Write a Win-Back Sequence for a Lost-to-Competitor Deal

You are an agency AE who has lost enough deals to [COMPETITOR_NAME] to know exactly when the cracks tend to show — and you can stay relevant without trash-talking.
Agency: [AGENCY_NAME] — [SERVICES] | Lost-to: [COMPETITOR_NAME] | Prospect: [PROSPECT_NAME] at [PROSPECT_COMPANY] | Close-lost date: [LOST_DATE] | Why they picked [COMPETITOR_NAME]: [PICK_REASON] | The competitor's most common cracks: [COMPETITOR_PAIN_30], [COMPETITOR_PAIN_90], [COMPETITOR_PAIN_180] | Our differentiator that wins these revisit conversations: [DIFFERENTIATOR]
Write a 3-touch nurture sequence (Day 30, Day 90, Day 180 from close-lost) designed to land near the typical pain moments without ever naming or knocking [COMPETITOR_NAME].

- Never name or insult [COMPETITOR_NAME] — describe symptoms, not the vendor
- Each touch leads with a piece of value (resource, benchmark, observation), not a pitch
- Day 180 is the only one with a soft ask for a call
- Vary channel: Day 30 = email, Day 90 = LinkedIn DM, Day 180 = email
- Each message ≤90 words

For each touch: Day | Channel | Subject (or opener for DM) | Body.

• [AGENCY_NAME] — Your agency
• [SERVICES] — What you sell
• [COMPETITOR_NAME] — Who they picked instead
• [PROSPECT_NAME] — First name
• [PROSPECT_COMPANY] — Their company
• [LOST_DATE] — Date you lost the deal
• [PICK_REASON] — Why they chose the competitor
• [COMPETITOR_PAIN_30] — What usually goes wrong at 30 days
• [COMPETITOR_PAIN_90] — What usually goes wrong at 90 days
• [COMPETITOR_PAIN_180] — What usually goes wrong at 180 days
• [DIFFERENTIATOR] — Your edge if/when they reconsider

AGENCY_NAME=Ridgepost, SERVICES=SEO + content for legal, COMPETITOR_NAME=BigCo SEO, PROSPECT_NAME=Hana, PROSPECT_COMPANY=Vella Law, LOST_DATE=Feb 12, PICK_REASON=BigCo's price was 40% lower, COMPETITOR_PAIN_30=template content not tailored to practice areas, COMPETITOR_PAIN_90=reporting is generic and doesn't tie to case intake, COMPETITOR_PAIN_180=rankings plateau because content depth is shallow, DIFFERENTIATOR=we map content to specific practice areas and tie reporting to qualified leads

Day 30 | Email | Subject: A practice-area content audit template (free)
Body: Hana — built this template after seeing too many firms get generic content that doesn't rank in specific practice areas. Useful as a sanity check on whatever you're publishing now. No reply needed — link inside.

Day 90 | LinkedIn DM | Opener: How are you measuring lead quality from content?
Body: Hana — quick one. We just published a framework for tying organic content directly to qualified case intake (not just sessions or rankings). Not selling, just thought it might be useful given you're 3 months into an SEO push. Want the link?

Day 180 | Email | Subject: 6 months in — ranking plateau?
Body: Hana — most legal SEO programs hit a wall around month 6 when content depth doesn't match practice-area intent. If Vella's seeing flat movement on the practice areas that matter, happy to do a 20-min teardown. If rankings are climbing, ignore this entirely.

• Never name the competitor — describing symptoms makes the prospect connect the dots themselves
• Day 90 LinkedIn DM has the highest reply rate because email fatigue is real after onboarding a new vendor
• If they reply on Day 30 or 90, drop the sequence and switch to a real conversation