The Genus of C.A.R.E.™

Genus of C.A.R.E.™ — The Sales Funnel

Many traditional marketers focus on the “sales funnel” theory, feeding the funnel with high volumes of ‘suspects,’ with the ultimate hope of converting a small fraction of them into sales.

While specific funnel levels vary with each industry, most typically follow this flow:


Typical Sales Funnel


Efforts here begin with the casting of the broadest net, bringing in as many suspects as possible (i.e. ‘consumers,’ but not yet ‘customers’).

Internal goals are set to convert each level to the next – for example, a marketer may set a goal of evolving suspects into prospects at a 50% clip.  This means of the wide net’s “catch,” they hope to keep half as “prospects.”

This distillation continues down the sales funnel until the sale is made.  Tracking back, the percentage of ultimate sales made when compared to the initial “wide net” of suspects typically ranges from 10% for readily adaptable goods/services to fractions of 1% for more specialty offerings.

As a matter of course, the sales funnel is continually “refilled” to maximize sales.


Genus of C.A.R.E.™ — The Loyalty Pyramid

Separately, a multitude of marketers have embraced the concept of loyalty by rewarding customers for their continued purchases.

A multi-level model was established, with the goal of enhancing the loyalty quotient of customers – typically represented by a pyramid.

Typical Loyalty Pyramid


Best practice-thinking hypothesizes that the further a customer is elevated in the loyalty pyramid, the greater LTV (lifetime value) the customer will provide the marketer.


Genus of C.A.R.E.™ — The Loyalty Pyramid and The Sales Funnel – turning them inside out, upside down, asunder

BOTH the Sales Funnel and Loyalty Pyramid, while helpful, are somewhat flawed in several ways:

Sales Funnel shortcomings

  • completely marketer-focused (not customer-centric)
  • ignores post-purchase activity
  • inefficient asset allocation (too much $)

Loyalty Pyramid shortcomings

  • only partially customer-centric
  • assumes limited (and decreasing) numbers of loyal customers
  • ignores pre-purchase activity
  • inefficient asset allocation (too little $)


  • addresses business objectives completely
  • visits marcomm strategies by stage
  • considers channel variance by stage
  • allows customer-control of progression through the journey
  • links back to metric measuring success of each stage

»»Next:  The Differences of C.A.R.E.™