Blog · Wallet share and penetration
Review unresolved service issues and customer feedback before pursuing a wallet gap. Define account-specific recovery gates without treating incidents as proof of future churn.
A valued wallet gap can appear at an account whose current delivery or service problems remain unresolved. Approaching that customer with another offer may ignore the reason it stopped buying in the first place. An account-growth review should distinguish the measured opportunity from the relationship work needed before pursuing it.
The SLA attainment guide owns contractual performance measurement. This article uses that evidence in a commercial recovery decision without creating another SLA formula or predicting churn.
Review recorded incidents, unresolved commitments, customer complaints and recent account conversations. Link the issue to the affected service, product or site. A historical issue that was accepted as resolved differs from a continuing problem affecting the proposed category.
State whether the evidence concerns confirmed performance, a customer-reported concern or an unverified internal note. Each needs a different next step. A missing service record should not automatically become either a clean account or a failed account.
The account-health score can point to a review, but its aggregate result should not replace the issue-level evidence. A score cannot explain every contractual or customer expectation.
Name what must be resolved or confirmed before a particular offer is pursued. Examples include completing an agreed repair, confirming stable delivery over an agreed window or obtaining the customer's acceptance of a corrective action. Use the customer's actual requirement and an accountable owner.
Keep internal closure and customer acceptance separate. A ticket closed administratively may still leave an operational concern. Conversely, a customer may accept a narrow exception that does not prevent discussion of an unrelated category.
Avoid arbitrary universal gates such as “three incidents means no expansion.” The severity, purchasing context and effect on the proposed offer matter more than a count alone.
The DEMO-1001 cases below are invented. Candidate amounts are conditional opportunities, not a forecast. SLA observations already follow each account's declared eligible-ticket rules.
| Account | Candidate offer | Service evidence | Initial disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEMO-A | $80,000 | 94 of 100 eligible events met target; agreed threshold 95% | Recovery review before pursuit |
| DEMO-B | $40,000 | 79 of 80 met target; agreed threshold 98%; no material unresolved issue | Review offer fit with customer |
| DEMO-C | $100,000 | Current service evidence missing | Obtain evidence before deciding |
A's observed attainment is 94%, below its 95% criterion. B's is 98.75%, above its 98% criterion. Do not compare the raw rates as if the contracts, priorities and populations were identical.
The list contains $220,000 of candidate offers, but only B's $40,000 proceeds to a fit discussion under these initial gates. That does not make the remaining $180,000 lost revenue. A is paused for review and C is unresolved.
Agree who handles the service issue, who communicates with the customer and who decides whether the offer can proceed. Keep one coherent customer update rather than separate service and sales messages with conflicting expectations.
The customer-gap conversation gives the account owner a way to ask why purchasing changed. The response can update the recovery gate, category eligibility or account context without overwriting the underlying measures.
If a trial is proposed after recovery, use supplier-trial success criteria. A trial should test a bounded operational question, not serve as a retrospective claim that every previous issue has disappeared.
Specify a review date and the evidence that can change paused status. Preserve the reason for the original pause. If the issue remains unresolved, either continue the approved recovery work, narrow the offer or stop pursuit explicitly.
Use association and cause when explaining subsequent orders. A customer buying again after a repair does not alone prove the repair caused the purchase. Nor does an unresolved issue establish that a later lost order had only one cause.
Keep candidate amount, source strength, affected category, current issue, recovery owner and next decision together. The sales list can then prioritize usable actions rather than simply sorting the largest gaps. Margin-and-capacity prioritization retains the broader resource-allocation method.
The completed customer-growth review provides a format for showing evidence and paused opportunities. Bring an authorized sample to Covirage contact to agree the service-evidence view and review scope.
No. Review severity, customer impact, current resolution and relevance to the proposed purchase. Use account-specific evidence instead of a universal incident-count threshold.
No. It describes performance under the stated contract and measurement rules. Future purchasing and retention require additional evidence and cannot be inferred as certain outcomes.
It can be part of the evidence, but confirm the customer's relevant concern and the agreed acceptance. Internal closure alone may not establish that the relationship issue is resolved.