← Back to the blog
Hiring a CTO July 30, 2026
>The $400K Blind Spot: How Founders Lose Money to Tech They Can’t Diagnose (And the $66K a Fractional CTO Recovered) >
A founder I spoke with last year had a CTO. Full-time. $280K base, benefits, equity. Eighteen months in, the product was late, the cloud bill had tripled, and nobody could tell him why. By the time he let that CTO go, he’d spent north of $400K and was further behind than when he started. That’s not a hiring story. That’s a diagnosis story — and the diagnosis came too late.
>The $400K Math Most Founders Don’t Run >
Let’s put real numbers on this.
A full-time CTO at a $5M–$100M company runs $250K–$350K in base salary. Add 30% for benefits, payroll tax, and equity dilution. Add recruiting fees — typically 20–25% of first-year comp. Add 3–6 months of ramp time where strategic decisions get deferred or made wrong.
You’re at $400K before the CTO has shipped a single thing that moves revenue.
Now layer in what I call The Empty Chair problem. Even after the hire, the chair can still be empty — strategically. A CTO who’s heads-down on delivery isn’t looking at your cloud infrastructure. A CTO who’s managing the engineering team isn’t auditing whether your AI stack is rented or owned. The title is filled. The function isn’t.
Most founders I talk to feel the bleed before they can name it. The cloud bill crept up and nobody flagged it. The MVP launched but somehow keeps costing money to maintain. The roadmap is full but revenue isn’t moving. That gap — between *feeling* the drain and being able to *diagnose* it — is where companies lose the most money.
Related: The $5M Ceiling: The Hidden Cost of Running Your Tech Org Without a CTO (and When Fractional Beats Full-Time)
>The 4 Places Tech Silently Bleeds Cash >
After working with founders across dozens of companies in the $5M–$100M range, the same four bleeding points show up on almost every Tech P&L I’ve reviewed.
>1. Over-Provisioned Infrastructure >
Your cloud provider loves you. You’re paying for capacity you reserved 18 months ago for a traffic spike that never came. AWS, GCP, Azure — they make it frictionless to provision, and painful to de-provision. Nobody owns the audit. So the bill grows 8–15% per quarter while your usage stays flat.
>2. Rented AI Stacks >
This is the Own Don’t Rent problem applied to AI. There’s a meaningful difference between *using* an AI API endpoint and *building leverage* with AI. If every query you run costs you per-token and you have no fine-tuned model, no proprietary data layer, no moat — you’re renting someone else’s intelligence. Permanently. Every month. With no equity in the outcome.
The companies winning with AI right now are the ones who moved from rent to own: they trained on their data, they built retrieval layers around their IP, they stopped paying full retail for intelligence they could produce wholesale.
>3. MVPs That Were Never Hardened >
The MVP was a success. It proved the concept. You raised on it, sold it, maybe won a few enterprise clients with it. And now it’s a liability disguised as a product.
MVPs are built to learn, not to scale. The technical debt is real — quick database choices that don’t hold under load, no monitoring, no automated testing, manual processes that a junior dev runs every Tuesday. Each of these is a time bomb with a dollar figure attached. The cost isn’t in the code. It’s in the engineering hours that go to firefighting instead of building, and in the enterprise deals you lose because you can’t pass a security review.
Related: Legacy Modernization vs. Replacement: Cost Comparison
>4. Roadmap-to-Revenue Misalignment >
This one is the quietest and the most expensive. Your engineering team ships. They ship a lot. But what they ship doesn’t close deals, doesn’t reduce churn, doesn’t unlock the enterprise tier your sales team keeps promising.
The DERISK → UNCLOG → SCALE framework I use with every engagement starts here. Before we build anything new, we ask: what’s blocking revenue right now? What’s creating risk? What, if removed, would let the whole system move faster? Most roadmaps skip this question and go straight to features. That’s how you spend $800K on engineering in a year and end up with a slower sales cycle.
>The Objections I Hear (And Why They Usually Backfire) >
”I already have a VP of Engineering.” Great. A VP of Eng is responsible for delivery — building the thing the roadmap says to build. A CTO function is responsible for strategy — deciding what’s worth building, whether the architecture will hold, and whether the tech investments are generating return. These are different jobs. If your VP of Eng is doing both, one of them is being done badly.
”A fractional won’t know my business well enough.” This one has merit — if the fractional CTO you’re considering doesn’t have a structured diagnostic process. The ones who parachute in and make generic recommendations deserve this skepticism. What you want is someone who runs a Tech P&L audit first, before making a single recommendation. Know the numbers. Then talk strategy.
”I can’t afford another leadership hire right now.” Invert this. You can’t afford not to diagnose. If your cloud bill is 40% over-provisioned, if your AI spend has no ownership model, if your MVP is eating engineering hours in maintenance — the cost of *not* knowing is compounding every month. A fractional engagement runs $8K–$20K per month depending on scope. One infrastructure audit that recovers $66K in annual spend pays for eight months of that engagement before you’ve touched roadmap strategy.
Related: The Full-Time CTO Myth: Why Smart Founders Are Choosing Fractional (And Why You Should Too)
>The $66K That Was Already There >
Here’s a real outcome from a recent engagement — numbers used with permission, company name kept private.
A founder came to us with a cloud bill that had grown 3x over 24 months without a corresponding growth in users or revenue. He had a senior engineer who was competent but not focused on infrastructure optimization — that wasn’t in the job description, so it didn’t get done.
We ran a Tech P&L audit. Three findings came back in the first two weeks.
First: over-provisioned compute. Reserved instances from a 2022 capacity plan that no longer matched actual usage. Rightsizing those instances recovered $28K annually.
Second: an AI integration that was calling a third-party API for every user session — including sessions that never needed the AI feature. The call was triggered by default, not by intent. Fixing the trigger logic recovered $19K annually and reduced latency.
Third: a data pipeline running hourly for a report that the business team checked weekly. Rescheduling it reduced compute costs by another $19K annually.
Total: $66K in annual savings. Found in 30 days. None of it required a rewrite. All of it required someone asking the right diagnostic questions.
This is the Own Don’t Rent principle applied to cost: when you understand what you’re running, why you’re running it, and what it’s actually costing you — you stop paying for waste by default. You control it by design.
>The Structured Path: From Bleed to Control >
The framework I use with every hire-track engagement is AAA: Assess, Architect, Accelerate.
Assess is the Tech P&L audit — 30 days, no assumptions. We look at infrastructure costs, AI spend, engineering velocity, roadmap-to-revenue alignment, and architectural risk. You get a written diagnostic with named dollar figures attached to each finding.
Architect is where we build the blueprint. Which bleeding points get stopped first? What does the 90-day roadmap look like if we prioritize revenue-unlocking work over feature-building? Where does the current architecture hold and where does it need to be hardened?
Accelerate is execution with accountability. Not a strategy deck that sits in Notion. A working cadence — with your engineering team, your product org, and your leadership — that keeps the roadmap tied to revenue outcomes.
No-Go Zones apply here too. There are categories of technical debt and architectural decisions where the right answer is ‘don’t touch it right now — the risk outweighs the return.’ Part of the value of the Assess phase is knowing what *not* to fix. Undirected technical cleanup is just a different kind of waste.
The goal isn’t to hand you a list of problems. It’s to leave you running a Tech P&L you can actually read — one that shows you where money is going, what it’s generating, and what to do when something starts bleeding again.
If any of this felt familiar — the cloud bill that crept up, the roadmap that doesn’t map to revenue, the CTO seat that’s technically filled but strategically empty — the first step is a diagnostic, not a commitment. Book a Tech P&L Diagnostic and we’ll spend 45 minutes mapping where the bleed is most likely coming from in your specific business. No pitch deck. Just the math.
A friend of mine is a financial adviser working with high-net-worth families. He has a small office, ten or twelve employees, and a ton of inefficiencies when you look at how they create content, schedule meetings, and send reports. When I say inefficiency, I mean it takes them six hours and it could take one. But nobody's going to get fired if six moves to one. The team has capacity, and he needs all his team members.
I told him: you're in the convenience category. Yes, we can unclog things, but there's no financial impact to it. You're not going to get more clients. You're not going to save money. The team has enough capacity for him to quadruple his client base right now without hiring anyone else.
Whether your technology spend is working has almost nothing to do with whether you have a CTO on payroll. It has everything to do with whether anyone is running the diagnosis.
The scale matters more than most founders realize. If a company can't afford a CTO, they certainly can't afford the technology build itself. The CTO is the steward of the spend, the person who makes sure it is valid and valuable.
Most companies in this position are spending one, two, three million a year or more on technology. Spending another $150,000 to $200,000 making sure that million or five million is spent correctly is a no-brainer. Because if it's misspent even by 10%, that's $100,000 on every million.
Founders balk at the $200,000 CTO line item, then miss the 10% overspend on $2M that burns $200,000 more, because nobody is measuring it. The spend itself dwarfs the cost of the person watching it.
The reason we don't like the word "part-time," even though the arrangement is not full-time, is that the label implies partial effort and partial impact That's why we use the word fractional. It's a better label because it describes the relationship and the impact rather than the effort coming in. We want business owners, and we certainly want CTOs, focused on delivering value and impact, not worried about the input. The focus should be on the actual result from the engagement.
This distinction matters more than it seems. When you frame the relationship around hours, both sides end up anxious. At the beginning of the month, a CTO working hourly is thinking, what if I don't put in any hours this week? I won't make any money. At the end of the month, the person paying the invoice is thinking, I really hope he's not charging me $300 an hour for that Zoom meeting where he did nothing.
Retainer models solve this. They orient everything around impact. These retainers run anywhere from $3,000 or $4,000 a month on the advisory side to $10,000 or $15,000 a month, independent of hours worked.
When I pitch a retainer, someone always asks: how many hours do I get? I say unlimited hours.
The only reason they're asking is they're trying to do math. They're trying to take the $10,000 a month, divide it by 20 hours, and say, man, $500 an hour is so much. They're focused on effort and cost, not value and outcomes.
So I say unlimited hours for two reasons. First, you can't divide by unlimited. It gives you an error, and their brain gets stuck. Second, it makes the point that whatever is needed, I'm going to be there. If we need to work weekends, if I need to fly to the client, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Focusing on outcome and value as opposed to time and effort is critical. Otherwise you'll find yourself in an anxious position trying to rack up hours, and they'll keep measuring those hours to make sure they got the value out of them.
We highly recommend you don't use the word hours. Don't use the word effort. Don't add to your menu that this gives you five hours of my time a week. Don't train your client to think about you in terms of effort.
The other thing is publishing the menu itself. If you list pricing on your website or in a PDF, you're letting marketing do sales for you, and that's a bad idea. You want the sales conversation to happen in the context of discovery, in the context of a pain or a problem, where you position the solution. If somebody just sees $3,000 or $10,000 and thinks, oh, that's too expensive, well, they weren't sold. You didn't help them contextualize your value with their problem.
You can publish your service offerings. Don't publish the pricing. It gives you more flexibility and makes sure the sales conversations happen in a sales context.
From a pure sales standpoint, you want them focused on outcome. You get them into visioning. What are you trying to do? Why are you trying to do it? They learn they can talk to you on the vision level. That's the key difference between a CTO and a VP or a director. A leader versus a manager.
Tactically, you don't want to share your price until the outcome is exciting in the prospect's mind. If you get to the what and why, and they're saying, yep, we're going to do this, add $2 million, save $10 million, add $50 million to the business, then you can say, I can solve all of this for $150,000 a year. By the time you talk about cost, it's in the context of this big result. It solidifies you as a leader and a co-pilot, because you're talking about vision and impact.
I don't do standing meetings. I don't want people to get used to my time and my presence. I want them to enjoy the impact, enjoy the value I bring. All of my engagements are experienced in that context, never in the context of expecting me in a sprint review or planning meeting, because then they just expect my time and effort rather than the impact.
A classic experiment has people drink the exact same wine, a $30 bottle, but one carries a $1,000 label and the other the store label. When they drink the $1,000 one, they start being very poetic about it. Price does create value. The fact that you pitch a certain price for a certain amount of value or presence actually elevates your value. It makes people respect you more and makes sure their focus is value, as well as your focus, because now you want to overdeliver and command that premium price.
I had a client recently that I really wanted. I knew I could help them, but they'd never paid for a CTO, never paid for a tech leader, and my cash retainer pitch was high. So here's what I did. I deferred payment for 90 days. I worked as usual, but come day 90, they were going to pay me for 180 days: the last three months and three months forward. By day 89, maybe even day 90, if they decided it wasn't working out, no problem. I'm out. They owe me zero.
That created enough of a de-risk proposition on their end, and now everything is great. They think I created way more value than even the six months of payment. And I know I'm going to create nine-figure value for them and tap into an eight-figure opportunity.
Deferral of payment works. One of the common structures we recommend when people pitch workshops for $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 is to say, half up front and half at the end when I deliver, if you like the delivery. That's a very common de-risk. If you're pitching $10,000, you're getting $5,000 right now, so you know they can pay and you know they're serious. At the end, if you're not delivering a product people want, maybe you don't deserve the other five.
In the accelerator, when people pitch a workshop for $7,500, I tell them: change it to $15,000, but it's $7,500 down and $7,500 at the end when you deliver, if they're satisfied. From the client's perception, they're not paying full price unless they're satisfied. From the service provider's side, you got 100% of the money you would have charged anyway, but upfront. And now it's on you to make sure they're satisfied.
It puts both sides on deck to make sure both sides are attentive and delivering, and nobody's being abusive.
I try to etch on the higher side of numbers so I can filter out companies that aren't willing to value the outcome. Here's the reality. Your retainer is great, but the cost of technology is going to be way higher than your retainer. The whole context is that you're in charge, not in control. Somebody else is doing the work.
If they're negotiating you on ten or nine or eight when you know you need to bring in $40,000 a month worth of salaries just to do the work, then you already know it's going to be a problem. The price makes sure you're not wasting your time. And I love to use the price this way: I can give you 100% of the outcome for a fraction of the cost. Let's use the savings and pay the people who are going to do the work.
Once I understand how much a company spends on technology, or what they want to build, or what revenue might be there if they had that product, or what risk might be removed, or what it means for the acquisition of the company, then I can frame the ROI. It's about understanding that this is value for investment, that it is an investment. Then you go back and ask: what would need to happen for this to feel like a bargain for you? Because people want bargains.
The financial adviser from the top had no enterprise value at stake. Making his team more efficient wouldn't make the company worth more or more profitable. It would create a better work environment for his employees, which is super valuable, and I recommend people do it. But it's a different standard to optimize.
Most founders are not in that situation. Most founders are sitting on technology spend that nobody is auditing, with waste compounding at 10% or more, and the person who could catch it is the person they decided they couldn't afford. On a $2M spend, catching a 10% overspend returns the $200,000 diagnosis cost in the first year.
---
← Back to the blog
Hiring a CTO August 12, 2026
>The $5M Ceiling: The Hidden Cost of Running Your Tech Org Without a CTO (and When Fractional Beats Full-Time) >
Most founders I talk to know something is broken in their tech org. They just can't name it yet — and that gap between 'something feels off' and 'here's what it's actually costing you' is where the $5M ceiling lives.
>The Symptoms Show Up Before the Diagnosis Does >
You're somewhere between $5M and $50M in revenue. You have engineers. Maybe a VP of Engineering or a senior developer who's been with you since the early days. On paper, you have tech leadership.
But here's what's actually happening:
The roadmap keeps slipping. Not because the team is lazy — because every sprint is fighting yesterday's shortcuts. The codebase that was "good enough" at $1M is now a load-bearing wall made of duct tape.
One or two engineers know how everything works. If they leave — or just take a vacation — the whole org holds its breath.
You're paying for six AI tools that your team swears are essential. Nobody can tell you which ones are actually moving revenue.
A compliance audit is coming. Or a big enterprise customer asked for your SOC 2. And nobody in your org has done that before.
These aren't random bad luck. They're predictable failure modes that emerge at scale without senior technical judgment at the table. I call it the Empty Chair problem: the seat where a CTO should sit is empty, but the org is making CTO-level decisions every day — just without anyone qualified to make them.
The cost isn't a single catastrophic event. It's slow compounding. Roadmap velocity drops 20-30% as tech debt accrues. Recruiting gets harder because strong engineers smell a chaotic codebase from the interview. Enterprise deals stall on security questionnaires. Each of these is a quiet tax on your growth.
Related: 7 Signs Your Business Needs a Fractional CTO
>The AI Amplifier: Why This Problem Is Worse Right Now >
Here's what's changed in the last 18 months: it's never been easier to build, and it's never been harder to build something that actually matters.
Every vendor has an AI story. Your team is getting pitched new tools weekly. And without senior judgment to filter signal from noise, most companies end up in what I call AI vendor sprawl — stacking subscriptions, running disconnected pilots, and renting capabilities they could own.
Own Don't Rent is one of the first frameworks I install with any client. The principle is simple: if a capability is core to your competitive moat, you should own it — build it, train it, control it. If it's commodity, rent away. The problem is that most teams, without a CTO, can't tell the difference. They're renting what they should own and trying to build what they should rent.
The second thing that happens without senior oversight: no one is setting No-Go Zones. These are the explicit guardrails — the categories of AI use, vendor access, or technical decision-making that are off-limits until a proper evaluation framework exists. No-Go Zones aren't about being cautious. They're about not letting your team make $500K decisions by accident while trying to save $50K on a vendor contract.
I worked with a SaaS company in the $12M ARR range that had accumulated 11 separate AI tool subscriptions across their product and ops teams. Nobody had a full picture of what data was being shared with which vendors. Two of those tools had contractual terms that would have given the vendor rights to model outputs trained on the client's proprietary data. A CTO-level review in week one flagged both. That's not a nice-to-have. That's existential risk dressed up as a productivity tool.
Related: NIST AI RMF: What CTOs Need to Know
>What the Numbers Actually Look Like >
Let me be specific, because this is where the conversation usually gets real.
In one engagement, we traced $62K in recovered or newly closed contract value directly to decisions made in the first 90 days of fractional CTO involvement. That included an enterprise deal that had stalled on a security review — unblocked once we had a proper compliance roadmap in place — and two engineering hires that were re-scoped before offers went out, saving a mis-hire cost that typically runs 1.5-2x annual salary.
The framework I use to sequence the work is DERISK → UNCLOG → SCALE. First, you take the risk off the table — the compliance gaps, the single points of failure, the vendor exposure. Then you unclog the roadmap — clear the tech debt blockers that are slowing sprint velocity. Then, and only then, you build for scale.
Most companies I talk to are trying to SCALE before they've DERISK'd anything. That's why growth feels harder than it should.
Here's the ROI math that makes the fractional model work:
A full-time CTO at this stage costs $250K-$400K in total comp. A fractional CTO engagement runs $8K-$25K per month depending on scope. If you're not yet at the scale where you need daily CTO presence — and most companies under $30M aren't — you're paying for a lot of calendar hours that don't move the needle. The fractional model gives you the judgment without the overhead.
One founder I work with put it this way: 'I didn't need a CTO full-time. I needed a CTO for the twelve hardest decisions I make each year.'
That's exactly right.
>Fractional vs. Full-Time: The Honest Decision Matrix >
This is the question I get most. Here's my straight answer.
Go fractional if:
You're between $5M and $30M in revenue You don't yet have a product-market fit strong enough to justify the full comp package Your tech decisions happen weekly, not daily You need senior judgment and a roadmap, not a hands-on engineering manager You want to reduce hiring risk — use fractional to define the role before you hire into it full-time
Go full-time if:
You're above $30M and have a dedicated engineering org of 10+ people Your product complexity requires daily architectural oversight You're raising a Series B or later and investors expect a named CTO on the team You've already used fractional to build the foundation and you're ready to staff it
The mistake I see most often: founders hire a VP of Engineering when they need a CTO. These are different roles. A VP of Eng executes. A CTO decides. If the strategic layer is missing, a great VP of Eng will still be operating without the context they need — and you'll wonder why things still feel stuck.
Fractional works as the risk-reversed first move. You get CTO-level thinking without a 12-month comp commitment. If it works — and you can measure whether it works because you define the outcomes upfront — you have a much clearer picture of what full-time looks like and who should fill it.
Related: How to Build an AI-Powered Engineering Team: The Fractional CTO’s Playbook for 2025
>The Cost of the Empty Chair >
I want to name the thing that's hard to say out loud in a board meeting or a leadership team offsite.
Every month you run a $10M, $20M, $50M business without a qualified technical voice at the strategy table, you're not in a holding pattern. You're falling behind. The architecture debt is compounding. The AI decisions your team is making without guardrails are creating risk you haven't priced. The enterprise deals that require a credible security story aren't closing.
This isn't about whether your engineers are good. They probably are. This is about whether the right decisions are being made at the right level — by design, not by default.
The Empty Chair doesn't stay empty. It gets filled by whoever is loudest in the room, or most confident, or most recently promoted. Sometimes that works. More often, it's how you end up with an architecture that made sense at $2M and is strangling you at $15M.
The good news: this is a solvable problem. And it's faster to solve than most founders expect, once the right person is in the seat.
If you're reading this and recognizing your org in any of these patterns — the stalled roadmap, the AI sprawl, the compliance question you've been avoiding — let's make the diagnosis concrete. Book a free strategy call. We'll spend 45 minutes mapping your specific gaps, what they're actually costing you, and whether fractional is the right first move. No deck, no pitch. Just a diagnostic. Schedule your call at CTOx.
A friend of mine runs a financial advisory practice. He works with high-net-worth families, has a small office, maybe 10 or 12 employees, and a ton of inefficiencies in how they create content, schedule meetings, and send reports. When I say inefficiency, I mean it takes them six hours to do something that could take one.
But nobody's getting fired if six moves to one. The team has capacity. He needs every person in that office, and the team has enough bandwidth for him to quadruple the client load without hiring anyone else.
So I told him: you're in the convenience category. Yes, we can unclog, but there's no financial impact to it. You're not going to get more clients. You're not going to save any money. If you want to do the project, sure, the only implication is you're going to create a better work environment for your employees, which is super valuable, but it's a different standard to optimize. It's not a standard you optimize and you create enterprise value, meaning the company is worth more or is more profitable or makes more money because you did the activity.
That distinction matters more than most founders realize, especially once you cross the $5M revenue mark. Below that line, inefficiency is annoying but survivable. Above it, one undocumented admin account or a single-person process is what a private equity audit flags first.
Most technology leaders and executive consultants price hourly, sell hourly, think in hourly. They think about success as how many hours they sold and how much they're making per hour. The challenge is that for both you and the client, you're creating an adversarial relationship.
At the beginning of the month, you're thinking, man, if I don't put in time this week I'm not going to make any money. So you're trying to figure out how to collect the hours. By the end of the month, your client is looking at an invoice and they literally just have anxiety about how many hours this person billed me this month. They're really hoping that that one hour they were on Zoom with you, where you did nothing and were just staring at the screen, you didn't bill your fancy $450-an-hour rate.
That frames the entire engagement around effort and not around outcome.
A fractional CTO operates on a different model. Retainers in this space run anywhere from $3,000 or $4,000 a month on the advisory side to $10,000 or $15,000 a month, independent of the hours worked. The relationship is value-driven and value-based. You keep aligning effort and impact with what the business needs, rather than making sure you're logging billable time. Everything orients around impact.
The reason we don't like to describe it as part-time, even though in effect it is not full-time, is because the label part-time really infers part effort or part impact. That's why we prefer fractional. It's a better label that describes the relationship and the impact rather than the effort coming in. We want business owners, and we certainly want CTOs, to focus on delivering value and impact, not be so worried about the input and the effort but rather really focus on what is the actual result from the engagement.
When I walk into a company, I'm listening for specific signals. Spreadsheets, first of all. Is anybody using Excel? Is anybody using a spreadsheet? As soon as that comes up, I already know it's a de-risk. I don't know what it is yet. It's a project of de-risk.
Then if I keep hearing the same name, like one client a couple years ago where the name John kept popping up in five different conversations, I'm thinking, man, if John gets hit by a bus, we're absolutely screwed. Classic keyman risk. And keyman risk can exist on an executive level, in how plans are made and prioritized and decided on, and certainly on lower levels as well. Usually there's one, two, three people who are very capable and say yes to everything. The organization creates processes and activities that rely on those people, and if they are not available, people don't know what to do.
I'm also looking for access control. Literal access. They tell me about some server or some main system, some account system, and I ask who's the administrator, who has admin access, who can delete stuff, who can add stuff. Then I start hearing a name and I'm like, does this make sense? Does a random developer on the engineering team have admin access to the entire account for the company? Where's the code sitting? One time I got to a company where the main website was sitting on a private DigitalOcean server of one of the developers. Not a company account. Not anything. Huge risks.
I'm looking for ownership. Who owns different systems, who has access to different systems.
Organizational risk, IP risk, all of that surfaces through interviews. I'm basically listening. What I try to do in my mind, which also tracks later to the unclog, is ask: if we had an acquisition right now, would we survive due diligence? Having been part of many due diligence teams on both sides, the ones that do and the ones that take, I know what it looks like. Would we survive an audit? Think about a private equity audit or a big company audit or maybe a government audit, Department of Labor, FTC, somebody that really looks into everything.
Would this work if we had 10x more of whatever it is? Ten times more clients, 10x more revenue, 10x more employees. Would this process that I'm looking at work or would it break? With that mindset, when I learn about a process, a team, a system, I ask the 10x question. Can it 10x, whatever that is? Would we survive an audit like a professional audit? Would somebody want to buy this? Would I buy this right now? Would I buy this system, buy this person, buy this process? Would I design this from scratch if I were to solve this problem right now in this way?
That usually creates a good three to six months worth of work before we even get to the other element.
Back to that question of if we had 10x of this activity, 10x clients, emails, customers, revenue, whatever it is, would this break? What would happen? Would it mean we need to hire a ton more people? I'm looking for the manual work. Data entry is a classic area for unclog. Anytime a human is just pushing data from one system to another, that's data entry, and nine out of 10 cases, especially in today's world, could be automated or at the very least semi-automated. If you have 10 people doing that work, you can probably do it with one person and AI.
Unclog is reducing or removing constraints. I'm mapping the processes, how information moves from one person or one department to another, from the company to a customer, from a customer to the company. I'm looking for the speed. My working assumption is, well, if this was just the speed of light, meaning electricity, a computer, how similar or how close can it be to the speed of light? Whatever is not, then I look at that to unclog.
Not all areas are worth unclogging. Might be because of affordability, it's just fine, or there's a bigger priority like scale projects are worth more because the unclog is not a big deal.
Here's a concrete example. Say you have a task that's compounded, meaning three people are doing it. One person takes an hour, another person takes an hour, the last person takes an hour. You found that the middle person, you can drop their hour to one minute with a GPT or something. But if you hadn't changed anything in the bookends of the task, then you didn't create any impact to the team or the organization. That person would have started their job at 12 to 1 and handed off to the other person at 1 to 2, and they would have handed it off at 2 to 3. That 12 to 1 and 2 to 3 are going to stay exactly where they are.
Both from a calendar perspective and total growth time for the task, it's still three hours. It doesn't matter that the middle task suddenly took a minute instead of 59. That's like a 60x efficiency, but it just doesn't matter. Knowing that, you can look at these opportunities and understand what's the actual business impact and how do you articulate the business impact, then prioritize it in a work plan because anything you do is going to take time, money, resources. That's a big part of what I do besides just mapping out the opportunities. I'm a firm believer that not all opportunities for efficiency should be pursued.
Same thing with the unclog. If you're saying, yep, I know how to onboard a client, I know how to service them, let's just get a thousand clients, but then you realize, oh, well, it takes me two days to onboard a single client and now I have a thousand of them, so what do I do? This is like a classic manufacturing issue. We see this a lot in the Kickstarter realm where you have these orders and now you have an actual manufacturing bottleneck. It's like I cannot produce the volume that I ordered. You also see it even with big companies, Apple with some of their iPhone releases back in their heyday.
That's an example of an unclog which by the way creates risk because somebody paid you money, you can't fulfill on it, and at some point their patience is going to go away and they're going to ask for a refund. You build the system to support it and it's a whole thing. Scale in my philosophy really should come last as opposed to first because you don't want to expose the business to these operational challenges and the actual risk. In my view, part of these strong foundations is first of all look at where risk is generated if growth exists.
I don't do standing meetings. I don't want people to get used to my time and my presence. I want them to enjoy the impact, enjoy the value that I bring. All of my engagements and all of the way they experience me is in that context, and it's never in the context of oh yeah, they expect Lior to be in this kind of sprint review meeting or this planning meeting, because then they just expect my time and effort rather than all the impact that I bring in.
There's a lot of value in that, and of course there's just pure basic pricing. It's the classic experiments of people drinking the exact same wine, a $30 bottle, but one has a $1,000 label and another has the $30 label. When people drink the $1,000 one, they start being very poetic about it. Here's the reality: price does create value. The fact that you pitch a certain price for a certain amount of value or effort or presence actually elevates your value and makes people respect you more. It makes sure that their focus is value as well as your focus is value, because now you want to overdeliver and be able to command that premium price.
Time is a big deal. Time and readiness and availability is a big deal part of your value prop, the fact that you're just ready to go. Sometimes I've had cases where people went to RFP, and that's how I won. I won on two things: availability and unlimited. If it's a project that's unlimited design, unlimited iteration, unlimited meetings, I always say it because nobody asked for it. I don't think in my life one time somebody abused it. Well, I had one time, but besides a single time, nobody ever took me up on it.
That's how I won against RFPs. Every time a company actually bids an RFP, they're creating guardrails. How many meetings a week? How many hours? How many hours from project management? How many hours on design? And I come in, oh, it's unlimited everything. So I just win it.
If you're doing consulting in this space, I recommend you start the conversation on impact. Try to talk to your clients and ask what are you trying to do, why you're trying to do it. If you keep them in that state of mind, you're going to be positioned as a leader because that's how your client thinks. The client is thinking what are they trying to do and they have a reason to do it. If you keep the conversation rolling into how are you budgeting, how are you doing it, then they're going to perceive you as a mechanic.
Focus your conversations on impact, which means ask what questions, ask why questions, and not on effort, which is how questions.
At $5M, you're past the point where technology decisions are reversible experiments. The wrong architecture and the wrong vendor lock-in compound. A fractional CTO gives you senior judgment for the handful of high-stakes decisions per year that de-risk growth and unclog constraints, without the overhead of a full-time executive salary.
The ROI shows up in the audits you survive and the keyman risk you document before John gets hit by that bus.
Below $5M you can afford the inefficiency. Above it, one undocumented keyman risk can sink a due diligence.
---
← Back to the blog
Hiring a CTO July 23, 2026
>The Cost of the Empty Chair: What Founders Really Pay for Skipping Senior Tech Leadership >
There’s a chair at the head of your engineering table that’s empty. You’re paying for it whether you know it or not — in stalled roadmaps, wasted sprints, and AI features your team shipped that nobody uses. The cost just doesn’t show up as a line item.
>What ‘We Can’t Afford a CTO’ Actually Costs You >
I hear this from founders constantly. Revenue’s real. Headcount is real. A $350K CTO salary feels like a luxury when you’re watching burn rate.
But here’s the math nobody does.
A typical $10M ARR company with a 6-person engineering team is spending $900K–$1.2M a year on engineering. Without senior technical leadership, research suggests 30–40% of that spend goes toward the wrong things — rework, architectural debt, features that miss the mark, integrations that collapse under load.
That’s $270K–$480K a year. Quietly. Invisibly.
The empty chair isn’t free. It’s just billed in a currency founders don’t track: wasted capacity, delayed revenue, and compounding technical debt that makes every future decision slower and more expensive.
The most expensive line item on your P&L is the one that isn’t there.
Related: The $5M Ceiling: The Hidden Cost of Running Your Tech Org Without a CTO (and When Fractional Beats Full-Time)
>The AI Trap: Easy to Build, Hard to Matter >
Here’s where I’m seeing founders bleed right now, in 2025.
AI tools are cheap. Your engineers can build something that looks impressive in a demo in two weeks. So they do. And then three months later, you’re asking why adoption is flat and the feature isn’t driving retention.
This is the ‘Easy to Build, Hard to Matter’ trap.
Building AI features is not the hard part. Deciding *which* AI capability actually moves your business — that’s the hard part. That’s a strategy call, not an engineering call. And without someone in the chair who can hold that line, your team will default to what’s technically interesting instead of what’s commercially valuable.
I’ve watched companies spend $80K–$120K in engineering time on AI initiatives that had zero measurable impact on revenue or retention. Not because the engineers were bad. Because nobody was asking the right question before the sprint started: ‘Does this matter to the business?’
>The Credibility Problem >
There’s a second cost here that’s harder to quantify but very real.
When your AI features don’t land, you don’t just waste the sprint. You burn credibility — with your board, your customers, and your engineering team. Engineers who keep shipping features that go nowhere lose faith in the roadmap. Attrition follows. And replacing a senior engineer costs 1.5–2x their annual salary in recruiting, ramp time, and lost velocity.
One bad AI bet, multiplied through the team, can cost you $400K before you’ve had a chance to course-correct.
Senior technical leadership — by design, not by default — creates the filter that stops that from happening.
Related: How Fractional CTOs Assess AI Readiness
>The Win That Changed How I Think About This >
Last year, one of our CTOx engagements produced 7 new client wins and $66K in revenue traced directly to a single strategic shift.
Here’s what actually happened.
The company was a $12M ARR SaaS business. Solid product, decent team, founder who was technical but stretched thin across sales, ops, and fundraising. Engineering was running on gut instinct and good intentions. The roadmap was reactive — whatever the biggest customer complained about this month became Q3’s priority.
We put a fractional CTO in the chair. Day one.
>What Changed >
First thing: a No-Go Zones audit. We mapped every initiative the team was working on against three filters — does this retain revenue, generate revenue, or protect revenue? Anything that failed all three got parked. Two ‘exciting’ AI projects got shelved. Three long-running maintenance sprints got killed.
That freed up 40% of engineering capacity.
We redirected that capacity toward a single integration that three enterprise prospects had been asking for. Six weeks to ship. Three of those prospects converted within 90 days.
The other wins came from something subtler: the founder could finally walk into sales conversations and say, with confidence, ‘Here’s our technical roadmap and here’s the person accountable for it.’ That credibility closed deals that had been stalling for months.
This is the DERISK → UNCLOG → SCALE sequence in practice. You can’t scale a clogged system. But most founders try anyway, and wonder why growth feels like pushing against a wall.
>Full-Time vs. Fractional: The Real ROI Comparison >
Let’s do the math directly.
A senior CTO in a major market costs $300K–$400K in base salary, plus equity, plus benefits. You’re at $400K–$500K all-in before they’ve shipped a line of code. Add a 60–90 day ramp before they’re making real decisions. And the market for that caliber of talent is brutal — you might spend 4–6 months recruiting, which means 4–6 more months with the chair empty.
A fractional CTO through CTOx is $8K–$20K per month, depending on intensity. No equity. No 90-day ramp. Senior judgment on day one.
But the real difference isn’t cost. It’s the ‘Own Don’t Rent’ principle applied correctly.
Founders sometimes hear ‘fractional’ and think ‘renting.’ I’d flip that. When you hire a full-time CTO before you’ve validated the strategic direction, you’re renting a title and hoping it works out. When you bring in fractional leadership with a clear mandate and a defined outcome, you own the strategy — with someone accountable for executing it.
The fractional model is not a compromise. For companies between $5M and $100M in revenue, it’s often the higher-ROI choice. You get the judgment without the overhead, at the exact intensity your roadmap actually needs.
Related: The Full-Time CTO Myth: Why Smart Founders Are Choosing Fractional (And Why You Should Too)
>The Three Objections I Hear (And What I Say Back) >
Founders push back in predictable ways. I’ll address them directly.
’We’ll just promote our senior engineer.’
Maybe. But managing a team and setting technical strategy are different skills. Putting a brilliant engineer in a strategy role without the support structure usually burns two things at once: you lose their engineering output, and you get strategy that’s shaped by what’s technically possible rather than what’s commercially necessary. It’s not fair to them, and it’s expensive for you.
’We’ll wait until after the next funding round.’
This is exactly backwards. Investors are backing your team’s ability to execute. Walking into a Series B without a credible technical leader — or without someone who can articulate the technical roadmap — is a valuation problem, not just an operational one. The empty chair costs you points on your multiple.
’We don’t have the budget right now.’
Go back to the math. If you’re spending $900K on engineering and 30% is misdirected, you have $270K in recoverable spend. Redirecting even a fraction of that through better prioritization — which is what a fractional CTO does — pays for itself in the first quarter. The question isn’t whether you can afford it. It’s whether you can afford another quarter without it.
>The Chair Doesn’t Stay Empty >
Here’s the thing about the empty chair.
It doesn’t actually stay empty. Something fills it. Usually, it’s the founder, stretched thin and making technical calls out of their depth. Or the most senior engineer, who’s now split between coding and strategy and doing neither well. Or the loudest customer, whose feature requests become your de facto roadmap.
None of those are by design. All of them are expensive.
The companies I’ve watched scale cleanly from $10M to $50M have one thing in common: someone in the chair who is specifically accountable for making technical strategy a business asset, not a cost center. They didn’t all have full-time CTOs. But they all had that function covered, intentionally.
By design, not by default.
If you’re running a $5M–$100M business and you’ve felt this drag — the stalled roadmap, the AI features that didn’t land, the engineering budget that’s hard to account for — let’s talk. Schedule a free strategy call and we’ll map exactly where the empty chair is costing you, and what it would take to fill it.
A friend of mine runs a financial advisory firm. High net worth families, a small office, maybe 10 or 12 employees, and a ton of inefficiencies in how they work: how they create content, schedule a meeting with a client, send a report. When I say inefficiency, I mean a task that takes them six hours could take one.
So I told him the truth. Nobody's going to get fired if six moves to one. His team has capacity right now, he needs every one of them, and they have enough slack to quadruple the client load without hiring anyone else. "You're in the convenience category," I said. "Yes, we can unclog it, but there's no financial impact. You're not going to get more clients. You're not going to save any money. If you want to do the project, sure, the only implication is you'll create a better work environment for your employees. That's super valuable. But it's a different standard to optimize."
He could see it instantly. A better work environment helps you retain people, and that matters. But it doesn't create enterprise value. The company isn't worth more, isn't more profitable, doesn't make more money because you did the activity.
That conversation is the whole argument for senior technical judgment, and it is the conversation most companies never have, because nobody in the building is paid to have it.
When a company runs without senior tech leadership, the cost doesn't show up as a line item. It shows up as projects that shouldn't have been started, tools bought to solve the wrong problem, and AI bets placed on tasks that were never the bottleneck. The chair looks free. It is the most expensive seat in the company, running somewhere between $270K and $480K a year in rework and misdirected spend.
Here is how the waste compounds. Say you have a task three people touch in sequence. The first person takes an hour, the middle person takes an hour, the last person takes an hour. You find a way to drop the middle person's hour to one minute, maybe with a GPT. That's a 60x efficiency gain, and it changes nothing.
The bookends didn't move. The first person still starts at 12 and hands off at 1. The last person still works 2 to 3. From a calendar perspective and from a total growth-time perspective, the task is still three hours. It doesn't matter that the middle suddenly took a minute instead of 59.
This is what missing judgment looks like in practice. Somebody has to look at these opportunities, understand the actual business impact, articulate it, and prioritize it in a work plan, because anything you do takes time, money, and resources. I'm a firm believer that not all opportunities for efficiency should be pursued. Without that person, every efficiency looks worth pursuing, and the team spends its best hours optimizing the middle of tasks whose bookends never moved.
The same absence of judgment shows up in how companies buy technical help. It's very common for technology leaders and executive consultants to price hourly, sell hourly, think in hourly, measure success by how many hours they sold and how much they made per hour. The challenge, for both sides, is that you're creating an adversarial relationship.
At the beginning of the month, the person selling time is thinking, if I don't put in hours this week, I'm not going to make any money. So they figure out how to collect hours. By the end of the month, the client is looking at an invoice with genuine anxiety about how many hours this person billed. They're really hoping that one hour on Zoom, where the consultant did nothing and stared at the screen, didn't get billed at the fancy $450 rate. The entire engagement gets framed around effort instead of outcome.
I learned this running an agency. I didn't want to sell hours because I didn't want to get locked into hours. Some hours I'm brilliant, and I'm handing the client an insight worth $100,000. Some hours I'm kind of wasting everybody's time. So I moved to a retainer model, because then I can focus on overdelivering. If we agree it's a $10,000 a month engagement, they budget it, maybe they even pay at the beginning of the month, and now I have all the opportunity in the world to overdeliver.
The hourly relationship is negative on both ends. The provider is anxious about not putting in enough time, because otherwise they don't get paid. The client is anxious at the end of the month, checking that each hour was valuable. A company with no senior technical voice inside has no one to push back on this structure, so it signs hourly contracts by default and inherits the anxiety on both sides of the invoice.
When clients ask me how many hours they get, I say unlimited hours. The only reason they ask the question is they're trying to do math, to take the $10,000 a month and divide it into 20 hours and say, man, 500 bucks an hour is so much. They're focused on effort and cost, not value and outcomes.
I say unlimited for two reasons. One, you can't divide by unlimited. It gives you an error, and their brain gets stuck. Two, it makes the point: whatever is needed, I'm going to be there. If suddenly we need to work weekends, if suddenly I need to fly to the client, that's exactly what's going to happen. Focusing on outcome and value instead of time and effort matters because otherwise you find yourself in an anxious position trying to rack up hours, and they keep measuring those hours to make sure they got the value out of them.
That availability is part of the value proposition itself. I've won RFPs on two things: availability and unlimited. If a project is unlimited design, unlimited iteration, unlimited meetings, I say it because nobody asks for it. Every company that bids an RFP creates guardrails. How many meetings a week, how many hours, how many hours of project management, how many hours on design. I come in with unlimited everything, and I just win it. And besides a single time, nobody ever abused it.
I don't do standing meetings either. I don't want people to get used to my time and my presence. I want them to enjoy the impact, enjoy the value I bring. All of my engagements are experienced in that context, never in the context of expecting me in the sprint review or the planning meeting, because then they just expect my time and effort rather than the impact.
The companies that need this most are often the ones that have never paid for it. I had a recent client I really wanted. I knew I could help them, but they'd never paid for a CTO, never paid for a tech leader, and my cash retainer pitch was high. So here's what we did. I deferred payment for 90 days. I worked as usual, and at the day-90 mark they'd pay me for 180 days: the last three months and three months forward. By day 89, maybe day 90, if they decided it wasn't working out, no problem. I'm out. They owe me zero.
That created enough of a de-risked proposition on their end, and now everything is great. They think I created way more value than even the six months of payments they've made.
There are lighter versions of the same move. When people in our accelerator pitch workshops at $7,500, I tell them to change it: say it's $15,000, but $7,500 down and $7,500 at the end when you deliver, if they're satisfied. From the client's perception, they don't pay full price unless they're satisfied. From the service provider's side, you got 100% of the money you would have done it for anyway, upfront, and now it's on you to make sure they're satisfied. They're paying more because they're happy to pay more, and they're going to pay more if you made them happy. The risk is suddenly priced, and it puts both sides on deck, attentive, delivering, nobody abusive.
With that 90-day deferral, I'm taking 100% of the risk, because if by day 90 it didn't work out, I'm all out. But that structure let me command a retainer double most people's normal retainer, because of the positioning. If in three months we don't know whether it's a good fit, don't worry about it. But if we know it's a good fit, I want a bidirectional commitment. I commit to you, you commit to me, with a higher-fee retainer and a split payment model.
Once the frame shifts from effort to outcome, a bigger door opens. If you can't tie your value to results, you'll always be stuck justifying your rate. When you shift the conversation to outcome and results, it's much easier to anchor into much more reward. I have cases where I saved companies literally $400,000 a month by re-engineering their team differently, created millions in savings, tens of millions in revenue because of the systems I built. Tying your reward to those savings and business outcomes is profound. Even at the highest end of our industry, $15K, $20K, $30K a month, that's very different from being able to command another $100,000 bonus, a half-million-dollar bonus, or equity and upside in the company's performance.
Shifting to retainers makes the relationship better for the provider and the results better for the client. These retainers run anywhere from $3,000 or $4,000 a month on the advisory side to $10,000 or $15,000 a month, independent of hours worked.
Two practical rules follow. First, don't use the word hours, don't use the word effort. Don't put "five hours of my time a week" on a menu item, and don't train your client to think about you in terms of effort. Second, don't publish the pricing. When you display pricing on a website or a PDF, you're letting marketing do sales for you, and that's not a good idea. Sales should happen in the context of discovery, in the context of a pain or a problem you can position the solution against. If somebody sees $3,000 or $10,000 and thinks, that's too expensive, they weren't sold, meaning you didn't help them contextualize your value with their problem. Publish the service offerings, keep the pricing for the conversation.
And don't flinch from the price itself. There's the classic experiment where people drink the exact same wine, a $30 bottle, but one glass carries a $1,000 label and the other the store label. The people drinking the $1,000 one get very poetic about it. Price does create value. Pitching a certain price elevates your value, makes people respect you more, and focuses both sides on value, because now you want to overdeliver and command that premium.
Go back to my friend's advisory firm. The inefficiency was real, the 60x gain was available, and the right call was to leave most of it alone, or to do it openly for the employees' sake, at a different standard. That call required someone who could look at the whole map, name what creates enterprise value and what creates convenience, and say no to the attractive project.
That is what a fractional senior leader buys: the judgment to redirect wasted capacity toward revenue-moving work, at a fraction of full-time cost, starting on day one. The empty chair is already costing you the $270K to $480K. The only question is whether it keeps costing it in the middle of three-hour tasks nobody thought to question.
---
← Back to the blog
Hiring a CTO August 12, 2026
>The $400K Mistake: Why a Bad Full-Time CTO Hire Costs More Than You Think (And How a Fractional CTO Found $66K Hiding in the Books) >
A founder I know spent $400K on a CTO hire that lasted 14 months. When I walked into his business six weeks after that person left, I found $66K in revenue sitting in untagged deals — money the team had earned but never properly attributed. He didn't have a tech problem. He had a visibility problem. And the wrong hire made it invisible for over a year.
>The Real Cost of a Bad CTO Hire (It's Not the Salary) >
Let's do the math nobody wants to run.
A mid-market CTO in 2024 costs $200K–$280K in base salary. Add equity — typically 0.5–1.5% for a company at your stage. Add benefits, onboarding, the recruiter fee (usually 20–25% of first-year comp). Now add the opportunity cost of 60–90 days of interviews while your tech debt quietly compounds.
You're already past $350K before they've shipped a single feature.
But that's not where it bleeds most.
The real cost is what happens in months 4 through 14 when the wrong person is making architectural decisions that will take years to unwind. When your team is building on a stack that doesn't scale. When deals stall because integrations are brittle. When your engineering team — your best people — start quietly updating their LinkedIn profiles because the new CTO's instinct is to control, not enable.
I've seen this pattern more times than I care to count. A founder who runs a tight, financially disciplined operation hands the keys to a technical leader who seems impressive in interviews, then watches margin erode for the better part of a year before they can name what's wrong.
By the time severance is paid and the search restarts, you're looking at $400K–$600K in total cost of a single bad hire. That's not a tech problem. That's a strategic risk you absorbed without knowing it.
Related: The Empty Chair: What Every Month Without a CTO Is Really Costing Your Company (And the ROI-Positive Fix)
>The $66K Case Study: What 'The Team Has It Handled' Actually Looks Like >
Let me tell you about a real engagement — anonymized, but the numbers are exact.
A founder running a $12M ARR SaaS company brought me in six weeks after parting ways with their full-time CTO. He wasn't sure what he needed. He just knew something felt off. Revenue had flatlined despite the sales team hitting their numbers. The engineering team was shipping, but nothing felt connected to outcomes.
This is what I call The Empty Chair problem — not the literal empty seat, but the leadership vacuum where no one is translating business goals into technical priorities. The former CTO had been busy. Just busy on the wrong things.
>The Silent Leak >
In week one of the diagnostic, I pulled deal data alongside the product usage logs. The sales team had been closing deals in a vertical the company had never formally prioritized — a segment with 40% better retention and 22% higher ACV than their core market. But because nobody had tagged these deals in the CRM with a vertical flag, and nobody had connected the CRM to the product analytics, this was invisible.
The revenue was real. The insight was not.
>The Diagnosis >
The leak wasn't a bug. It was a systems gap — a failure of what I call Own Don't Rent thinking. The team had rented its data infrastructure from three different tools that didn't talk to each other. Nobody owned the full picture. The CTO had been managing the engineering team. Nobody was managing the information architecture.
This is where senior pattern recognition matters more than full-time presence. A fractional CTO who has seen 30 companies at your stage knows where to look in week one. A junior VP of Engineering promoted into the role — which happens more often than founders admit — will spend six months learning the terrain you're paying them to navigate.
>The Named Outcome >
By tagging the existing unattributed deals and building a simple attribution layer between the CRM and the product database — a two-week engineering project — we surfaced $66K in recoverable revenue from deals that were closed but never properly processed. Not new deals. Money already earned, sitting unattributed in the books.
We also identified the vertical opportunity. The founder is now building a dedicated motion for it. The downstream value is multiples of that $66K. But the $66K was the proof point that something was broken and that fixing it was fast and cheap.
Related: How Fractional CTOs Show ROI to Clients
>Three Objections I Hear Every Time (And What I Tell Founders) >
Founders who need this kind of help are often the last to book the call. Here's why — and why the math doesn't support waiting.
>'I Can't Afford Another Executive Right Now' >
You're already paying for one. You're paying in stalled releases, in margin you can't account for, in the engineering hours spent rebuilding things that were built wrong the first time. A fractional engagement — typically $8K–$20K per month depending on depth — is a fraction of what the leak costs you each month. The question isn't whether you can afford the diagnostic. It's whether you can afford to keep running blind.
>'How Can Someone Part-Time Really Understand My Business?' >
This is the intuition that sounds right but inverts the actual dynamic. A fractional CTO who has operated inside 20–30 companies at your stage brings pattern recognition you cannot hire full-time. The value isn't presence — it's diagnosis. A doctor doesn't need to live in your house to tell you what's wrong. They need to know what to look for. Systematized diagnosis beats full-time presence when the problem is a pattern, not a personality.
The DERISK → UNCLOG → SCALE framework I use in every engagement is specifically designed to sequence the work: first, find and stop what's bleeding (DERISK); then remove what's blocking velocity (UNCLOG); then build the infrastructure that compounds (SCALE). You can get meaningful DERISK results in four to six weeks. That's not part-time. That's focused.
>'How Do I Even Know If My Tech Is The Problem?' >
Fair question. Here are five signals I look for in the first conversation with a founder:
Your releases are slowing down, not speeding up — even as the team grows. Headcount scaling without velocity scaling is a systems problem. You can't tell me which features drove your last $500K in expansion revenue. If the answer is 'I'd have to ask,' attribution is broken. Your engineers are fixing the same categories of bugs repeatedly. Recurring bug types mean architectural debt, not execution problems. You have data in three or more tools that don't talk to each other. Every gap between tools is a gap in your visibility. You've lost a key technical person in the last 12 months and you're not sure why. Retention is a leading indicator of leadership and system health.
If two or more of these are true, your tech is costing you money you haven't quantified yet.
Related: 7 Signs Your Business Needs a Fractional CTO
>Why 'By Design' Beats 'By Default' Every Time >
The founder who lost $66K didn't make bad decisions. He made no decisions — because he didn't know there were decisions to make. His technical infrastructure was running by default: tools chosen opportunistically, processes inherited from the previous team, data sitting in silos nobody had deliberately connected.
This is the No-Go Zone I try to get founders out of fastest: the zone where the business is scaling but the technical decision-making is on autopilot. Autopilot works until it doesn't. And when it stops working at $15M ARR, the cost of fixing it is substantially higher than it would have been at $8M.
The companies I've seen scale cleanly through $10M to $50M share one thing: their technical systems were designed, not inherited. Decisions about what to build, what to buy, and what to connect were made intentionally — by someone who could see the whole picture and translate it into business outcomes.
That's what a fractional CTO does at its best. Not coding. Not managing sprints. Translating. Connecting the business you're trying to build to the technical systems that either enable it or quietly tax it.
The $400K mistake isn't hiring the wrong person. It's assuming the technical layer of your business can run without that kind of stewardship — and finding out the hard way what the gap was costing you.
If two or more of those five signals hit close to home, let's run the diagnostic together. Book a Tech Cost Diagnostic call — one conversation, no deck, no pitch. We look at your actual numbers and I tell you what I see. That's it. Schedule your free strategy call at CTOx.
When I was running an agency, I hit a wall with hourly billing. I realized that some hours I was brilliant, giving a client an insight worth $100,000, and some hours I was just wasting everybody's time. I hated the feeling of being locked into hours, so I shifted to a retainer model. If we agreed it was a $10,000 a month engagement, they knew exactly the budget, they paid me at the beginning of the month, and I had all the opportunity in the world to overdeliver.
That shift changed everything. Before that, the relationship felt adversarial. At the beginning of the month, I was thinking, if I don't put in time this week, I'm not going to make any money. By the end of the month, the client was looking at the invoice with anxiety, hoping I hadn't billed them $450 an hour for that one Zoom call where I did nothing but stare at the screen. The entire engagement was framed around effort, not outcome.
This is the same trap companies fall into when they hire a full-time CTO. They look at the salary, maybe $200,000 or $300,000, and they think that's the cost of technology leadership. If the CTO salary is out of reach, the technology build is too. You really want to spend at least half a million a year, but most companies are in that 1, 2, 3 million a year plus range. Spending another 150 or 200 on making sure that million or $5 million is spent correctly is a no-brainer. Because if it's misspent even by 10%, that's 100 grand on a million. For every million, that's 100 grand.
I recently took on a client who had never paid for a CTO, never paid for a tech leader. My cash retainer pitch was high, and I knew it. But I had high confidence I could help them, so I offered a deferral. I said, I'm going to work as usual, but you're going to pay me zero for the first 90 days. On day 91, you're going to pay me for six months. You're going to pay me for the last three months and the next three months. If by day 89 or day 90 you decide it's not working out, no problem. You owe me zero.
That de-risked the whole thing for them. Now they're happy, and they think I created way more value than even the six months of payment they eventually made. I know I'm going to create eight-figure value for them, maybe nine-figure value, and be able to tap into an eight-figure opportunity. But I could only make that offer because I wasn't counting hours. If I had been billing by the hour, the client would have been watching the clock, anxious about every meeting, and I would have been anxious about justifying my existence instead of finding the money.
The hourly mindset creates losses for both sides. At the beginning of the month, you're anxious about not putting in enough effort, enough time, because otherwise you're not going to get paid. The client is anxious making sure you didn't rack up too many hours and that those hours were each valuable. Everything is oriented around impact when you remove the clock.
I don't do standing meetings. I don't want people to get used to my time and my presence. I want them to enjoy the impact, enjoy the value that I bring. All of my engagements and the way they experience me is in that context. It's never in the context of expecting me to be in this sprint review meeting or that planning meeting, because then they just expect my time and effort rather than all the impact that I bring.
Price creates value. It's the classic experiment of people drinking the exact same wine, like a $30 bottle, but one has this $1,000 label. When they drink the $1,000 one, they start being very poetic about it. The fact that you pitch a certain price for a certain amount of value or effort or presence actually elevates your value and makes people respect you more. It makes sure their focus is value as well as your focus, because now you want to overdeliver and be able to command that premium price.
This frees the CTO to hunt for waste. A friend of mine is a financial adviser with a small office, 10 or 12 employees, and a ton of inefficiencies. When I say inefficiency, I mean it takes them six hours to create content or schedule a meeting and send a report, and it can take them one. But nobody's going to get fired if six moves to one. The team has capacity. He needs all the team members. The team has enough capacity for him to quadruple the amount of clients without hiring anyone else. I told him, you're in the convenience category. Yes, we can unclog, but there's no financial impact to it. You're not going to get more clients. You're not going to save any money.
A fractional CTO walks in looking for the 10% waste hiding on a million-dollar spend, which is $100K nobody else went looking for. They have no seat to defend, so they spend the whole engagement hunting the inefficiency everyone else stepped over.
I tell clients the retainer is unlimited hours. When they ask how many hours they get, I say unlimited because you can't divide by unlimited. It gives you an error, and their brain gets stuck. They're trying to do math, trying to take the $10,000 a month pitch to 20 hours and say, man, 500 bucks an hour is so much. But I say whatever is needed I'm going to be there. If suddenly we need to work weekends, if suddenly I need to fly to the client, that's exactly what's going to happen. Focusing immediately on outcome and value as opposed to time and effort is very important because You end up anxious, racking up hours to justify the rate. They keep measuring those hours.
We try to shift people's mindset from hourly to retainer. Once they see the retainer as a bet on outcomes, the relationship improves for both sides. Really, if you can't tie your value to results, you'll always be stuck justifying your rate. When you can shift the conversation into outcome and results, then it's much easier to anchor into much more reward. I have cases where I saved companies literally $400,000 a month by re-engineering their team differently or created millions of dollars of savings or tens of millions in revenue because of the systems that I built.
When you have the right relationship and the right frame tying your reward to those savings and those business outcomes, you can charge a premium rate. Even if you charge the highest end of the industry, like 15, 20, 30,000 a month, that's very different than being able to command another $100,000 bonus or a half a million dollar bonus or equity in the company's performance.
So how do you structure this without betting the company? You de-risk the engagement. For workshops, I often recommend doing half up front and half at the end when I deliver, if they like the delivery. If you're pitching 10,000, you're getting five right now, so you know they can pay and you know they're serious. At the end, if you're not delivering a product people want, maybe you don't deserve the other five. It puts both sides on deck to make sure both sides are attentive and delivering.
I had a fractional client just this year where I said, pay me in 3 months. You're going to pay me zero for the first 90 days, but day 91 you're going to pay me for six months. That kind of deal allowed me to command a retainer that's double most people's normal retainer because I'm actually positioning. It's like, hey, if in 3 months we're not going to know if this is a good fit, don't worry about it. But if we know it's a good fit, I want a bidirectional commitment. I'm going to commit to you. You're going to commit to me with a higher fee retainer.
The $400K mistake is the year of misspent technology budget: the 10% inefficiency on every million and the revenue that leaked out while you managed a full-time presence instead of fixing the problem. The fractional CTO finds the $100K-per-million because they walk in looking for value. They ask what would need to happen for this to feel like a bargain, because people want bargains. Then they go find the money.
---
← Back to the blog
Becoming a CTO July 9, 2026
>You Have the Experience. You’re Still Failing Fractional. Here’s Why. >
Meet David. Twenty-two years in tech. Ex-VP at a company you’ve definitely heard of. Shipped products used by tens of millions of people. Went fractional eighteen months ago — and last year, he earned less than the senior engineers he used to manage.
This isn’t a cautionary tale about incompetence. David is brilliant. The problem is that brilliant doesn’t bill.
>The Entry Fee Nobody Mentions >
Every fractional CTO I’ve met came from somewhere impressive. FAANG. Series C. IPO. They carry the scars of midnight incidents, board presentations, and roadmaps they fought for in rooms full of people who didn’t understand what they were building.
That experience is real. It’s valuable. And it is exactly the wrong thing to lead with when you go fractional.
Here’s the brutal truth: your experience is the entry fee. It gets you in the room. It does not get you the contract. It does not build the pipeline. It does not stop the feast-famine cycle that quietly breaks most fractional practices in year one.
The fractional CTO market is filling up with world-class technologists who are failing commercially. Not because they’re not sharp — but because no one told them they’d moved from one game to a completely different one.
You left corporate because you were done shipping roadmaps designed by committee. Done navigating the Corporate Red Tape Tax — that invisible surcharge on every good idea, measured in approval cycles, politics, and quarterly resets. You wanted autonomy. Impact on your own terms. Work that actually moves.
Those are the right reasons to go fractional. They’re just not a business model.
Let’s talk about what actually is.
Related: The $5M Ceiling: The Hidden Cost of Running Your Tech Org Without a CTO (and When Fractional Beats Full-Time)
>Gap #1: The Positioning Gap — You’re Selling Experience to Buyers Who Don’t Care >
When a founder or CEO hires a fractional CTO, they’re not buying your resume. They’re buying an outcome. Specifically: they want their technology to stop being the reason the company can’t grow.
Most fractional CTOs position like this: *”I’ve led engineering teams at scale. I’ve built distributed systems. I’ve managed 40-person orgs.”*
The buyer hears: *”I’m expensive and I’ll need time to learn your business.”*
The positioning that actually converts sounds more like: *”I help Series A companies stop losing deals because their platform can’t handle enterprise security reviews — and I do it without a full-time executive hire.”*
One is a credential. One is a result. Buyers — especially founders who’ve never hired a CTO before — are not equipped to translate credentials into results. That translation is your job.
>Own Don’t Rent applies here >
When you position on experience, you’re renting attention. Every competitor with a similar background competes with you directly. When you position on a specific outcome for a specific buyer in a specific situation, you own that territory. Nobody else is saying exactly that thing, to exactly that person, about exactly that problem.
The fix isn’t complicated but it does require honesty. Write down the three deals you’re most proud of winning. Not what you did — what changed for the company because you were there. Build your positioning around that. Test it in one paragraph. If it could appear on any consulting firm’s website without editing, delete it and start over.
>Gap #2: The Pipeline Gap — Referrals Are Not a Strategy >
I’ll say this plainly because nobody else will: if your entire business development strategy is “I’ll tell some people I’m available and see what happens,” you don’t have a pipeline. You have a wish.
Referrals feel like a strategy because they worked in your first few months. The network mobilizes when you announce the transition. Contracts appear. You think: *this is going to be fine.*
Then those contracts end. And the network has moved on. And you’re starting from zero in month nine.
This is the feast-famine cycle. And it will absolutely destroy your practice if you don’t interrupt it by design.
>What a real pipeline looks like >
A sustainable fractional practice needs three things running in parallel:
1. A consistent signal — something you publish, share, or say regularly that reminds the right people you exist and what you’re about. Not a newsletter nobody reads. A point of view that earns attention.
2. A referral system — not hoping former colleagues remember you, but actively asking specific people for specific introductions to specific types of companies, on a cadence you control.
3. A reactivation loop — past clients, warm leads, people who said “not right now” six months ago. Most fractional CTOs never follow up. The ones who do close deals that didn’t exist before they sent the email.
Pipeline is not a personality trait. It’s a system. Build it by design, not by default.
>Gap #3: The Pricing Gap — You’re Charging for Hours, Not Outcomes >
Here’s a number that will either validate you or sting a little: the average fractional CTO charges somewhere between $200 and $350 per hour when they start out. The ones with sustainable, growing practices are often charging two to three times that — not because they’re more experienced, but because they’ve built a value narrative that a C-suite buyer can actually justify.
Hourly pricing is a trap. It commoditizes you. It puts you in a conversation about how many hours something takes rather than what it’s worth when it’s done. It makes every proposal feel like a negotiation.
The shift is from time-based to outcome-based engagement structures. What does it cost a $10M ARR company to not have a clear technology roadmap for six months? What’s the deal they lose because their security posture isn’t enterprise-ready? What does one bad architecture decision cost them in eighteen months of re-platforming?
When you can put numbers on the problem, the fee for solving it stops being the question.
>The DERISK → UNCLOG → SCALE framework >
Most early-stage companies need their fractional CTO to do exactly these three things in sequence: remove technical risk (DERISK), remove the bottleneck slowing growth (UNCLOG), and build the infrastructure for the next phase (SCALE).
Each phase has a different value. Each can be priced as a distinct engagement. This is how you move from one rolling retainer — always at risk of cancellation — to a structured relationship with natural expansion points built in.
Scope the first engagement to DERISK. Deliver it well. Then you’re already in the room when it’s time to UNCLOG.
Related: The Full-Time CTO Myth: Why Smart Founders Are Choosing Fractional (And Why You Should Too)
>Gap #4: The Engagement Gap — Winging It Is Not a Framework >
You know how to run a technology organization. You’ve done it. What most fractional practitioners don’t have is a repeatable way to onboard a new client, scope the work, deliver it, and then expand the relationship — without reinventing the process every single time.
Every time you start a new engagement from scratch, you’re losing time you can’t bill, energy you can’t recycle, and leverage you can’t build.
The fractional model only works at scale — financially and personally — if you have a practice architecture. A way of starting engagements that lets you get to value faster. A scoping conversation that surfaces the right problems without a two-week discovery process. An onboarding that builds trust quickly without requiring you to be on every call.
>No-Go Zones protect the model >
Part of engagement architecture is knowing what you will not do. No-Go Zones are the work that looks like it fits but quietly pulls you back into the role you left. The fractional CTO who ends up managing sprint planning every week. The one who becomes the de facto Head of Engineering because nobody else stepped up.
Those are full-time jobs billed at fractional rates. They don’t scale. They burn you out. And they crowd out the clients who actually need what you’re best at.
Define your No-Go Zones early. Put them in your proposals. Hold the line.
>What Actually Builds a Practice >
I want to be direct here because I’ve watched too many sharp people spend year one learning the wrong lessons.
Going fractional doesn’t automatically make you a business. It makes you self-employed. There’s a meaningful difference. A business has positioning that attracts the right clients. A pipeline that doesn’t depend on luck. Pricing that reflects the value being delivered. And engagement structures that scale without requiring more of you every time a new client signs.
None of this is beyond you. You’ve built harder things. You’ve led organizations through more complexity than this.
But it requires the same thing you’d tell any founder who tried to scale a product without architecture: you have to build the system, not just the feature.
The fractional CTOs who hit predictable revenue in year one didn’t do it because they were smarter or more credentialed. They did it because they had a structured path — a way to build the commercial side of their practice with the same rigor they brought to the technical side.
That’s exactly what the CTOx Accelerator is built to provide.
If you’re already fractional — or seriously thinking about making the move — and you want to build a practice that’s predictable, not just possible, apply to the CTOx Accelerator. It’s a structured program built specifically for senior technologists who are done guessing at the commercial side. The next cohort has limited spots. Apply here and let’s see if it’s the right fit.
Ready to go fractional? Get Started
I have a client, one of my recent new clients, where I really wanted the relationship. I knew I could help them. But they'd never paid for a CTO, never paid for a tech leader, and my cash retainer pitch was high. Here's what I proposed. I'm going to defer payment for 90 days. I'm going to work as usual, but come day 90 you're going to pay me for 180 days. The last 3 months and 3 months forward. And by day 89, maybe even day 90, if you decide it's not working out, no problem. No skin off your back. I'm out. You owe me zero, zilch.
That created enough of a de-risk proposition on their end, and now everything is great. They think I created way more value than even the six months of payment they've done. And I know I'm going to create nine-figure value for them and tap into an eight-figure opportunity.
Most fractional CTOs never get to that conversation. They fail commercially, and it rarely has anything to do with technical skill. The failure happens earlier, in how they position and how they price.
From a sales standpoint, you want the prospect focused on outcome, and you get there by putting them into visioning. What are you trying to do? Why are you trying to do it? Focus on outcome. They learn that they can talk to you on the vision level. That's the key difference between a CTO and, let's say, a VP or a director. A leader versus a manager.
Pure tactically speaking, you don't want to share your price until the outcome is exciting in the prospect's mind. If you get to the what and why, and they're like, "Yep, we're going to do this, add 2 million, save 10, add 50 million to the business." Okay, I can solve all of this for $150,000 a year. By the time you talk about your cost, quote unquote, it's in the context of this big result that both of you were just elevating inside the conversation.
It helps solidify you as a visionary and a co-pilot, because you're talking about vision and impact rather than cost. About outcome. And it positions you for a much better conversation when numbers do come into play, because then your number comes in against the big aspiration of your client and not in the context of hours or effort.
The reason we don't like to describe part-time, even though in effect it is not full-time, is because the label part-time really infers part effort. Or part impact. That's why we prefer fractional. It describes the relationship and the impact rather than the effort coming in. We want business owners, and we certainly want CTOs, focused on delivering value and impact, not so worried about the input but really focused on what is the actual result from the engagement.
When you have referral channels, they're doing the sale for you. Remember, all marketing activities, the purpose of them is to get a meeting. Once you're in the meeting, it's like the purpose of a high school diploma is to go to college. Once you're in college, nobody cares about your high school diploma. So once you're in the meeting, all your marketing content means nothing. And when it's a referral channel, they're the one getting you the meeting. They're the one fishing for you, not your brochure.
Referrals keep coming, so they feel like a pipeline. They arrive on the referrer's schedule, though, and a network only sends what it happens to send.
Until you have confidence in the niche you want to pursue, you can certainly just say fractional CTO. Provide technology leadership at a fraction of the cost. The biggest one in Atlanta would be ATDC, by far. So go to ATDC. They have an entrepreneur night. I built their mentor program almost fifteen years ago, built it up over the course of three, four years, and it's great. Great for networking. Got a bunch of projects and contracts through ATDC.
Especially early on, you need the reps. When I was a young startup entrepreneur, we had a couple of these VCs in Israel that were a nightmare to pitch because they were just so difficult. Bad energy, 50 questions, notoriously hard to get money from. And everybody went to pitch them anyway because it's great practice. You need the reps right now, and you're building a network at the same time. The CEOs who hire CTOs also know other CEOs who hire CTOs, so each room compounds.
We highly recommend, don't use the word hours. Don't use the word effort. Don't add to your menu item, oh, this is going to give you five hours of my time a week or a month. Just don't say that. Don't train your client to think about you in terms of effort. We really recommend not saying it and certainly not writing it or publishing it.
The other thing is not publishing the menu. If you publish a menu, meaning you list your pricing on the website or a PDF or an email, you're letting marketing do sales for you. And that's not a good idea. You really want to do sales in the context of discovery, in the context of a pain or a problem, where you position the solution. If somebody just sees 3,000 or 10,000 and they're automatically like, oh, that's too expensive or I can't afford it, well, they weren't sold. You never tied the price to their problem. You can publish the menu in terms of service offerings, but don't publish the pricing. It gives you more flexibility and makes sure the sales conversations happen in a sales context.
I don't do standing meetings. I don't want people to get used to my time and my presence. I want them to enjoy the impact, enjoy the value that I bring. So all of my engagements and all of the way they experience me is in that context, and it's never in the context of, oh yeah, they expect Lior to be in this sprint review meeting or this planning meeting, because then they just expect my time and effort rather than all the impact that I bring in.
Price does create value. It's the classic experiment, people drinking the exact same wine, a $30 bottle, but one has a thousand-dollar label. When they drink the $1,000 one, they start being very poetic about it. The fact that you pitch a certain price for a certain amount of value elevates your value and makes people respect you more. It makes sure their focus is value and your focus is value, because now you want to overdeliver and command that premium price.
Our big premise for the pitch, for the big retainer, is I can give you 100% of the outcome for a fraction of the price. And we make sure to frame the fraction in the context of the cost and not the context of the outcome. Because most people conflate the two. They say, "Oh, part time, part result. Fraction effort, fraction result."
The reality is you have a big gun. You're a shotgun. And they don't need your entire ammunition. That's why you're fractional. There's no need for more of your time because it's only a 5% engineering team and you can manage 80. So why would they pay for it? Why would you waste the time watching paint dry? Just framing that alone is a big deal, making sure that we're talking about the right context of fraction and that you can drive the outcome, the value, the why for less cost. The alternative is a full-time hire of a technology leader that is dramatically more expensive, multiple more expensive than standard retainers of fractional leaders.
All of them at the beginning, for the clients, are surprising amounts, because their frame for a CTO is normally in the starting frame of 20-30,000 a month. So you're already introducing low five figures, and low four figures is novel. They're curious. It also disarms them on a pilot period, because in their mind, hiring a full-time CTO is a huge commitment, very scary, usually comes with severance issues if it doesn't work out, and all of these modalities of pricing seem cheaper. Which creates the other side of it, which is you need to communicate the value and the outcome.
So you want to contextualize the services with whatever you were talking about. If they have a need to manage a team in order to accomplish the goal, then you can talk about your engage-level service, for example the 10,000, 12,000, in that context.
Deferral of payment is really good. One of the common ones we recommend in the program when people pitch workshops for like 5, 10, 15 grand is half up front, half on delivery if they like the result. On a $10,000 pitch you collect $5,000 immediately, which proves they can pay and that they're serious. And at the end, well, if you're not delivering a product people want, maybe you don't deserve the other five. It puts both sides on deck to make sure both sides are attentive and they're delivering and nobody's abusive.
Very common in the accelerator, when people do workshops, they might pitch it for like $7,500. And I tell them, hey, let's change this. Let's say it's 15,000, but it's 7500 down and 7500 at the end when you deliver, if they're satisfied. That frame is super interesting because from a perception standpoint on the client, it puts this perception that they're not going to pay the full price unless they're satisfied. From a service provider perspective, you basically got 100% of the money you would have done it anyway, but upfront. And now it actually puts it on you to make sure that they're satisfied. So it gets to this point where they're paying more if they're happy to pay more, and they're going to pay more if you made them happy. It's a dual position where it makes the deal better for both sides, both on the remuneration and on the quality.
The risk is suddenly priced. I'm basically paying 50%, so it's not zero. Now, some of the de-risk element, you can say zero, don't pay me at all. Sometimes I do it. Like I had a fractional client just this year that said, hey, just pay me in 3 months. You're going to pay me zero for the first 90 days, but day 91 you're going to pay me for six months. The last three months and the next three months. And that's also a great de-risk. In that kind of deal, I'm taking 100% of the risk, because if by day 90 it didn't work out, I'm all out. But that kind of a deal allowed me to command a retainer that's double most people's normal retainer, because I'm actually positioning. It's like, hey, if in 3 months we're not going to know if this is a good fit, don't worry about it. But if we know it's a good fit, I want a bidirectional commitment. I'm going to commit to you. You're going to commit to me with a higher fee retainer and a split payment model.
Availability and unlimited scope won me deals against RFPs. When a company bids out an RFP, they usually set guardrails: how many meetings a week, how many hours of design. I came in offering unlimited design and unlimited iteration, and that was a big part of why I won. I always said it because nobody asked for it. One time, a client actually took me up on it; otherwise nobody ever did.
The pattern underneath all of this is simple. Fractional CTOs who build real businesses sell outcomes, priced against the size of the problem, with the risk structured so the client can say yes.
You want to contextualize your services with whatever you were talking about. Make sure that frame is there, make sure you contextualize your service, whatever menu it is. Get them into visioning first, so they name the goal and the reason behind it. Then the number lands against that goal, and the deal structure carries the risk.
---