CTV investors who have sat through enough streaming board meetings know which metrics predict a durable business and which ones are dressed-up vanity numbers. Winston Francois builds the reporting framework and fundraise narrative that shows you understand your own unit economics as well as they do.
The Problem
The metrics deck leads with app installs instead of viewing economics
Total app installs and MAU are easy to report and easy to inflate with a paid UA push right before a board meeting. They don't tell an investor whether people who install actually watch, whether ad load is sustainable, or whether content cost per hour of viewing is trending toward or away from profitability. When install counts sit above hours watched per subscriber and ARPU on the same page, experienced CTV investors read it as a team that hasn't internalized what actually drives the business.
Platform and OEM concentration risk gets buried instead of addressed
Most CTV businesses at this stage carry real dependency on a small number of distribution partners – a Roku channel store placement, a Samsung TV Plus carriage deal, an Amazon Fire TV promotional slot. That concentration is a legitimate structural risk, and burying it in the appendix instead of naming it in the main narrative reads as either naive or evasive. Investors will find the concentration in diligence regardless; the only choice management has is whether they hear about it from you first or discover it themselves.
Updates land at the wrong point in the upfront and NewFronts calendar
CTV ad revenue commitments are seasonal in a way most SaaS investors don't experience – the upfront and IAB NewFronts cycle sets the tone for a large share of the year's directly-sold inventory. An investor update that lands after the upfront season closes, once fill rates and CPMs for the year are already locked in, has lost its ability to shape investor expectations.
Churn and reactivation get reported as a single number instead of cohorts
Subscription streaming churn is not one behavior – there's involuntary churn from failed payments, voluntary cancellation after a content window closes, and seasonal pause-and-reactivate behavior tied to specific franchise releases. Reporting a single blended churn percentage flattens all of that into a number that doesn't help an investor understand whether the business has a content-calendar problem, a payments problem, or a genuine retention problem.
How We Help
We start by auditing the current investor reporting package against what CTV-focused investors actually diligence: hours watched and hours watched per subscriber, ARPU trended against ad load and fill rate, content cost per hour of viewing by title or content tier, subscriber churn and reactivation broken into cohorts, and app store ranking trends across the platforms that matter to your distribution (Roku, Fire TV, Samsung, LG, Vizio).
From there we build the narrative that connects the metrics to the story investors need to hear. That means separating what's a genuine leading indicator – hours watched trending up while churn cohorts stabilize – from what's a vanity metric that won't survive a diligence conversation, like raw download counts or social engagement numbers that don't correlate with viewing behavior.
We map your reporting calendar against the upfront and NewFronts cycle so investor updates land ahead of, not after, the seasonal ad commitments that shape a large share of your directly-sold revenue. That means a board update in the weeks before NewFronts frames the ad sales pipeline and upfront positioning while investors can still act on it, rather than recapping decisions that are already locked.
On platform and OEM concentration, we help management build a transparent risk narrative instead of a defensive one – naming the specific distribution dependencies (a Roku carriage agreement, a Samsung TV Plus placement, an FAST channel deal), quantifying what share of hours watched or ad revenue runs through each, and laying out the diversification plan already underway.
For companies heading into a fundraise or M&A conversation, we build the diligence package before the process starts: content licensing liabilities laid out by window and expiration, churn cohorts segmented by acquisition channel and content driver, ACR data quality and coverage documented honestly, and programmatic-versus-directly-sold inventory mix shown with margin implications.
What makes this different from a generalist IR consultant is that we're operators who've built the reporting muscle inside growth-stage companies, not communications specialists translating metrics we don't understand. We embed with your team on a fractional basis rather than delivering a template and leaving – the deck evolves with your actual board cadence, not a one-time engagement.
What we deliver
- CTV metrics framework: hours watched, ARPU, content cost per hour, ad load and fill rate, defined and instrumented for board reporting
- Subscriber churn and reactivation cohort reporting, segmented by acquisition channel and content driver
- Board deck and monthly investor update templates timed to the upfront and NewFronts calendar
- Platform/OEM concentration risk narrative with diversification roadmap
- Fundraise and M&A diligence package: content licensing liability schedule, churn cohort detail, ACR data documentation, programmatic vs. directly-sold inventory mix
An investor who has seen a dozen CTV decks isn't impressed by download counts – they're checking whether hours watched per subscriber is holding up while ad load rises, because that's the number that tells them whether the business survives past the next licensing renewal.
Our Methodology
We run investor communications engagements for CTV companies as a 90-day sprint built around the metrics and reporting calendar rather than a generic communications timeline. The first 30 days are diagnostic: we pull your existing reporting, map it against the metrics that actually matter (hours watched, ARPU, content cost per hour, churn cohorts, ad load and fill rate, app store ranking trends), and identify where the current narrative overstates vanity metrics or understates real risk like platform concentration.
Days 31-60 are build: we construct the reporting framework, the board deck template, and the investor update format, and we time the rollout so the first cycle lands ahead of your next major ad-revenue milestone – typically the upfront or NewFronts window if you carry directly-sold inventory, or your next licensing renewal if you don't. This is also when we build out the fundraise or M&A diligence package if a raise or exit conversation is on the horizon.
Days 61-90 are handoff and first live cycle: we run the first board update and investor communication alongside your CEO and CFO, refine based on what questions come back from the board, and leave your team with a reporting cadence they can run independently going forward.
How We Work
Investor communications engagements run as a 90-day fixed-scope project, with optional ongoing advisory support for the board reporting cadence after handoff. We work directly with the CEO as the primary sponsor, with the CFO or Head of Finance owning the underlying metrics data, and whoever owns ad sales weighing in on the upfront/NewFronts framing.
The team structure is fractional and embedded – typically one senior operator leading the engagement, supported as needed by measurement and content specialists from Winston Francois when the metrics build requires deeper data work (ACR data quality, programmatic yield analysis). We're not a communications agency producing a deck in isolation; we work inside your existing data and finance stack.
Cadence during the engagement is weekly working sessions plus async review of drafts, with a milestone review at each 30-day mark. Clients should expect to provide direct access to subscriber, ad revenue, and content cost data early – the quality of the metrics framework depends entirely on the quality of the underlying data we're given to work with.
We do not manage the actual investor relationship, term negotiation, or banker/placement-agent coordination. Our scope is the narrative, the metrics framework, and the reporting materials that make those conversations go better, not the transaction itself.
- Board and investor reporting built around metrics that hold up in diligence, not vanity numbers
- Investor updates timed to the upfront/NewFronts calendar so they shape decisions instead of recapping them
- Transparent platform/OEM concentration risk narrative that reads as command of the business, not evasion
- Fundraise or M&A diligence package ready before it's requested – content licensing liabilities, churn cohorts, inventory mix
If your ctv / connected tv company needs investor & stakeholder communications leadership, we should talk.
Expand your marketing team output with our experts
Let us take a custom approach to your growth goals by assembling and leading the best-in-class marketing team to support your next stage.
Frequently asked questions
How much does investor communications support cost for a CTV company?
A 90-day engagement covering the metrics framework, board/investor reporting build, and diligence package preparation typically runs $20K-$45K depending on how much of the underlying data infrastructure already exists. If ACR data, churn cohort tracking, or content cost allocation need to be built from scratch rather than reformatted, that pushes toward the higher end.
How long does it take to get our board reporting to where investors expect it to be?
The full 90-day sprint gets you a working metrics framework, a board deck template, and one live reporting cycle run alongside your team. Simpler cases where the underlying data already exists and just needs reframing can move faster – closer to 45-60 days.
What team do you need from us to run this engagement?
We need direct access from the CEO as sponsor, the CFO or Head of Finance for subscriber/revenue/cost data, and whoever owns ad sales for upfront and NewFronts context. If you have a data or analytics lead who owns ACR ingestion or programmatic yield reporting, we'll work with them directly rather than routing through a generalist.
How is this different from a general PR or investor relations firm?
General IR and PR firms are strong on message discipline and media relationships but typically don't have deep familiarity with CTV-specific economics – content cost per hour, ACR data reliability, programmatic versus directly-sold inventory margins, or why the upfront calendar matters. We build the metrics narrative from an operator's understanding of how CTV businesses actually make money, not a communications template adapted from generic SaaS or media investor relations.
How do you measure whether this engagement worked?
The direct measures are whether board meetings generate fewer surprise questions about metrics investors didn't previously understand, whether investor updates go out ahead of major ad-revenue or licensing events instead of after, and whether a fundraise or diligence process moves faster because the data room is already organized. We also look at whether the concentration risk narrative shifts investor conversations from suspicion to informed partnership – that's a qualitative signal but a real one from board members and investors directly.
Is our company a good fit for this if we're not raising money right now?
Yes – the best time to build this reporting discipline is before you need it for a raise or exit conversation. Companies that wait until a term sheet is on the table to organize churn cohorts and licensing liability schedules lose weeks in diligence and often lose negotiating leverage in the process.
