Winback Roadmap™ (alpha) demo · Hand-crafted sample data · not a real client

Program Benchmarks

Klaviyo data pulled May 13, 2026

How you stack up against Winback Pro's ideal state across every area of the program. Scores come from the audit; the checklist is the standard we hold every program to.

Automated Flows 3→4Campaign Program 3→4Cross-Platform Coordination 2→4Analytics & Measurement 3→4Testing Program 2→3Segmentation 3→4Identity Program 2→3Subscription / Repeat Purchase Strategy 2→4Creative Program 3→4

Automated Flows

Today 3 of 5 · 90-day target 4

Healthy foundation w/ identified gaps

Core flows present; the audit identifies the specific structural gaps + coordination opportunities.

Flows are the program's compounding asset: every fix here pays on every future send.

The benchmark: what we look for
✓All four core lifecycle stages live and sending14 live flows across 6 stages
✗Entry filters enforce the audience the flow is named forFirst-time flows admit repeat buyers; the board's one Broken item
◐Cross-flow exclusions wired in both directionsAbandonment waterfall exits verified clean; flows elsewhere fire independently
✓Zero unexplained zero-send flowsNo dormant live flows found
Your cart flow earns $0.41 per recipient while your own checkout flow earns $3.00. The gap is the build, not the audience.
Path to target
First-time flows missing entry filterslow effort · Sized on the callRebuild the cart serieshigh effort · $51K to $73KAbandonment handoffs are wired correctlylow effort · Verified, no defect

Campaign Program

Today 3 of 5 · 90-day target 4

Healthy cadence

Established cadence + seasonal calendar; audit identifies content-balance and segment-specific opportunities.

The broadcast stream carries a third of email revenue; discipline here is pure margin.

The benchmark: what we look for
✓Consistent weekly cadence to engaged tiers1.1 sends per week, steady across 12 months
✗Suppression between campaign and flow sendsNo coordination; a subscriber can get a campaign and two flow sends in a day
◐Seasonal calendar feeding lifecycle triggersDrops run on calendar; winback ignores it (see the board)
Path to target
Winback ignores the drop calendarlow effort · Sized on the callSmart Sending off on non-transactionallow effort · Sized on the callTop-volume flows have zero A/B testsmedium effort · Sized on the call

Cross-Platform Coordination

Today 2 of 5 · 90-day target 4

Shared stages, ownership unclear

When programs span multiple platforms, the audit produces a per-stage ownership map + coordination gap analysis.

Email, SMS and push share every lifecycle stage but no owner; the customer feels the overlap.

The benchmark: what we look for
✗One owner per lifecycle stage across channelsNo ownership map exists
✗Attribution windows aligned across platforms5-day email click vs 7-day SMS; revenue double-counts
✗Suppression flows both directionsOne-directional only
Path to target
Email/SMS/push coordination gapshigh effort · Sized on the callQuiet hours on push and SMSlow effort · Sized on the call

Analytics & Measurement

Today 3 of 5 · 90-day target 4

Standard reporting in place

Audit identifies attribution-window alignment, cross-platform attribution gaps, and primary-metric integrity.

Every estimate in this Roadmap gets sharper or blurrier with the quality of this area.

The benchmark: what we look for
✗One UTM convention on every live messageThree naming conventions live; GA fragments email revenue
◐Platform revenue reconciles to an independent sourceReconciliation possible after the UTM sweep
◐Holdouts on every intervention we shipCheckout incrementality holdout is on the plan; none live today
Path to target
Inconsistent UTM naming breaks attributionlow effort · Sized on the callProve the checkout flow's true liftlow effort · Sized on the call

Testing Program

Today 2 of 5 · 90-day target 3

Tests exist; resolution + iteration loop is the gap

Audit identifies stale tests sitting in live flows + structures a testing roadmap per primary flow.

The biggest sample sizes in the program are running zero experiments.

The benchmark: what we look for
✗Live tests on the top-3 volume flowsNo A/B actions configured on the highest-volume flows
✗No stale splits still routing trafficCompleted tests still splitting 50/50; losers keep sending
✗A written test-resolution SOPNo lifecycle: sample size, decision date, promotion
Path to target
Stale A/B tests still splitting trafficlow effort · Sized on the callTop-volume flows have zero A/B testsmedium effort · Sized on the callSignup popup fires instantlylow effort · Sized on the call

Segmentation

Today 3 of 5 · 90-day target 4

RFM tiers present; behavioral depth opportunity

Audit identifies whether behavioral signals (style, category, gift-vs-self) are being used for personalization.

The tiers exist; the treatment does not yet change with them.

The benchmark: what we look for
◐Value tiers change the actual treatmentRFM present; At-Risk sends the same three emails to every tier
✗Stated-preference data captured and usedNo zero-party capture; every signup gets identical content
◐At-risk and VIP paths diverge meaningfullyVIP flow exists at $1.50 per send; perks are discount-led
Path to target
Rebuild the At-Risk cascade with value tiersmedium effort · $16K to $27KPost-signup quiz for personalization datahigh effort · Sized on the callTest winback discount depth by value tierlow effort · Sized on the call

Identity Program

Today 2 of 5 · 90-day target 3

Optional layer for apparel/lifestyle

Identity tools (Triple Whale, BlackCrow, etc.) are an optional add-on for apparel · audit identifies whether the program would benefit from one + how to deploy without overlap.

Optional for apparel/lifestyle: worth measuring before it is worth buying.

The benchmark: what we look for
✗Known-visitor match rate measuredNot instrumented
·Cost per identified session justified by flow RPRReviewed on your call
Path to target
Grow SMS consent at signup and checkoutmedium effort · Sized on the call

Subscription / Repeat Purchase Strategy

Today 2 of 5 · 90-day target 4

Repeat-purchase mechanics under-leveraged

Non-subscription brands rely on seasonal drops + loyalty + replenishment nudges; audit identifies which levers are present + gaps.

Repeat revenue is the category's engine and the program's least coordinated area.

The benchmark: what we look for
✗Replenishment timed to real reorder windowsFlat 30-day timer; Daily Wash empties in ~45 days, the 3-pack in ~120
✗A live one-time-buyer to subscription pathThe only subscription entry is the product page
✗Pre-lapse intervention before the winback window21,900 customers sit in the Dormant window with no save
Subscribers are worth $142 against $48 for one-time buyers; nothing in the program moves customers across that line.
Path to target
One-time buyer to subscription pathmedium effort · Sized on the callPer-product replenishment timingmedium effort · Sized on the callSave subscribers before they lapsehigh effort · Sized on the callProduct-specific welcome offermedium effort · Sized on the call

Creative Program

Today 3 of 5 · 90-day target 4

Modular template depth opportunity

Audit identifies whether the creative system supports module-based testing across the program at scale.

Templates are clean; depth is the gap between showing a product and matching an intent.

The benchmark: what we look for
✗Product-feed blocks beyond last-viewedBrowse retargets only the last product seen
◐Category and social-proof modules in rotationPresent in campaigns; absent from the highest-volume flow
·Templates render clean in dark modeReviewed on your call
Path to target
Deepen the Browse Abandon templatemedium effort · $8K to $17KPost-purchase lacks fit/returns contentmedium effort · Sized on the callGive the catch-all a reason to existlow effort · Sized on the call
How we size: every dollar range is the flow's own attributed RPR lifted by the multiple measured on the same flow archetype across our connected accounts, captured to the scope of the planned work. Strategic and structural items are sized on the readout call. Confidence states how much within-account evidence backs the multiple.