Customer acquisition cost (CAC) is increasing in virtually every B2B category. The industry diagnosis: more competition, more channels and more noise. The prescribed remedies: better targeting, more content, narrower ideal customer profiles (ICPs), and sharper messaging.
But here’s the question the B2B go-to-market (GTM) profession isn’t asking: If CAC is rising, where is the corresponding improvement in deal volume, deal speed, and deal size? You’re spending more to acquire customers. The deals aren’t getting more, faster, or bigger. At some point, this is not a market conditions issue. It’s a problem of evidence and the profession doesn’t have an answer because it doesn’t ask the question.
The root cause is that the B2B GTM profession starts from a thesis so deeply rooted that it is rarely examined: awareness plus information equals purchase intention. Let potential customers know and they’ll want it.
The truth is, it’s always been a weak premise. Decades of decline in GTM’s effectiveness confirm that it was wrong. Awareness is necessary, but it is by no means sufficient. Providing information does not build trust. And neither awareness nor trust is trust. The profession has condensed three distinct epistemic conditions into one and built its entire methodology on the fusion.
Here are these three conditions and why confusing them costs in terms of pipeline, speed and size of the operation. Your CAC is the invoice.
10x your SEO with Semrush for business.
The most powerful SEO platform in the world, created specifically for businesses.
Request a demonstration
The three conditions that drive B2B purchasing
The three conditions of awareness, trust and confidence are not interchangeable. I’m also not a ghost.
Rather, they form a three-legged stool with a strict causal order: Awareness → Confidence → Confidence.
Most GTM frameworks treat these three distinct conditions as a single blended concept called buyer readiness, trust, or relationship. This conflation is not a semantic quibble. It is a structural error with measurable consequences. Here’s what each leg actually means.
Awareness
Awareness is the threshold condition. A buyer who has not adequately perceived and understood the problem you solve cannot evaluate your solution. This isn’t just logo awareness. It is awareness of the problem, awareness of the category and awareness of what is at stake. Failure at the awareness stage means you are selling to people who don’t yet know they should buy.
Trust
Trust is epistemological. It is the buyer’s internal evaluation of whether your claims are sound, the logic holds up, the evidence is credible, or the mechanism makes sense.
Confidence forms before entering the room. It can be built or destroyed without any human interaction. It is calibrated with respect to content, evidence, peer cues, and perceived explanatory power.
Daniel Kahneman’s research on judgment under uncertainty makes it clear that trust and confidence operate through different cognitive systems and respond to completely different stimuli. Treating them as a single construct leads to interventions that miss both goals.
Trust
Trust is relational. It requires your people: your account executives, customer service managers, and company executives. It involves the buyer’s ongoing evaluation of your company’s competence, intentions and reliability as a counterparty.
The philosopher Baroness Onora O’Neill, whose work on trust is among the most rigorous in the literature, draws a clear distinction: trust is extended by the buyer. Reliability is demonstrated by the seller. You can’t manufacture it. You can only create the conditions that make it rational for a buyer to extend it. Critically, O’Neill explicitly argues that greater information does not automatically create such conditions.
Information that cannot be evaluated, contextualized or tested does not build trust. Instead, it creates noise that the buyer must filter out. The GTM profession generates that noise on an industrial scale and calls it nourishment.
Building trust is where the GTM stops
Most GTM movements invest heavily in mindfulness. So they turn the buyer over to sales and call it trust building. Trust is almost completely broken, or teams assume good content and a strong brand automatically produces it.
It doesn’t work that way. Trust is the bridge. It’s where the buyer decides whether your claims deserve serious consideration. If that bridge isn’t built before the sales conversation, your account executive spends the first two meetings doing the work that should have been done upstream: rebuilding credibility from the ground up, re-framing the problem, and justifying the category.
It’s not a sales efficiency issue. It’s a trust gap masquerading as a pipeline problem. An undiagnosed trust gap manifests itself directly in the speed of deals – cycles that drag on – and in the size of deals – commitments that shrink because the buyer never fully resolved their concerns.
Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, of which organizational trust model remains the most cited in the academic literature, identifying competence, benevolence and integrity as the foundations of trustworthiness. Note that competence comes first. Buyers evaluate whether you know what you’re doing before they’re willing to evaluate whether they like you.
This is a confidence judgment, not a confidence judgment. If your GTM treats them as the same thing, you’re sequencing them incorrectly and measuring the wrong things when trying to diagnose why deals stall.
What effect does neglecting trust have on your numbers?
When trust is missing, business doesn’t die cleanly. They drag on and on. Buyers involve procurement again. They add evaluation steps. They bring the contestants in late. They ask for more references, more tests and more pilot projects.
Each of these friction points increases the CAC. Each extended sales cycle adds to the CAC. Every deal that closes at a discount because the buyer never fully committed increases the CAC. However, none of this improves transaction volume, transaction speed, or transaction size because it is not an improvement. It is the cost of a structural diagnosis never made.
Judea Pearl causal inference framework it is useful here because it will not allow you to hide from the mechanism. Correlational GTM analysis indicates that trust scores and deal speed vary and recommends greater investment in relationships. Causal models force the harder question: At what node has buyer commitment actually stalled? It was the awareness phase: did they never fully understand what was at stake? Or did trust never fully develop because they deemed the claims insufficiently substantiated? Or did trust never fully develop due to a relationship breakdown with a specific person at a specific time?
These are three different diagnoses and require three different interventions. Combining them into a single “trust” construct means that you will prescribe the wrong remedy most of the time and your CAC will continue to increase while transaction volume, transaction velocity and transaction size remain stable.
The accusation
The GTM industry has spent a decade optimizing awareness with increasing sophistication through intent data, account-based marketing and signal-based selling. It has also invested heavily in trust with relationship intelligence programs, sales coaching and executive alignment.
However, the GTM industry has systematically overlooked the trust factor, treating it as something that happens automatically or belongs to the brand.
Trust doesn’t happen automatically. It doesn’t just belong to the brand. And it can’t be made up for in the sales conversation without paying for it in time, discounts, and lost deals, none of which improve deal volume, deal speed, or deal size.
The fundamental thesis – that making people aware and informed means they will want to buy – has always been a category mistake. Information is not motivation. Knowing is not wanting.
The B2B GTM profession inherited a model from classical economics: the rational and fully informed agent who, after receiving sufficient information, optimizes towards the best choice. Cognitive science has refuted this model since the 1970s. The profession found related evidence that more information sometimes produced more sales, called that confirmation, and kept building.
The CAC continued to rise. The agreements did not follow. It was never a coincidence.
