“Churn” isn't a metric, it's people rejecting you–grow from it

&gt; The only platform that fixes every type of churn for you.<p>Imagine someone were to lose a family member and as a result they decide that meal planning has become too much of stressor in their daily life. So they sign up for HelloFresh (use promo code &quot;HN&quot; for 15 free meals). As time goes on, things slowly return to normalcy– life goes on. They no longer feel like meal planning is too much of a burden.<p>I wonder what churnkey&#x27;s plan would be to retain this customer.

One user is a patron. A million users is a metric.<p>I don&#x27;t want companies with lots of customers to senselessly fake some sort of meaningful relationship. I <i>hate</i> when companies do that. No, I&#x27;m not here because we&#x27;re pals and you make me feel like a regular barfly and know my name. I&#x27;m here because you sell something I want to buy and you want my money.<p>I have a sense that I would completely despise whatever it is that Churnkey is peddling to businesses.

This is kind of a dramatic way of thinking about it. Then again this post is from a company who apparently “fixes every kind of churn for you”

The article starts off with what I believe is a faulty premise, that churn &quot;is&quot; rejection. Trying something new is such a deeply ingrained part of our DNA that there willl always be a segment of your users and staff who do so regardless of all of your attempts to prevent it. It isn&#x27;t rejection so much as standard human behavior. Also, I thing &quot;rejection&quot; is far more inflammatory than &quot;churn&quot;.

Yes, churn is a metric. It&#x27;s not always someone rejecting you. It could be that they just needed your product to solve a problem and then unsubscribe. They are not rejecting you but you&#x27;ve served the need and so they stop paying you.

I&#x27;ve been thinking about this idea of rejection a bit. I never thought I&#x27;d talk about it in the context of churn, but actually it makes perfect sense. Because it&#x27;s not just rejection: it&#x27;s adaptability. Rejection is going to happen because, well, it&#x27;s also a human thing. But the ability to adapt turns rejection into connection. In this case it&#x27;s saying &quot;hey, there&#x27;s something not right here, let&#x27;s work on it.&quot; And I think that&#x27;s something more than &quot;normal&quot;. It&#x27;s adaptability.

admitting I didn&#x27;t look at TFA, I have to say from the domain name churnkey.co, promising to sell me &quot;churn-key systems&quot; seems like a dubious promise, however admirably quite honest! Customers will start fleeing, right out of the box!<p>ok, now I took a look. I think the ideas they&#x27;re talking about are actually well known in marketing circles, best summed up by the old aphorism, &quot;the customer is always right.&quot; I think most people misinterpret this phrase, thinking that it means &quot;you have a customer in front of you, engage in ass-kissing, tell them they&#x27;re right&quot; and I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s the right way to think about (because then your inner child starts screaming &quot;i don&#x27;t want to kiss ass!&quot;) The right way to think about it is, here is a customer telling me their authentic experience, what they like, what they don&#x27;t like. Can I change what they don&#x27;t like? For every customer complaining, there are 10 more who were annoyed and swallowed it. &quot;The customer is always right, because the customer is giving you free market research about friction they encounter.&quot;<p>I just think this is a more positive way to think, it&#x27;s less scolding than this article.

Churn greater than about 10% is a death sentence for a SaaS business. And it&#x27;s a metric every investor will ask about and every potential employee ought to.

Translated from marketdroid: &quot;We want to force lock in customers, or if that is not possible, annoy them to death with nags if they don&#x27;t extend the contract.&quot; Asking customer who left you for feedback is generally an annoyance to the customer. My personal policy on this kind of thing is to instant spamlist the company doing it. Or if not possible, at least not respond.<p>Face it, either your service is not quite necessary, too expensive, not useful enough or you annoyed the customers to death. There might be no way to keep your particular product going because it just might be one of those pointless ideas that seem nifty but there&#x27;s no market. It might even be the case of insufficient scope as often is with these funny SaaS things.<p>Framing it as &quot;rejection&quot; is blaming the customer (at least partly) for bad behavior. (to your business) Exactly one of the behaviors described as bad in the post.<p>A business relationship is not a marriage. You&#x27;re not being rejected, but just, to put it bluntly, suck or cannot beat the monopoly.