand population is concentrated?
Lead-source concentration needs a stated stage and a rule for assigning credit. One source can account for a large share of inquiries, fewer bookings, and a different share of completed revenue. Show each share separately. They describe different stages, not three versions of the same result.
Start with the buyer's question. Is it about incoming inquiries, confirmed jobs, money collected, or account control? It may concern several of those matters. One marketing-dependence percentage cannot answer them all. Keep the stage and the records clear before interpreting the source share.
The valuation hub connects this definition with earnings and transaction review. Builder concentration uses customer populations, while this term uses source-credit populations. Keep the two questions distinct even when the same jobs appear in both analyses.
Name the source category. A campaign, provider, search profile, referral partner, or broad channel can group different records. Keep a dictionary of those groups. Changing how they are combined can change the reported share even when every inquiry stays the same.
What attribution rule assigns the credit?
Google's attribution explanation describes assigning conversion credit under attribution models. The chosen rule and measurement setup affect where credit appears. Credit assignment is not proof that the source created incremental demand.
Record the model, window, source grouping, identifiers, and relevant settings. State whether credit is assigned exclusively to one source or distributed under another method. If the model changes, preserve the change date before comparing channel shares over time.
Keep source evidence separate from customer statements and guessed labels. Tracking numbers, campaign parameters, recorded referrals, and staff-entered sources have different limits. Show where each label came from. Keep unclear records visible instead of forcing every inquiry into a channel you can name.
The following attribution card is an original diligence tool:
| Card field | Definition or evidence to preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Source category | Campaign, provider, partner, or channel grouping | Explains which records are combined |
| Credit model and window | Actual assignment rule and relevant settings | Makes channel shares comparable |
| Inquiry population | Defined events, dates, duplicates, exclusions | Establishes the first denominator |
| Booking population | Linked confirmed outcomes and follow-up | Distinguishes demand from scheduled work |
| Revenue population | Matched job and invoice basis | Connects credit to a stated economic stage |
| Unknown records | Unattributed and ambiguous amounts | Makes measurement gaps visible |
| Account control | Owners, permissions, and transition requirements | Separates access from forecast assumptions |
A model's output cannot settle a cause-and-effect claim it does not test. A customer may have seen several channels or already known the business. First establish what the model reports. Then examine the separate question of what the company might lose if a channel changed.
How do source shares differ in a hypothetical cohort?
Assume a hypothetical analysis follows one defined inquiry cohort to a fixed follow-up date. Its attribution method assigns each included event exclusively under stated rules. Source A is credited with 120 of 200 inquiries, 30 of 100 confirmed bookings, and $80,000 of $400,000 in defined completed-job revenue.
The source's inquiry share is sixty percent, booking share is thirty percent, and completed-revenue share is twenty percent. Those differences are compatible with the stated example. They do not establish a provider's typical quality or a representative plumbing conversion rate.
| Hypothetical stage | Source A amount | Matching cohort total | Credited share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defined inquiries | 120 | 200 | 60% |
| Confirmed bookings | 30 | 100 | 30% |
| Defined completed-job revenue | $80,000 | $400,000 | 20% |
The inquiry share cannot stand in for the revenue share. The example also does not prove that twenty percent of revenue would disappear without Source A. Credit for past revenue is different from proof of extra future revenue caused by that source. Keep the two claims separate.
A real analysis needs the actual event links, model, follow-up, and revenue basis. If a source cannot be linked reliably to later jobs, state the limitation. Do not estimate the missing share from a convenient ratio and present it as confirmed.
Why do conversion and date definitions need reconciliation?
Google's phone call conversion documentation describes configured call conversion methods. Certain call actions or duration-qualified calls can count as conversions. Neither automatically proves a booking, completed job, or payment.
The call-booking rate definition provides a separate stage card. Use call and job identifiers to connect the provider event with the operating outcome where the setup permits it. Keep unmatched records visible instead of treating the provider total as confirmed jobs.
ServiceTitan's dashboard business metrics documentation describes vendor-specific job and revenue populations and date filters. A source report using inquiry dates can differ from a revenue report using completion or invoice dates.
State whether the review follows one set of inquiries or counts activity during a period. Those methods can answer different questions. Recent inquiries may not yet have become completed or paid work. A short follow-up can make the source mix look different because some outcomes have not happened yet.
Marketing cost per booked job connects spending with defined outcomes. A large revenue share says nothing about acquisition cost unless the relevant costs are matched and recorded. Keep concentration and contribution as separate analyses.
Which ownership and transition facts matter?
Identify who controls tracking numbers, profiles, advertising accounts, website access, analytics, and relevant operating integrations. A vendor relationship or login held by an employee does not itself establish that the seller owns every asset or can transfer every permission.
Google's Business Profile primary ownership guidance explains that profile control has a defined transfer process and new-user limitations. Review current requirements for the actual account. The guidance does not promise that profile access preserves future demand or search performance.
Record the receiving account, person responsible, steps needed, and restrictions still to be resolved. Plan changes with the operating handover. Do not treat casually shared credentials as a transfer process. The goal is authorized control and continuity. That does not guarantee the same future demand.
The plumbing M&A market guide applies the same source discipline to broader claims. A platform announcement or sector trend cannot establish that one company's channels will continue producing the same leads after an acquisition.
Keep forecasts separate from access facts. A confirmed transfer can support an operating plan, while future inquiries and bookings remain assumptions. If a forecast depends on continuing spending or vendor support, show those requirements explicitly.
How should concentration affect earnings and cash assumptions?
A buyer can test scenarios involving channel availability, cost changes, or transition delays, but the assumptions need a stated basis. Do not remove the entire attributed revenue share automatically. Such a deduction would treat model credit as proven incremental demand loss.
The quality of earnings guide provides the broader earnings verification process. Confirm actual revenue and costs before applying a marketing scenario. Preserve the distinction between historical evidence, proposed adjustments, and future operating assumptions.
Review timing effects separately. A channel change could affect when work is booked or collected under a hypothetical case. Working capital pegs explains why the transaction's actual definitions govern the adjustment rather than an unsupported demand percentage.
Use this sequence to complete the attribution card:
- Define source groups, stages, dates, and the decision each share should inform.
- Record the credit model, window, identifiers, and configuration.
- Reconcile inquiries, bookings, completed revenue, and unknown records separately.
- Verify account ownership, permissions, and transition requirements.
- Distinguish historical attribution from causal claims and future demand scenarios.
- Reconcile any proposed earnings or cash treatment with actual evidence and advisers.
How do sellers and lenders use it, and which mistakes matter?
A seller should retain source labels, report settings, and account-control records. Explain changes in grouping or credit rules before showing a trend. Keep confirmed outcomes separate from a forecast of future leads.
A lender needs the link from credited revenue to actual earnings and cash. Show spending, later job outcomes, and assumptions for continuing demand. A source share does not prove debt-service cash or financing approval.
Common mistakes include counting conversions as jobs, hiding unknown sources, mixing inquiry dates with later revenue, or treating model credit as proven revenue loss. Keep stage counts and assumptions visible. The glossary gives the short terminology reference.