client-win-back

Applies to clients who have stopped working with the firm, when something real has changed. Produces a sorted list and a message each, written to be easy to answer honestly.

The play

1. Establish what changed before writing to anyone. A win-back with no new information is a check-in, and a check-in to someone who left is an awkward email. The thing that changed can be the offer, the price, a capability, a person, or a problem in their world, but it has to be nameable in one sentence. The test is in references/what-changed.md.
2. List everyone who left, with why. Not the version in the record, the real one: they ran out of budget, the champion left, the work did not land, they took it in house, or the firm let them down. The categories and how to sort them are in references/sorting-the-list.md.
3. Sort by whether the reason for leaving is addressed by what changed. A price change speaks to the ones who left on budget and says nothing to the ones who left unhappy with the work. Everything else is a mismatch, and a mismatched win-back reads as a mailshot.
4. Check who is still there. Past clients move, and a champion who left for a new company is a new account with a warm path rather than a win-back. Treat that as the better opportunity it is.
5. Branch by why they left:
   • Budget or a downturn: the cleanest win-back. Lead with what changed about scope or price, name the old engagement plainly.
   • Champion left, replacement never engaged: not a win-back, a fresh sale into a warm account. Do not lean on a relationship the new person does not have.
   • Took it in house: ask how it is going, honestly, with no pitch. Half the time it is going badly and nobody wants to say so first.
   • The work did not land: only reach out if something concrete changed, and acknowledge it directly. Anything else makes it worse.
   • The firm let them down: repair before pitch, in a separate conversation, and accept it may not be recoverable.
   • They were never a good fit: leave them. A win-back of a bad-fit client is a reheated bad engagement.
6. Write a message per person that names the gap, says what changed, and asks for nothing bigger than a reply. The patterns are in references/the-message.md. Pretending the relationship never lapsed is the most common error and the most obvious one.
7. Work the list in batches of five to ten, not all at once, so the wording can change based on what comes back.
8. Record the outcome against the reason they left. Over two or three rounds, this shows which departure reasons are actually recoverable, which is the thing that makes the next win-back faster.

What good looks like

• First thing I check that most people skip: whether the person is still at that company. A warm message to someone who left eight months ago is wasted, and the move itself was the opportunity.
• The mediocre version: an email to every past client saying the firm has grown and would love to reconnect. No reason to reply, no acknowledgement of the gap, and it teaches the list to ignore the sender.
• I know a message is right when it would be easy for them to reply "no thanks" without feeling rude. That is the test of whether the ask is sized correctly.
• Second test: the message names the specific work the firm did for them, not the firm's general capabilities.
• Red flag: the same message going to people who left for different reasons. That is a campaign, and win-backs do not work as campaigns.

Rules

• MUST have one nameable thing that changed before contacting anyone.
• MUST match the change to the reason they left.
• MUST check whether the contact is still at the company.
• MUST acknowledge the gap rather than writing as if no time passed.
• MUST keep the ask small enough that no is easy.
• MUST record the outcome against the departure reason.
• NEVER send the same message to people who left for different reasons.
• NEVER pitch into an unrepaired relationship. Repair first, separately.