Other

Reactivation: Low-Value Players vs. High-Value Players

Reactivation: Low-Value Players vs. High-Value Players

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.