$30–40M is the run-rate at ~100 quality-gated facilitators — our near-term goal. 40 next year is the ramp (~$8M exit ARR), on top of ~$3M today and ~$5M latent in accounts we deliberately under-built. Not a claim of $40M GAAP next year — the machine that produces a $30–40M run-rate, and the count that gets there.
Each rung is the same unit economics multiplied by facilitator count — facilitators × 5 clients × ($7,000 setup take + $64,350 recurring take). 40 is what we ramp to next year; 100 “good ones” is where the near-term target sits; 500 is the ceiling, and it uses only ~21% of the credible facilitator supply. The full recognized-vs-run-rate reconciliation lives in the revenue section below — this is the staircase, that’s the accounting.
Revenue’s concentrated today — two logos, honestly. And the diversification thesis is the channel. LEVR runs marketing for a 260-location brand and an 80-location brand — two enterprise instances at ~$1.5M each, ~$3M ARR — two logos into a market of thousands. The concentration isn’t a ceiling; it’s the first two points on a line the facilitator channel is built to extend.
“Revenue’s concentrated today — two logos, honestly. The diversification thesis is the channel. LEVR runs marketing for a 260-location brand; we’re two logos into a market of thousands.”
Multi-location brands are the focus for the next 120 days: the facilitator channel (a facilitator is a commission-only partner-seller who brings their own clients and costs nothing until they close) — LEVR’s structural advantage — is precisely what breaks into an otherwise hard-to-reach segment, and the per-client economics ($35k setup + up to $150–155k/yr recurring) are the best of the three. CPG / brand-forward is the same motion one step out. Everything-else / commercial is a real future subscription business (~$50k/yr, direct sales) that is unstaffable today and deferred until the product runs without a workshop.
| Rank | ICP | Weighted score | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Multi-location brands | 4.45 | Focus now. Best ACV + the channel is built to crack it. |
| 2 | CPG / brand-forward | 3.65 | Next. Same channel motion, broader to define; run in parallel. |
| 3 | Everything-else / commercial | 2.65 | Later. Biggest pool, weakest fit today — deferred until self-serve. |
Factors & weights: TAM/volume 20% · ease-to-sell 20% · revenue-per-client 20% · product-readiness 15% · channel leverage 25%. The two factors that gate the next 120 days — channel leverage and product-readiness — carry the decisive weight.
The load-bearing claim: a multi-location business points LEVR at their market once, and from then on the platform never waits to be asked — it runs every week, re-researching that market and building and deploying their marketing across every channel, the way a world-class team would, without the team. Under the hood it’s a company brain that learns your business, then markets for you forever. The delivery feels like a service; the thing being sold, versioned, and scaled is a product.
Frame the workshop and 48-hr build as the installation of the product, not the product itself. The recurring subscription is the business — where every metric an investor values (ARR, versioning, defensibility, margin) lives. The service-feeling lives only in the setup. “We’re Salesforce, not a Salesforce consultancy.”
Keep them separate. “Our facilitators sell a service — their own scope of work, their own relationship. They deliver it using our product. We’re the product; they’re the channel. That separation is exactly why the channel works: they keep the service margin, we keep the recurring product revenue.”
“I set my phone on the table Wednesday and hit record. By Friday their whole marketing engine is live across every location. No hires, no agency, 48 hours.”
We didn’t build a sales team — we onboarded one operator, Brian. He brought 5 clients, then referred the next himself, unpaid. A facilitator is a 1099 contractor (a commission-only partner-seller who brings their own clients and costs nothing until they close) — an elite operator with relationships enterprise sales can’t buy, who now needs an AI edge. They own the client relationship; LEVR owns the product and the tech. LEVR collects all client money and pays out the channel — the single most important structural fact for an investor: there’s no deal to route around.
| Revenue line | Split | Facilitator keeps | LEVR keeps |
|---|---|---|---|
| $35k setup / workshop | 80 / 20 | 80% | 20% |
| Recurring (never waits to be asked — runs every week) | 90 / 10 | 10% | 90% ← the annuity |
| Facilitator’s own SOW / services | — | 100% | 0% |
Read it the way an investor should: LEVR gives away the front-end ($35k, 80% to the facilitator) to buy a motivated seller, then keeps 90% of the recurring — forever. Setup is customer-acquisition cost paid to the channel; recurring is the business.
When investors say “channel,” they picture CDW / SHI / Insight — resellers pushing someone else’s software. LEVR isn’t selling software through a channel; it’s selling a service, delivered by an operator who already owns the relationship and needs LEVR to stay relevant. That’s why it’s a 2-call close, not a 12-month one — and why Brian brought us five clients, then referred Andrew Nash, before we’d tried to scale him. The relationship breaks the barrier; the platform delivers the outcome.
“We didn’t build a sales team — we onboarded one operator, Brian. Five clients, then he referred the next himself, unpaid. Field Nation for marketers: we own the platform and the money; a network of operators brings the relationships.”
The moat isn’t one thing an investor can poke a hole in — it’s three locks that compound, each getting stronger the longer a client stays.
It learns your business, then markets for you forever — and every week it re-researches your market. The knowledge base deepens with tenure, so switching away means starting a compounding asset over from zero. Net-revenue-retentive by construction.
Every account is paired with a LEVR integrator who owns the build and the tech. The client isn’t handed a tool they could walk off with — the relationship is the delivery. There’s nothing to take and leave.
Operators refer operators, unpaid (Brian referred the next himself). The channel grows without a downline check — a network that compounds itself and gets cheaper to expand as it scales.
Merchant-of-record — LEVR collecting all client money, so there’s no deal to route around — is the floor. It stops disintermediation, but it isn’t the story. The story is the three compounding locks above; merchant-of-record is what keeps them from leaking.
“The moat is three compounding locks — the company brain that re-researches weekly, the integrator relationship, and a referral network that compounds itself. Merchant-of-record is the floor.”
Bottom-up (# targets × ACV) and top-down (% of US marketing spend), with primary weight on ICP-1. The near-term SOM is gated by how many credible facilitators LEVR can recruit and quality-gate — not by how many brands exist.
That’s the definition behind the number — not the full 830k franchise units, but the national-brand, multi-geography slice at $2–4M spend. And the wedge is robust to the count: if the beachhead is 3k or 6k instead of 4k, the focus-ICP wedge is ~$1.1–1.7B either way — a rounding error against the $42–91B wallet it sits inside. A believable band beats a single un-sourced point.
Blended Y1 ACV = $35k setup + tiered recurring. LEVR’s ACV-basis TAM is ~4% of a target brand’s ~$3M budget — today’s wedge; the wallet is the long-run expansion headroom. Do not sum the two — same market, two depths of wallet capture. Expansion depth per account is real, too: a single enterprise logo can mean one logo, 200 paid build-outs (what we used to call “sub-strategies”) — each location’s own market, researched and shipped.
“~4,000 national multi-geo brands at $2–4M spend is the beachhead — a wedge inside a $42–91B wallet. If it’s 3k or 6k, it’s $1.1–1.7B either way.”
This is the honest accounting under the staircase up top. “40 × 5” means different things depending on how you define “revenue,” and the gap between them is the thing a sharp investor will pull on. So we present all three, and we lead with the definition — never let recognized-vs-run-rate ambiguity get exposed live. The point isn’t that the plan falls short; it’s that $30–40M is a run-rate, not a Y1 GAAP claim.
| Framing of “revenue” | 40 fac × 5 | vs $30M | vs $40M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 recognized (GAAP, realistic ramp) | $3.9M | –$26.1M | –$36.1M |
| Exit ARR (recurring only, Dec 31) | $8.0M | –$22.0M | –$32.0M |
| Full steady-state run-rate (best case) | $14.3M | –$15.7M | –$25.7M |
At base mix (20/50/30, full run-rate): 40 fac → $14.3M · 100 fac → $35.7M (squarely inside $30–40M) · 500 fac → $178.4M. Only the 12-clients-each column clears $30M at 40 facilitators — the number Chad revised away.
“We’re at ~$3M ARR from two enterprise logos, with ~$5M more latent in customers we deliberately under-built. Our channel — proven by Brian’s 5 clients on a 2-call close — scales to ~100 quality-gated facilitators, where a $30–40M run-rate lives. 40 is next year’s ramp; enterprise deals compress the timeline.”
The two models used different recurring mixes off the same method: the revenue model used a conservative 20/50/30 ($64,350 net/client → $14.3M run-rate at 40); the TAM doc used a richer 30/50/20 ($16.7M net SOM). Recommendation: adopt 20/50/30 as the base case (conservative is safer in the room), show the richer mix as upside — but the real fix is pulling the actual tier split from the ~80 existing customers.
“$30–40M is the run-rate at ~100 quality-gated facilitators — our near-term goal. 40 next year is the ramp: ~$8M exit ARR on top of ~$3M today and ~$5M latent in accounts we under-built. Not a claim of $40M GAAP next year — the machine that produces a $30–40M run-rate, and the count that gets us there.”
6 sheets, formula-driven — every cell reconstructable. Pull the actual tier split from your ~80 customers here.
The operational backbone behind “double down on the channel.” A quality-gated, certified, recertified program — where the facilitator still gets to build their own business on top of LEVR and keeps 100% of their own scope of work.
Creative, well-connected, and ready for the next thing. He ran a real business — maybe a CEO, maybe built and sold an agency. He has relationships enterprise sales can’t buy. What he wants is a reason to call again and pricing power to match. He’s an elite operator with relationships enterprise sales can’t buy, who now needs an AI edge — and there are ~148k of them, ~120k of whom already want the call.
Consolidated from all seven specialists. Tier 1 must be resolved before this goes to investors; Tier 2 are deck/polish choices; Tier 3 is companion work these surfaced but that isn’t built yet.