top of page

Fewer subs means .... higher churn

The earlier days of subscription programs may be the hardest

The first law of benchmarks: make sure you can see yourself in the data. Even when things seem similar, there may be massive disparities bts that make comparisons irrelevant.

Some are clearly delineated. Looking at verticals helps us avoid comparing sandwiches to sand wedges. But other attributes need to be uncovered.

Some fascinating subscription data from recharge shows how glaring the performance difference is between ...subscriber counts. The short of it (a few more viz in the commented link): merchants with small sub counts struggle far more with churn than those with larger sub counts.

The insight delivers a dose of directional guidance. More importantly, it unlocks the next set of questions to ask of the data.

In this case, the number of subs shouldn’t - in and of itself - influence the retention rates. So, there’s something(s) else at play. Subscription program maturity? Product selection? Pricing? Inventory? Org resourcing? What else?

All great benchmarks should be a mirror - you should see yourself in the mirror. And, if/when you see distortion - like a fun house mirror - it should lead you to ask more questions to find the cause of change.

bottom of page