The Portfolio Audit: Does Freshworks' Event Mix Match Its Goals
Objective: Given Freshworks' stated Q3 goals and its current event budget split across the four formats, apply the goal-to-format framework to find which allocations are misaligned and what should be funded instead.
You're a growth marketing analyst at Freshworks, the Chennai-founded, Nasdaq-listed B2B SaaS company (FRSH). The events team has drafted next quarter's $400K budget split and needs your sign-off before it goes to the CMO.
Compare the stated top goal against the actual budget split, flag the misaligned allocation, and recommend where the freed-up budget should move.
Before you start
What you'll need
Free path (everything below is enough to finish)
Free, no account friction, sufficient for a budget-and-goal comparison table
The process
2 steps
Step 01 of 02
The lesson maps four needs to four formats: pipeline volume fast to trade shows, retaining and expanding existing accounts to owned events, breaking into named accounts to field events, and brand awareness to experiential.
Freshworks' stated top goal this quarter is 'retain and expand our top 50 enterprise accounts,' but 68% of the $400K budget ($272K) is allocated to trade-show sponsorships and only 12% ($48K) to the owned customer event. Which allocation is misaligned, and what should the freed-up budget fund instead?
Procedure
- Import the budget table: format, dollar amount, % of total
- Next to each row, write the one goal the lesson says that format is built for
- Compare each format's built-for goal against the stated Q3 goal ('retain and expand top 50 accounts')
- Flag any row whose built-for goal does not match the stated goal, and note the dollar amount at stake
Format Budget % of total Built for (lesson) Fits stated goal? Trade show $272,000 68% Pipeline volume, broad reach NO Owned event $48,000 12% Retain/expand existing YES (underfunded) Field events $56,000 14% Named-account ABM PARTIAL Experiential $24,000 6% Brand memory NO
Healthy
The largest line item funds the format built for this quarter's actual goal, retention and expansion.
Unhealthy
68% of the budget sits in the format built for broad new-pipeline reach while the format built for account retention is the smallest line item.
What this means
A trade show can still support account expansion at the margins, but it is not the primary lever the lesson assigns to retention. The $272K is doing the wrong job for the goal it is supposed to serve.
So what do I do about it?
| Symptom | Action | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Owned-event budget is the smallest line item despite being the goal-matched format | Recommend shifting at least $100K from trade-show sponsorships to expand the owned customer event | 30 min |
Step 02 of 02
The lesson notes trade shows return roughly $20.98 per $1 spent at $112 cost per lead, but also that owned events trade reach for depth, and experiential trades lead volume for brand memory.
The CMO points out that trade-show cost-per-lead ($112) beats the owned event's cost-per-attendee ($850) by a wide margin, and asks why that alone doesn't settle the allocation debate. What's the answer?
Procedure
- List the two costs side by side: trade-show CPL ($112) and owned-event cost-per-attendee ($850)
- Write what each number is actually optimizing for (new-lead volume vs. depth with an existing account)
- State why comparing them directly is an apples-to-oranges error for this quarter's goal
Metric Value Optimizes for Trade-show CPL $112 New leads at volume Owned-event cost/attendee $850 Depth with an existing account Verdict: not comparable for a retention goal, one measures new-lead efficiency, the other measures relationship depth.
Healthy
The team picks the metric that matches the goal (retention lift, expansion revenue) before comparing costs across formats.
Unhealthy
A lower cost-per-lead number is used to justify cutting the owned event, even though the owned event isn't trying to generate leads.
What this means
Cost-per-lead is a trade-show-native metric. Applying it to an owned event judges a retention tool by an acquisition yardstick.
So what do I do about it?
| Symptom | Action | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Leadership compares CPL across formats with different jobs | Bring a goal-appropriate metric (expansion revenue per attendee) to the next budget review instead of CPL | 30 min |
Final deliverable
A one-page budget review flagging the misaligned allocation, the dollar amount at stake, and a specific reallocation recommendation.
See a reference example
Zendesk Q3 Event Budget Review (excerpt) STATED GOAL: Expand top 40 enterprise accounts MISALIGNED: Experiential activations, $85,000 (22% of budget) Built for: brand memory / awareness, not account expansion Recommendation: cut to $20,000, redirect $65,000 to field/regional dinners UNDERFUNDED: Field/regional events, $40,000 (10% of budget) Built for: named-account, high-intent conversations, exact goal match Recommendation: raise to $105,000 using the redirected experiential budget
Success criteria
You're done when you can:
- Correctly identifies the trade-show line item as misaligned with a retention-focused goal
- Explains why comparing CPL across formats with different jobs is a metric error
- Recommends a specific dollar reallocation, not just a general direction