A few years ago my CMO at the time came to me with some data that I couldn’t believe. It was data on every account that had ever churned, and looked at what actually happened when we tried to win them back.
I expected them to underperform. A churned account already told you no once, so why would it convert better than a fresh prospect?
Turns out, it didn't underperform. It dominated.
The data showed that churned accounts consistently outperformed every other "warm" segment: higher conversion, higher win rates, higher ACV, higher retention. But shockingly low sales activity against them.
That last part is the real story. Nobody was working these accounts. They were sitting in a "Closed – Churned" filter that hadn't been touched in months, while the team kept chasing net-new logos with none of that history behind them.
Here's why it makes sense once you sit with it.
A churned account already used your product. Someone there already got budget approved once. They had a problem and chose you to help solve it.
But most of the time, they didn't leave because the product failed, they left because of timing, budget, COVID, or a champion who moved on.
That's a very different conversation than a cold one.
Most teams treat "churned" as a dead end. I’d argue in some cases it's closer to a paused deal that needs to be resumed.
I've got a full framework for how to actually run this: which churned accounts are worth re-engaging, how to filter out the ones that aren't, how to build the win-back sequence.
I’ve got something drafted, but I’m debating if it’s worth publishing.
So I’m curious. Would a win-back playbook be useful to you?
What did you think about this week's newsletter?
