·1 min read

Spray-and-pray was a budget, not a strategy

Mass campaigns survived because precision was expensive. That excuse is gone. A short note on where the money leaks.

TargetingCVMRetention

Every "batch and blast" campaign is a quiet admission: we couldn't afford to be precise, so we were loud instead.

That trade-off made sense when building a good segment took an analyst two weeks. It doesn't anymore.

Campaign value leakage

Where campaign spend leaks

Already loyal34%
Wrong offer28%
Missed churn risk22%
Effective reach16%
Typical mass-campaign waste split. Precision targeting recovers the shaded slice.

The three leaks

Most CVM programs bleed value in the same three places:

  1. Talking to customers who'd stay anyway. Discounting the loyal is a tax you pay yourself.
  2. Missing customers about to churn. The signal was there — in usage, in tone, in a support ticket — nobody read it in time.
  3. Right customer, wrong offer. A generous incentive aimed at someone who only needed a nudge.

Precision fixes all three. And precision is now cheap.

Response rate by targeting approach

Response rate
Response rate lift when moving from blast to propensity-ranked top 5%.

A better default

Instead of "who should we exclude from this blast?", start from:

Which 5% of this base has the highest churn risk and the highest response propensity to a small, low-cost nudge?

Base → actionable segment

Full base100%
Engaged last 30d62%
Churn risk > threshold18%
High response propensity5%
A better default: narrow the base to the highest-risk, highest-propensity slice.

That question used to be a project. Now it's a query. The teams that internalize that shift will quietly outperform — not with bigger budgets, but with less waste.