Avg spend per client
The way avg spend per client is calculated changed between these two points, so they are not comparable and no movement is shown.
Comparisons resume once a full period has been recorded the new way. The number itself is unaffected.
Where it stands
Monthly, up to the last 12 months
Avg spend per client reads $200k. Which half of the average moved is not served on this read; the sections below say why.
- Window
- Stated as of Aug 23, 2026. The period the reading covers is set by its source and is not stated on this tile.
- How it is counted
- Total gross billings divided by the number of clients on the roster.
- Source
- Financial ledger, as of Aug 23, 2026
- Drivers
- Computed from this workspace's own records.
What this is
Average gross billings per client on the roster. Total gross billings divided by the number of clients on the roster.
Why it is on your dashboard
Small accounts cost nearly as much to manage as large ones, so the practice is to set a minimum acceptable spend and hold the roster to it. Average spend tells you whether the book is built of real accounts or a long tail of distractions. It is two-sided: an account can also be so large that serving it costs more than it pays, which is what the largest-client share beside this reads. It sits on this board with no ratified level to read it against: minimum spend not set yet.
Why it is where it is
Not answered here.
Which half of this average moved, and by how much, needs your workspace's own stored history behind both halves. That history read is not composed for live workspaces yet, so this breakdown is withheld rather than modeled.
The movement view composes from the same stored history the drill chart draws. When it serves for this workspace, this section states which half of the average moved and by how much.
What we checked, in order
Not answered here.
There is no ruled order of checks for Avg spend per client yet. Three of these ordered diagnostics exist and they attach to the profit share, an account under the floor, and absorbed work. This metric is not one of them.
An ordered set of checks is worth more than a list of things to look at, because the order is what stops the most expensive move being tried first. Writing one for this metric is a decision about how it should be diagnosed rather than a gap in the data.
Root cause
Not answered here.
Without the movement decomposition there is no half to hold responsible.
This answers when the movement view serves.
What to do now
Not answered here.
There is no decomposed movement to act on.
This fills in when the movement view serves.
What stops it coming back
Review the roster against the minimum quarterly, starting at the end it is easiest to skip: Cedar and Co Realty and Vaultline Fintech are the accounts to grow to the line or transition out, and a quarterly read is what keeps that a decision rather than a drift.
Small accounts cost nearly as much to manage as large ones, which is why this average earns a place on the board at all. The structural habit is a roster read on a cadence, so the tail is a standing decision rather than an accumulation nobody chose.
This closes no measured driver above, and does not claim to.
What happens if this is ignored
An unwatched average drifts toward a long tail: each small win is individually harmless, and together they fill the calendar with accounts that pay for a fraction of the attention they consume. The failure is quiet because the top line still grows while the average sinks, and by the time it is felt, the tail is a third of the roster and the senior team's week. Where this lands is not this tile. It is Clients below profit floor reads 2 against floor 10% per client, which it is outside. It is already outside its band, so this is not a forecast. Part of it has happened, and that tile is where to go and look at it. Small accounts cost about as much to run as large ones, so a lengthening tail arrives as accounts that cannot carry their share of the cost base. That is the same list the profit floor names, one or two quarters later.
Is this target still telling you anything
Not answered here.
This metric carries no ratified target, so there is nothing here to calibrate. A target can only be too easy or too hard once somebody has set one.
Setting a level for this metric is what turns it from a number you watch into a number you are held to, and it is what this section reads against.