--000000000000ae1fe6064b1b2b4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That is what I remember as well, Kim. And the team was found success with the campagin and enjoyed reconnecting with clients -thanks, BA *Beth Ann Rosario* Sr Regional Director, Southeast | TheKey Mobile: 919.899.5543 On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 10:46=E2=80=AFAM Kimberly Guerci wrote: > Morning! As I remember, the process was as follows: > > - Each location received a spreadsheet of deactivated clients for a > specified date range > - Local teams reviewed for clients who expired or left for an incident > not recoverable(i.e, theft) > - CSMs were assigned a list to call > - All call attempts(I believe at least 3) and dispostion were > documented in the spreadsheet. > - Winbacks were either tagged or tracked as we were using this as a > SPIFF also at one point > > Anyone who remembers differently, please correct me. > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 9:13=E2=80=AFAM Chris Gerard > wrote: > >> Renee and RDs- >> >> During our growth calls, the teams did really good work staying on-top o= f >> our winback outreach. I know we had a list emailed to the sites with na= mes >> to reach out to based on certain criteria. Last year, we generated over >> $3.5 million in winbacks. >> >> I'm concerned this isn't happening consistently and with the same focus >> as it was during the growth calls. We need to get back to a formal proc= ess >> that we can monitor the compliance and results from. >> >> I got some feedback from some RDs on some flaws with either the list >> creation or the frequency of the email lists. >> >> Can we start by getting grounded in a couple of ways? >> >> -What was the process for the email list to be distributed (how did we >> choose the names, what was the frequency, etc...) >> >> -What was the process for the field to act on the list? (did they call, >> how many times, h