Most B2B marketing attribution models credit a deal's full value on the day it closes. That's the number sales celebrates, the number that lands in the CRM, and usually the number marketing reports as "revenue influenced." Finance, under IFRS 15, doesn't recognise that same figure on that date at all, and for any contract involving an ongoing service, which describes most B2B SaaS and retained agency work, the gap between the two isn't a rounding error.

Neither number is wrong. They're answering different questions. But when nobody explains that, and a CFO compares a marketing report showing a large deal "closed" this quarter against a P&L that barely moved, the natural conclusion is that marketing's numbers can't be trusted, when the actual problem is that two accurate systems were never reconciled.

Why marketing and finance are already looking at two different numbers

Sales and marketing generally work off a booked revenue figure, the total contract value agreed at the point a deal closes. It's a useful number for pipeline forecasting and commission, and it's the one that shows up first in most attribution reports.

Finance works off recognised revenue, which under IFRS 15 is only counted once the company has actually delivered the good or service the customer is paying for. For a twelve-month subscription paid upfront, that means recognising roughly a twelfth of the contract value each month, not the full amount on day one. For a three-year contract, closer to a thirty-sixth. The cash may arrive immediately. The revenue, in an accounting sense, doesn't.

The one-sentence distinction

Booked revenue answers "what did we sell." Recognised revenue answers "what have we actually delivered so far." An attribution model that only tracks the first number will permanently disagree with a P&L built on the second.

What IFRS 15 actually requires, and why it doesn't match a deal close date

IFRS 15, the international standard for revenue from contracts with customers, sets out a five-step model: identify the contract, identify the distinct performance obligations within it, determine the transaction price, allocate that price across the obligations, and recognise revenue as each obligation is satisfied. It's closely aligned with ASC 606, the equivalent US standard, since the two were developed jointly to converge on the same core model.

The step that actually causes the marketing mismatch is the last one. A performance obligation satisfied at a single point in time, a one-off software licence with no ongoing support, can be recognised immediately. A performance obligation satisfied over time, which describes almost every SaaS subscription, retainer, or managed service, has to be recognised gradually across the period the obligation is delivered.

Contract type
When marketing books it, and when finance recognises it
One-off perpetual licence
Booked and largely recognised together, close to the transaction date, since control transfers at a single point in time. The closest case to marketing's usual assumption.
Annual SaaS subscription
Booked in full on close. Recognised roughly evenly across the twelve-month term, meaning only a fraction of the booked figure appears on the P&L in the closing month.
Multi-year contract with implementation
Booked in full on close. The implementation fee may be recognised separately as its own performance obligation, while the subscription element is spread across the full contract term, often three years or more.

Where the mismatch actually breaks an attribution model

This isn't an abstract accounting technicality. It shows up as concrete, recurring confusion in exactly the reports that are supposed to build confidence with the CFO.

1
Quarterly ROI looks like it's declining when it isn't

A channel that closed several large multi-year deals last quarter will show strong booked-revenue ROI then, and comparatively weak recognised-revenue ROI in every quarter since, because only a slice of each deal lands on the P&L each period. Read in isolation, that looks like the channel is losing effectiveness. It isn't, the accounting is just spread out.

2
Multi-year deals vanish from short attribution windows

An attribution model with a 90-day lookback window will fully credit a channel for a deal closed within it, but finance's recognised-revenue view of that same deal stretches years beyond the window. The two reports can't be reconciled later, because the attribution system has already closed the book on a deal accounting is still recognising.

3
Bundled fees distort per-channel numbers

When an implementation fee and a subscription are allocated separately under IFRS 15, but marketing credits a single channel with the full undivided contract value, that channel's reported ROI includes revenue recognised on a completely different schedule to the one the attribution model assumes.

Building an attribution model that reconciles with recognised revenue

None of this means marketing should switch to reporting purely on recognised revenue, booked revenue is genuinely the more useful number for pipeline and channel decisions in the moment. It means both numbers need to exist side by side, clearly labelled, so nobody mistakes one for a contradiction of the other.

How to close the gap with finance rather than argue past it
  • Report booked and recognised revenue as two separate, named figures: Never present a single blended number. A report that says "booked: £120,000, recognised this quarter: £10,000, remaining schedule: 35 months" removes the ambiguity that causes the trust gap in the first place.
  • Get the deferred revenue schedule from finance for major deals: Most finance teams already maintain this. Asking for it, and referencing it directly in quarterly marketing reviews, does more for CFO trust than any amount of explaining the concept from scratch each time.
  • Match attribution windows to the actual performance obligation period where it matters: For high-value, multi-year contracts, extend the reporting horizon so the deal doesn't disappear from view the moment the standard lookback window closes.
  • Flag contract modifications and expansions as their own attribution events: An upsell partway through a contract creates a new, separate revenue recognition schedule under IFRS 15. Attribute it to the activity that actually drove the expansion, not retroactively to whatever closed the original deal.
Key takeaways
  • Booked revenue and IFRS 15 recognised revenue are measuring different things, not disagreeing about the same thing, and both are legitimate
  • The mismatch is largest for subscription, retainer, and multi-year contracts, where revenue is recognised over time rather than at the point of sale
  • Report both figures separately and by name, rather than letting one stand in for the other in front of finance
  • Get the deferred revenue schedule from finance directly, it's usually the fastest route to a report that actually reconciles
Build the attribution model finance actually recognises

Our attribution modelling work is built to sit alongside a deferred revenue schedule, not compete with it, so booked and recognised revenue tell the same underlying story instead of two that need explaining every quarter.

Explore Attribution Modelling →