Your Marketing Evolved to H2H. Your Metrics Didn't.

Written By Melissa Kolbe

Remember when executives obsessed over site visitors?

Board meetings in 2005 featured triumphant announcements: "We hit 50,000 visitors last month!" Marketing got budget increases. Everyone felt productive. Traffic was the metric.

Then someone asked an uncomfortable question: "But how many bought anything?"

The companies stuck measuring site visitors spent years running SEO tactics that drove traffic but no sales. They looked busy on the vanity metric while building nothing sustainable. The smart companies evolved their measurement—traffic → conversion → revenue → lifetime value—and left the traffic-counters behind.

We're about to repeat that mistake. Campaign metrics are this decade's site visitor count.

Here's what's happening right now: Every marketing leader is being told to adopt H2H (human-to-human) marketing. Build relationships, not campaigns. Optimize for lifetime value, not lead volume. Focus on conversations that create advocates, not conversions that create one-time buyers.

The strategy is right. As Fast Company argues, H2H marketing means "empathy at the core" and measuring "relationship strength" through retention, referrals, and engagement depth—not campaign efficiency.

But then these same leaders open their dashboards and see: cost-per-lead, campaign conversion rates, first-touch attribution, traffic by channel. Everything measured, nothing about relationship quality.

Your metrics are betraying your strategy. You claim to optimize for relationships while measuring campaigns. And most dangerously, you're making decisions based on what you can measure (campaign efficiency) rather than what you claim to value (relationship quality).

When your CEO asks "Is H2H working?", you can't answer. You can show email open rates improved. You can show content marketing generated more leads. You absolutely cannot show that customers acquired through partner referrals stay 3x longer than paid search leads—because your attribution system stops at the sale.

The Questions Your Dashboard Can't Answer

According to McKinsey, 76% of marketers struggle to determine which channels deserve credit for conversions. But here are harder questions:

"Why is our CAC rising while retention is dropping?" Your dashboard shows paid search CPL dropped 15%. What it doesn't show: those cheaper leads churn in 90 days while the organic leads you defunded stay for years. You optimized for acquisition efficiency while destroying customer quality.

"Which marketing drives our best word-of-mouth?" Forbes reports acquiring a new customer costs 5x more than retaining one. But your attribution tracks which campaigns drove conversions, not which campaigns drove customers who later refer others. So you keep spending on channels that measure well (paid ads) rather than channels that compound (relationship-building that generates referrals months later).

"What's our CLV by marketing source?" Only 42% of companies can measure CLV accurately, despite 89% agreeing it's crucial. McKinsey's research shows mature businesses maintain CLV-to-CAC ratios between 2:1 and 8:1. But you can't calculate that ratio by marketing source because your attribution stops at the sale.

Campaign metrics measure the first 20 days of relationships that span years. As I covered in Why Marketing Data Should Work Like Banking Records, standard platforms use snapshot architecture designed to measure paths to transactions, not relationships after them.

Why AI Makes This Suddenly Practical

Relationship attribution was always right. Until recently, it was too expensive for anyone but enterprises with dedicated data teams. AI changes this.

Instead of analysts running monthly reports, the system provides real-time intelligence:

  • System monitors: Customer acquired via LinkedIn ad six months ago submitted their second frustrated support ticket this week.

  • System queries: Are customers from this source experiencing higher support loads? What's their churn rate versus other sources?

  • Pattern detected: Campaign #47 generates leads at $85 CPL (below average) but 2.3x support load and 43% higher first-year churn. True cost per retained customer: $340.

  • System recommends: Pause campaign, reallocate to partner referral program ($180 CPL, 8% churn).

This transforms attribution from reporting (what happened) to intelligence (what should we do). The system detects patterns at scale, predicts lifetime value from early behavior, and monitors relationship quality continuously—without waiting for quarterly reviews.

The Compounding Disadvantage of Staying Put

Here's why this creates widening gaps between companies that evolve measurement and those that don't:

  • Year 1: Your competitor can't answer their CEO's questions about which marketing creates lasting value. Neither can you. Both keep running campaigns. Both look equally busy optimizing for CPL and conversion rates.

  • Year 2: They've spent two years acquiring cheaper leads that churn. You've spent two years learning which sources generate customers who stay, refer others, and expand. Your CAC starts dropping as you stop funding channels that attract bad customers. Theirs keeps rising because they're still selecting for price-sensitive customers who leave fast.

  • Year 3: The gap is visible in business metrics. Your retention compounds. Your word-of-mouth generates cheaper acquisition than their paid ads. Your marketing team proves ROI on relationship-building initiatives. Their marketing team is still arguing about campaign attribution while the CFO cuts their budget because "acquisition costs are unsustainable."

Better data → better decisions → better customers → more valuable data. The cycle compounds in both directions.

Meanwhile, companies stuck on campaign metrics face a trap: They can't prove which marketing builds valuable relationships because their measurement wasn't designed for that question. So they keep optimizing for what they can measure—campaign efficiency—even knowing it selects for the wrong customers. The CFO sees rising CAC and cuts budget. Marketing can't defend the spend because they can't connect it to retention. The cycle spirals down.

What you're losing right now: Every month you optimize based on campaign metrics, you're reallocating budget away from high-LTV sources you can't prove toward low-LTV sources that measure well. You're funding the marketing that looks efficient while starving the marketing that builds lasting value.

You're trapped between a CEO demanding H2H marketing and a CFO measuring campaign ROI. Campaign attribution can't satisfy both mandates simultaneously. So you're stuck either ignoring the CEO's strategy (and failing to execute what leadership wants) or executing it without measurement (and failing to prove it works).

Where This Leads

The H2H marketing movement is right about strategy. Build relationships over campaigns. Optimize for lifetime value over lead volume. Focus on conversations that create advocates.

But strategy without measurement is hope. Worse, measurement misaligned with strategy actively optimizes you toward the wrong outcomes—making you look efficient while you build a fragile business.

The companies measuring relationships won't just win—they'll compound their advantage while competitors drain budgets on "efficient" campaigns that generate low-quality customers. The gap between "we think relationships matter" and "we can prove which marketing builds them" will separate winners from wishful thinkers.

The infrastructure exists. The economics work. AI makes it practical at companies of any size. Smart businesses are building relationship attribution now, discovering which marketing sources generate customers worth having, and reallocating accordingly.

The question isn't whether relationship attribution is possible—companies are already doing it. The question is how long you'll optimize for metrics you know betray your strategy before you close the measurement gap that makes H2H marketing provable instead of performative.

Sources

Melissa Kolbe
Next

Why Marketing Data Should Work Like Banking Records, Not Polaroids