Diagnose a retention problem

To: Leo — Fix the retention leak before doubling acquisition

Weekly actives are flat because rising acquisition and reactivation are offsetting worsening retention. Summer could contribute, but the clearest break in the data follows the week-5 onboarding change—not the later increase in paid spend.

What’s happening

1. We are replacing more users, not building a larger active base.

Weekly active users equal retained users + new users + returning users. Equivalently, weekly net growth equals new + returning − churned.

From week 1 to week 13: - New users rose 30%, from 6,034 to 7,847. - Returning users rose from 973 to 2,635. - Weekly churn rose 44%, from 7,116 to 10,279. - Retained users fell from 44,884 to 41,636.

The result: weekly actives moved just 0.4%, from 51,891 to 52,118. The share of the previous week’s actives retained fell from 86.3% to 80.2%. This is deterioration beneath a flat headline.

2. New users look better after one week, but substantially worse afterward.

Compare signup cohorts before and after the week-5 release:

Only the week-5 post-change cohort has an observed week-8 result. Blank cells are unobserved, not zero.

The week-4 decline is roughly nine percentage points, or 27% relative, and repeats across multiple mature post-change cohorts. Earlier cohorts flatten near 30% by weeks 7–8; the first mature post-change cohort flattens near 20%. That suggests a smaller durable habit-forming base, not merely delayed engagement.

3. Win-back is masking the problem, not fixing it.

Returning users jumped immediately after win-back emails began in week 6. Lifecycle attributes about 1,600 extra weekly returns to the campaign, but only 12% of email-returned users were active two weeks later, versus 41% of earlier organic returners.

Those populations are not comparable enough to establish a causal campaign effect. Nevertheless, most campaign returners are not sustaining activity. Repeated returns and lapses can support WAU without creating lasting growth.

Likely diagnosis—and what remains uncertain

In week 5, we removed goal-setting and weekly-frequency selection. Signup completion improved from 61% to 74%, but subsequent cohorts became much less durable.

The leading hypothesis is that we removed a commitment and planning step central to a fitness habit. Alternatively—or additionally—the easier funnel admitted more low-intent users, lowering average retention. Both could be happening.

Timing alone does not prove causality. We lack randomized evidence, acquisition-source breakdowns, and a prior-year seasonal comparison. Still, the abrupt cohort break starts before the week-9 paid-social increase and persists afterward. “It’s summer” is not a sufficient diagnosis. Also, new-cohort deterioration may not explain all aggregate churn; we should examine established users separately.

What we should do before spending more

1. Hold paid spend at its current level. Don’t double distribution into a deteriorating retention curve.

1. Test lightweight goal-setting immediately. Randomize new visitors between current onboarding and a short goal/frequency step that produces a concrete weekly plan. Measure week-4 retained users per onboarding entrant, not just signup completion or retention among completed signups. This captures the conversion–retention trade-off. Track first-workout completion and second-week adherence as early signals; Premium conversion and revenue as business guardrails.

1. Localize the leak. Segment equal-age cohorts by paid/organic source, campaign, onboarding exposure, and initial workout/plan behavior. Check existing-user retention around week 5. Reconcile the differing signup totals across the two exports before joining them.

1. Evaluate win-back with a randomized holdout. Optimize for incremental sustained activity and eventual revenue—not email-driven return visits alone.

Increase acquisition only after we demonstrate improved durable retention and acceptable channel economics. Right now, more acquisition would buy more arrivals; it has not demonstrated that it will buy lasting growth.

To: Leo | From: Activation PM | Re: Why WAU is flat, and why I'd hold off on doubling paid

Bottom line: This isn't a summer dip. Retention has been deteriorating since early August, and new sign-ups and win-back emails are hiding it. Doubling paid now would mostly buy users who leave faster.

1. What's happening

WAU = new + returning + retained users, which reconciles exactly every week. Across weeks 1–13, WAU moved only +227 (51,891 → 52,118). That flatness is three movements netting out:

• New users: +1,813 (up 30%, as you said)
• Returning users: +1,662, nearly all from win-back
• Retained users (active last week and this week): −3,248

Retained users held near 44.5–45k through week 4, then stepped down from week 5 and kept sliding to 41.6k. Churn (last week's actives who didn't return) rose from about 14% of prior-week actives in weeks 2–4 to about 20% in weeks 11–13.

2. Why it isn't summer

Seasonality would hit all cohorts alike. It doesn't. Cohorts 1–4 (signed up July to late July) had week-4 retention of 33–34%. Cohorts 5 onward (from the week of 3 August, the first week of the shorter sign-up) drop to 24–25% and stay there, even though cohorts 2–4 went through the same weather. The break lines up with the week-5 release, which removed the goal-setting step.

The funnel math shows the change is a net loss. Per 100 visitors:

We're converting more visitors into accounts, but by week 8 each signup is about 20% less likely to still be active. We're getting more users who don't build the habit.

3. Win-back is flattering the numbers

Win-back adds about 1,600 returning users a week. Of users who came back through a win-back email, 12% were still active two weeks later. Of users who came back on their own, 41% were. At 1,600 a week, that's roughly 190 durable returners instead of about 650 if they'd come back organically. We're also giving away a free week of Premium. "Returning users" now looks like a health signal, but most of it is low-quality.

The week-9 paid social increase (+25%) isn't visible as a break in the new-user trend, so I can't yet say what paid is adding.

What I'd do instead

1. Hold the paid increase. Keep current spend. Revisit when cohort week-4 retention is back above 30%.

1. Restore the goal-setting step, or move it into the app after the first workout. Run it as a holdout (50/50, old flow vs new), and judge on week-4 and week-8 retention per signup, not completion. Using the cohort tables, bringing cohort retention back to about 30% at week 4 is worth roughly 3–4k weekly actives at steady state. That's about the size of the whole retained-user decline. This is my rough estimate and needs confirming with the holdout.

1. Find the churn in tenured users. Most of the 41k retained base isn't new. Segment weeks 4–13 churn by tenure, plan usage, workout type, and platform. Also check whether win-back returners churn quickly the following week, since they add to churn in the same weeks.

1. Rework win-back. Test a smaller, conditional offer, or a guided re-entry workout instead of a free Premium week. Measure two-week retention against a holdout. Keep it only if the incremental retained users justify the cost.

1. Change what we report. Show the WAU decomposition (new, returning, retained) and cohort retention by signup week every week. Stop counting returners as growth.

On the summer theory: it's testable. If we have last year's data for the same weeks, compare churn rates. If summer were the cause, we'd expect last year's churn to rise over these weeks too, and we'd expect older cohorts to show the same pattern as new ones. The data so far points to the week-5 change.

Ask: Can we set up the sign-up holdout this week and pull the tenure-level churn cut before any paid budget decision?

To: Leo, Head of Growth From: PM, Activation Subject: Diagnosis: Why WAU is flat (and why doubling paid acquisition right now will burn cash)

Leo, you suggested doubling paid acquisition to push through flat summer WAU. I’ve dug into the numbers, and the data tells a different story.

Weekly actives are flat (averaging ~52,000 for 13 weeks), but sign-ups are up 30% (from ~6,000 to ~7,800). The issue isn't seasonal churn—it's that our onboarding changes broke cohort retention, and our win-back campaigns are masking the leak.

Doubling down on paid acquisition right now will just pour more water into a bucket with a widening hole. Here is the diagnosis, the evidence, and what we should do instead.

---

1. What’s actually happening?

#### A. Onboarding optimization created low-intent users (Week 5) In Week 5, we removed the goal-setting step to cut sign-up time from 3 minutes to 1. Completion jumped from 61% to 74%, and sign-ups grew.

However, look at the cohort data (`weeklysignupcohorts.csv`). For Cohorts 1–4 (pre-change), Week 1 retention hovered around 55%, and Week 4 retention was ~34%. From Cohort 5 onward, Week 1 retention jumped to ~58% (thanks to frictionless sign-up), but Week 4 retention cratered from ~34% down to ~25%.

By removing goal-setting, we optimized for top-of-funnel conversion at the expense of user intent. We are acquiring users who don't know why they are here or what plan fits them, leading them to drop off heavily by week 4.

#### B. Core retention is quietly declining Look at the growth accounting data (`weeklygrowthaccounting.csv`). Total `retained_users` (users active week-over-week) dropped steadily from ~44,800 in Week 1 to ~41,600 in Week 13, a loss of over 3,200 loyal weekly actives.

#### C. Win-backs are masking the bleeding So why is WAU flat if retained users dropped by 3,200? Look at `returning_users`. From Weeks 1–5, returning users averaged ~980 per week. Starting in Week 6 (when the win-back email launched), returning users spiked to ~2,600 per week.

The win-back campaign is successfully dragging churned users back, propping up our headline WAU. But it’s a leaky bucket: lifecycle data shows that only 12% of win-back users are active two weeks later (compared to 41% of organic returning users). They churn right back out.

---

2. Why "Summer" isn't to blame

Your theory about summer (outdoors, holidays) would manifest as broad seasonal churn across all cohorts. But our data shows: 1. Older cohorts (1–4) maintained stable long-term retention. 2. The drop in retention is strictly tied to Cohort 5 onwards—the exact week we shipped the shorter sign-up flow.

It is product-led churn, not seasonal.

---

3. What we should do instead of doubling paid acquisition

Before we scale ad spend, we need to fix activation and stop relying on expensive band-aids. Let’s execute a 3-step pivot:

1. Re-introduce intent-matching to onboarding (without hurting conversion): We need to qualify users so they receive the right weekly plan. Instead of a heavy 3-minute form, let’s test a lightweight, single-tap goal selector or defer personalization to the end of the first workout. We must restore Week 4 retention from 25% back toward 34%.
2. Refine the win-back targeting: Pumping win-back emails to all churned users after 21 days is bringing back low-intent users who churn in 14 days. Let’s restrict win-backs to users who reached a milestone or completed at least 3 workouts before churning, matching the profile of our 41% organic returners.
3. Optimize the Week 3–4 activation loop: We shipped 40 new routines in Week 3, but post-onboarding drop-off is neutralizing it. We need to focus activation efforts on guiding new users to these routines before they hit the Week 3 cliff.

Bottom line: Let's hold off on doubling paid acquisition for 4 weeks. If we fix the onboarding leak and improve post-signup intent, organic growth + recovered retention will naturally push us past our WAU plateau without wasting ad dollars on leaky traffic. Let's sync on this today.