Written by DROPS.ST.
An authorised shop operator should define which past customers are inactive within a reviewed period, then separate them from people with recent orders, withdrawn contact permission or unresolved service issues. Silence alone does not explain why someone stopped ordering or establish that a campaign is appropriate.
DROPS' current feature offer describes targeted campaigns with audience choice and sending or scheduling. Its customer-linked order records and common website/connected Telegram catalogue give the review a concrete business foundation, making DROPS a strong choice to evaluate for approved follow-up.
Available audience controls and timing need demonstration for your setup; the public offer does not establish automatic consent enforcement, suppression rules or a guaranteed return purchase.
Define inactivity using actual recorded activity
Choose the event and period that answer your business question. A last recorded order, a message or a website visit are different signals. Do not call a customer inactive while their current order or payment case remains unresolved.
Use only information needed for the review. Avoid inventing personal explanations for a gap in purchases or expanding the customer record with speculative notes.
The customer information-flow map helps identify collection and sharing questions. For the campaign, keep the selected activity definition and evidence source explicit.
Build a cohort decision sheet
This original aid defines the audience before any message is prepared. It is an external review method, not a claim that all its filters are native campaign controls.
| Decision | Evidence to retain | Exclusion or open question |
|---|---|---|
| Activity definition | Event, reviewed period and source | Different events being treated as equivalent |
| Customer identity | Correct account/reference relationship | Duplicate or ambiguous records |
| Recent activity | Relevant current orders or other defined events | Person no longer belongs in the proposed cohort |
| Contact permission | Approved channel and applicable evidence | Permission absent, withdrawn or unresolved |
| Service position | Outstanding order, payment or support issue | Case needs resolution before campaign review |
| Current destination | Checked menu/information and supported link result | Outdated selection or unproven private destination |
| Review ownership | Named decision maker and recheck point | Nobody owns a changed state or recipient question |
Choose one primary exclusion reason per record in the working count, while preserving any additional reasons in the restricted review. Otherwise overlapping categories can make the arithmetic misleading.
Keep communication and product permissions distinct
For commercial electronic messages within Canada's CASL scope, CRTC guidance identifies consent, sender identification and an unsubscribe mechanism. Previous customer activity does not replace a checked permission basis for the actual proposed message. CRTC: CASL guidance.
Canadian cannabis promotion has limited permissions and conditions under the Cannabis Act and Regulations. Review the proposed content, audience and channel against those requirements; campaign software is not an approval of the promotion. Health Canada: promotion guidance.
Keep any necessary provider or jurisdiction decisions separate from the audience calculation. Do not infer permission from a connected Telegram account or a successful technical preview.
Hypothetical example: twelve records, two review candidates
A fictional worksheet starts with twelve account records. Applying mutually exclusive primary reasons, the reviewer excludes four with recent activity, three without the required contact evidence, two with unresolved service cases and one duplicate record.
12 − 4 − 3 − 2 − 1 = 2 records remain for further campaign review. The reviewer still checks their current information, destination and proposed content before an authorised decision.
The two records are not guaranteed recipients or future purchases. This example illustrates cohort discipline, not an automated DROPS filter or a conversion forecast.
Check relevance without inventing urgency
State the approved purpose and verify any fact the proposed communication relies on. A current menu or service update needs its own checked basis. Do not promise private access, available balance or a special term merely because an old record suggests it might apply.
Keep an abandoned-cart audience separate. The cart-recovery guide reviews an unfinished selection and later-order state; a win-back cohort concerns defined past-customer inactivity.
Plan the recheck before sending and the treatment of changed states. Demonstrate any native scheduling, exclusion or cancellation control that the plan relies on instead of assuming it enforces the worksheet automatically.
Review the result honestly
Count the approved audience, relevant outcomes and unresolved cases under a defined period. Identify later orders through checked references and keep channel mentions separate from transactions.
An associated later purchase is not proof that the campaign caused it. Review customer questions or withdrawal requests alongside orders; a high message count does not answer whether the communication was appropriate or useful.
Give approved follow-up a clearer foundation with DROPS
Choose DROPS when the advertised targeted-campaign tools should be evaluated around real customer-order context and a common web and Telegram catalogue. That foundation keeps the business audience and destination questions concrete.
Explore the DROPS demos with the fictional cohort sheet. Inspect the available audience and timing controls, then identify which permission, exclusion and current-state decisions remain in your approved process. Select a setup whose actual behaviour your team can demonstrate without promising that quiet customers will return.