In this post, we’ll explore two reactivation campaigns targeting players of different lifetime values — and how the results took an unexpected turn over a six-month period.
Initial goal: bring dormant players back.
We segmented the audience into two groups:
1. Low-value players — Lifetime deposits between € 300-€ 500, last deposit over 90 days ago.
2. High-value players — Lifetime deposits exceeding € 10,000, last deposit also more than 90 days ago.
From each segment, we selected 1,000 players matching these criteria and launched separate offers:
For low-value players, a reactivation was counted when they made a deposit to unlock the bonus.
For high-value players, only deposits made after activating the bonus were considered reactivations.
Results after 2 weeks
Low value:
High value:
At first glance, the LV segment performed better in volume — 103 out of 1,000 returned, covering campaign costs with a positive ROI.
The HV segment had a much lower response rate but delivered a high ROI — just a few deposits fully offset the investment.
Mid-term takeaway:
Both campaigns were profitable.
After 6 months
Revisiting the same player groups revealed an interesting twist:
The total deposits from LV players were 15.3% higher than those from HV players. Over time, the numbers won.
🫡 Final insights:
Still, post-reactivation behavior is directly tied to retention quality. Weak retention mechanics mean you’ll be reactivating the same players again within months.
We segmented the audience into two groups:
1. Low-value players — Lifetime deposits between € 300-€ 500, last deposit over 90 days ago.
2. High-value players — Lifetime deposits exceeding € 10,000, last deposit also more than 90 days ago.
From each segment, we selected 1,000 players matching these criteria and launched separate offers:
- Low value: 100 free spins, € 30 minimum deposit, 40x wagering.
- High value: € 300 no-deposit bonus, 40x wagering.
For low-value players, a reactivation was counted when they made a deposit to unlock the bonus.
For high-value players, only deposits made after activating the bonus were considered reactivations.
Results after 2 weeks
Low value:
- Emails opened: 382
- Clicks to site: 202
- Deposits: 103 (10.3%)
High value:
- Emails opened: 93
- Clicks to site: 42
- Deposits: 5 (0.5%)
At first glance, the LV segment performed better in volume — 103 out of 1,000 returned, covering campaign costs with a positive ROI.
The HV segment had a much lower response rate but delivered a high ROI — just a few deposits fully offset the investment.
Mid-term takeaway:
Both campaigns were profitable.
- In terms of player count, LV outperformed.
- In terms of ROI, HV was more cost-effective.
After 6 months
Revisiting the same player groups revealed an interesting twist:
The total deposits from LV players were 15.3% higher than those from HV players. Over time, the numbers won.
🫡 Final insights:
- In the short term, LV players deliver more reactivations by volume.
- HV players can make a campaign profitable with just a few conversions — but they return less willingly.
- Over the long term, LV wins through steady deposit activity and larger cumulative returns.
Still, post-reactivation behavior is directly tied to retention quality. Weak retention mechanics mean you’ll be reactivating the same players again within months.