The magnitude of CAC and LTV are only meaningful together. A ferrari dealership might have a $5000 cost to acquire a customer and that would be a bargain, because their LTV is $250k+.
Nutrisystem pays $140 to affiliates per new customer and gets about $12 in revenue daily from the customer. That is sort of relevant.
I wouldn't personally put any money into Blue Apron. They are hiding their churn and dressing up their numbers. I suspect they will blow up or fizzle out.
I'm just not sure what people want. They show cohorts and give a lot of data on aggregate performance, but I agree, the lack of clarity is a bit alarming. Is there some kind of precedent people are comparing this to, a membership-style S-1 with clearer statement of what's going on?
I'm guessing it would take the form of higher prices.
In a 'goods' business it costs you $X to make the good and sell it (COGS) and people who buy it (after averaging sales, incentives, etc) as the average selling price (ASP), so to the extent that ASP > COGS you make money selling your widgets.
A service business like this (or cable TV or whatever) has a customer acquisition cost (CAC), or the cost to get someone to sign up. and a life time value (LTV) which is the amount that customer will spend with you over the lifetime of their relationship with you. To the extent that LTV > CAC it tells you whether or not the business is viable.
In both cases, when the ratios are wrong, the company loses money faster by either selling more widgets or getting more customers.