Every other number here describes the problem. This one puts a dollar figure on it, using money you have already spent. It is the number that makes the conversation short.
Closers, times fully loaded cost per closer, times prospecting hours divided by 40.
This is a floor, not a forecast. It counts only the payroll going to non-selling work. It ignores the deals that never happened because the hour was spent elsewhere, which is the larger and less provable number.
There is no good. There is only smaller. Any company with closers has some of this, and the goal is not zero, it is knowing the figure and deciding on purpose whether it is worth what it buys.
Treating it as theoretical. This is not opportunity cost or a modeling exercise. It is payroll that already left the building, spent on work you were not trying to buy.
Every hour a closer spends re-explaining something the site should have said is an hour you paid full price for twice: once to the rep, and once to the media budget that brought the visitor who arrived unconvinced. That is the whole argument for doing this work, and it is why the fee tends to look small next to the figure this produces.
Worked example
| 4 closers, loaded at $150,000 | $600,000 |
| Hours a week on prospecting and repair | 10 of 40 |
| Fraction of paid time | 25% |
$150,000 a year
That is 25 percent of your closing capacity, already paid for, spent on work that a page could have done once and then done forever.
No single number tells you much. Together they tell you where the trust is leaking and what it costs.
The Trust Diagnostic takes four minutes and costs nothing. The calculator on the finance page prices your own leak. Neither one asks for an email.
Score your site freeReady to talk? Book the 45 minutes →