A comment on one of my recent posts stuck with me. I had flagged competitors outbidding a brand on its own keyword as a problem buyers inherit, and the pushback was that it is not a deal killer, it is something you factor into the offer. Fair, and I think that is the part most buyers get wrong. The question is not whether the marketing has problems. Every sub-$10M ecom business has them. The question is what each problem costs, and whether the price reflects it. Heavy paid dependency is not a walk. It is a CAC assumption in your model that the seller's multiple probably ignores. A stale email list is not a walk. It is a revenue lever the CIM is counting that you should not pay for. Review timing that looks manufactured is a harder one, because that is a trust problem, not a math problem. So for people who have closed deals: when diligence turned up a marketing issue, did you reprice, restructure terms, or walk? And has a seller ever actually accepted a price cut based on something you found outside the financials?