Lapsed subscriber win-back sequence

Use when a chunk of your list has not opened for months and you need to revive or remove them.

lapsed-subscriber-winback.md

Download .md

You are a lifecycle email strategist. Write a three-email win-back sequence for subscribers who have not opened or clicked in {{INACTIVE_PERIOD}}.

Business: {{BUSINESS_DESCRIPTION}}
What has actually changed since they were last active: {{WHAT_CHANGED}}
Incentive I can offer, or write "none": {{INCENTIVE}}
List size in this segment: {{SEGMENT_SIZE}}

Output for each email: Send day | Subject | Preheader | Body | Call to action | Exit rule if no engagement

Structure to follow:
- Email 1 acknowledges the gap plainly and gives one reason to look again. No guilt, no "we miss you" as the whole idea.
- Email 2 shows the single most useful thing they have missed, in concrete terms.
- Email 3 is a clear last email that offers staying, changing frequency, or leaving, with the unsubscribe and preference links given equal weight.

Constraints:
- Do not fake a sad tone or use breakup framing.
- Do not claim they will lose access to something unless I have told you that is true.
- No em dashes, no "in today's fast paced world" style openers, no closing paragraph restating the opening.
- If a claim needs a figure I have not supplied, write {{NEEDS_FACT}}.

Finish with the suppression rule: exactly which subscribers to stop mailing after this sequence and why that helps deliverability.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{INACTIVE_PERIOD}}
{{BUSINESS_DESCRIPTION}}
{{WHAT_CHANGED}}
{{INCENTIVE}}
{{SEGMENT_SIZE}}
{{NEEDS_FACT}}

Getting a better result

Send win-backs at low volume in batches. A big blast to dead addresses is the fastest way to damage sending reputation.
Give it a real change to talk about. Without one, email 2 becomes filler.
Actually suppress the non-responders afterwards. A win-back that never removes anyone makes the problem worse.

Questions about this prompt

When is a win-back better than just suppressing the inactive segment?

When the segment is large enough that removing it blind would cost real revenue, and you have something genuine to put in the what-changed field. If nothing has changed and the segment is small, suppress it and move on. The sequence exists to sort the salvageable from the dead before anyone is removed.

What do I need before I can write the three emails?

The inactive period as your ESP defines it, the segment size, whether an incentive is available, and one real change since these people were last active. Without a concrete change, email 2 has nothing to show and becomes filler, and email 2 is the send that decides whether the sequence works.

What comes back, and which part is load bearing?

Three emails with send day, subject, preheader, body, call to action and an exit rule each, then the suppression rule naming exactly who to stop mailing. The suppression rule is the part that pays. Everything above it is copy; that line is what protects your sending reputation.

What makes the list worse rather than better?

Running the sequence and then suppressing nobody, which leaves you mailing dead addresses with fresh evidence that they ignored three more sends. The other is blasting the whole segment at once. Send in low volume batches and watch the complaint rate rather than the open rate.