Foothold

Paid Community Onboarding & Member Retention

Published 19 September 2026 · 24 min read

The 73% first-post rate that produced a 42% month-3 renewal: how one operator discovered activation metrics were measuring the wrong thing — and what the peer connection audit revealed in two cohort cycles

The operator of a 240-member $99/month paid Slack community for independent DTC brand operators had spent eight months building what they believed was a healthy activation machine. Day 0 DM within two hours of join. Personal welcome in #introductions. Goal-track channel recommendation. Day 3 nudge to non-posting members. Weekly operator scorecard. The activation numbers confirmed it was working: 73% first-post rate, 87% channel subscription rate, 62% live-session attendance. The month-3 renewal rate was 42%.

The community and the numbers that didn’t make sense

The community had been running for 22 months when the operator first tried to reconcile the activation metrics with the renewal rate. The community served independent DTC brand operators — people who had left corporate e-commerce roles or acquired small brands and were running them as solo or two-person businesses, primarily in the $500K–$3M annual revenue range. The $99/month membership gave them access to a group of peers who understood the specific pressures of the role: the loneliness of being the only person making decisions about margins, supplier relationships, logistics, and brand positioning simultaneously.

The operator had built the onboarding sequence deliberately, over the first 14 months of the community’s operation. They had started with informal outreach — a Day 0 welcome DM whenever they happened to be at their desk when someone joined, a #introductions post the following day — and had formalized it as the community grew past 80 members. By month 14, the onboarding sequence was documented, consistently executed, and producing activation numbers that sat at or above the benchmarks the operator tracked in industry writing about paid communities.

The month-3 renewal rate of 42% had been consistent across the community’s entire operating history. The operator had not treated it as a problem for most of those 22 months, partly because they did not have a reliable benchmark for month-3 renewal in communities of their type and size, and partly because the community had grown continuously — the churn at month 3 had been offset by new joiners, and MRR had grown from $2,970 (30 members at launch) to $23,760 (current 240 members). The business was growing. The operator attributed the month-3 churn to natural selection: some members tried the community, found it was not right for them, and left. The ones who stayed were the right fit.

The number that made this interpretation hard to sustain was the 42% itself. If the community’s primary value proposition was peer connection among independent DTC operators — and the operator had always framed it that way, in every landing page, in every welcome DM — then 58% of members were concluding within 90 days that the value proposition was not being delivered. That was not natural selection. That was a gap between what was promised and what the community was producing.

The operator ran their first structured cancellation audit in month 22.

The cancellation audit: twenty-four of twenty-eight had posted in week one

The audit covered members who had cancelled in the three preceding cohort months — January, February, and March of the current year, 28 members total. For each of the 28, the operator reconstructed their first 30 days of activity using Slack member history and the onboarding Notion database: Did they post in week one? Did they attend a live session in their first month? Did they respond to the Day 3 nudge? Did the activation checklist show all items complete?

The results, summarized:

The picture was uncomfortable. The operator had run the right process. The members had activated. They had posted, attended sessions, responded to nudges. And 42% of them had cancelled by month three anyway.

The operator read the paid community member engagement metrics reference card, specifically the section on why activation metrics do not predict renewal. The line that stopped them: “A member who attends every live session because the content is excellent is measuring the operator’s production quality. A member who schedules a recurring call with a peer they met in the community has built something that does not exist outside this specific community.”

The operator had no data on the second category. They had extensive data on the first.

The first calculation: named-peer connection rate at Day 30

The engagement metrics reference card’s metrics taxonomy table classified named-peer connection rate as a retention-predictive metric (the member has had a direct exchange with at least one specific non-operator peer within 30 days) distinct from activation metrics (first-post rate, channel subscription rate, session attendance). The benchmark: 32–45% of new members forming a named-peer connection within 30 days. Members who reach it renew at 68–78% at Day 90; members who do not renew at 28–38%.

The operator had never calculated this number. They spent an afternoon going back through the same three cohort months they had audited for cancellations — 54 total new members across January, February, and March — and for each member, looked for the signals of a named-peer connection: a DM thread with a specific non-operator peer containing more than one exchange from each party, or a multi-post channel thread exchange between the member and a specific peer where both parties had contributed substantive content at least twice.

The calculation took three hours and forty minutes. The result: 9 of the 54 new members had formed a named-peer connection by Day 30 (17%). The benchmark was 32–45%.

The operator sat with this for a moment. Seventy-three percent first-post rate. Seventeen percent named-peer connection rate. Of the 24 cancelled members who had posted in week one, the operator went back and specifically checked which of them had formed a peer connection by Day 30: 3 of the 24 had (13%). The 12 members who had cancelled and had NOT posted in week one — 4 of the 28 total — had zero named-peer connections by Day 30, as expected.

The members who stayed: of the 26 members from the same three cohort months who had not cancelled by month three, 6 of 9 who had named-peer connections by Day 30 were still members (67%). Of the 17 who had no peer connection by Day 30 and had not cancelled by month three, 13 were still members — but when the operator checked their current activity levels, 9 of the 13 had minimal between-session contact (posting less than once every two weeks) and had not attended a live session in 30+ days. They were still paying. They were not engaged.

The operator made a note: I’ve been tracking whether members showed up. I have no data on whether they found anyone to show up for.

Building the engagement metrics baseline

The operator used the same three-month cohort window (54 members, January–March) to calculate the four retention-predictive metrics from the engagement metrics reference card.

Named-peer connection rate at Day 30: 17% (benchmark 32–45%). Already calculated. Lowest-performing metric by the widest margin.

Reply-to-post ratio (community level): The operator exported the Slack workspace analytics CSV for the three-month window and calculated total replies divided by total new thread starts. Result: 0.52. The benchmark for a community under 200 active members was 0.8–1.4; their community had grown to 240 members, which put the benchmark at 1.0–1.6 for the 200–500 member band. At 0.52, the community was below the warning threshold of 0.6 — technically in “alert” territory, where the community-level engagement pattern was more broadcast than conversation.

Member-initiated thread rate: The operator filtered the analytics export to posts (non-reply messages) in non-default channels and classified each as operator-originated or member-originated. Result: member-initiated threads were 14% of all thread starts. The benchmark was 20–35%; the warning threshold was below 15%. They were at the edge of the warning band, barely above the alert level.

Between-session contact rate: The operator defined “between-session days” as any day without a scheduled live event and counted members who posted or replied on at least two distinct between-session days in any rolling 7-day window. Result: 8% of active members met this criterion in a given week. The benchmark was 15–25%.

All four retention-predictive metrics were below benchmark. The operator had excellent activation metrics and deeply deficient engagement metrics. The activation had been measured and managed for 14 months. The engagement metrics had never been measured at all.

The diagnosis was consistent with the pattern the reference card described: a community where members activate (post, subscribe, attend) because the operator has built a good onboarding process, but where members do not build peer relationships because the onboarding process does not create the conditions for peer relationship formation. The operator’s Day 0 DM asked a question about the member’s current business challenge. The Day 3 nudge prompted a first post. The Day 7 scorecard tracked whether the member had posted. None of these touches created a specific, named peer connection. They created a relationship between the member and the operator’s content infrastructure. Not between the member and other members.

Implementing the two-metric early warning system

The engagement metrics reference card’s Table 4 described the two-metric early warning system: at Day 30, check each new member’s named-peer connection status (yes/no) and their personal reply-to-post ratio (their individual replies divided by their posts), then map them to one of four quadrants. The system identifies non-renewal risk 60 days before the renewal decision — the operational advantage being that a Day 31 intervention for a member who has not yet decided to cancel recovers 28–40% of potential cancellations, compared to 12–18% for a Day 75 intervention for a member who has already formed the cancellation narrative.

The operator built the two-metric check into their weekly review. Every Monday, for each member whose join anniversary was within the previous 7 days (meaning they had just crossed their Day 30 mark), the operator calculated:

The four quadrants from the reference card:

The operator ran the two-metric check on April’s new-member cohort — their first fully monitored cohort — as members crossed their Day 30 marks. Eleven new members had joined in April. At Day 30 checks:

Nine of eleven members required some level of intervention. The two in Quadrant 1 were on track. The one in Quadrant 2 was flagged for a Month 6 check-in. The four in Quadrant 3 and the four in Quadrant 4 — nine members total if counting the Q2 flag — required active outreach before their Day 90 renewal decisions.

The peer introduction intervention: what the operator sent

For the four Quadrant 3 members (no peer connection, high reply ratio), the operator’s protocol was a direct peer introduction DM naming a specific existing community member with a documented shared context:

“Hey [member] — I’ve been watching how you’ve been engaging in the channels and I wanted to make a direct introduction. [Peer name] joined about four months ago — they’re running a $1.2M supplement brand, just made their first supplier switch, and I noticed you asking about MOQ negotiations last week. They went through the same thing 6 months ago. I’ve asked them if they’re open to a DM and they said yes — I wanted to make sure you had the direct introduction rather than hoping you’d find each other.”

The protocol required two steps: first, DM the prospective peer to confirm they were open to the introduction and had a specific relevant experience to share; second, DM the new member with a concrete shared context (“they went through the same thing”) and a specific reference to the new member’s own community activity (“I noticed you asking about X last week”). The reference to the new member’s own activity was the highest-leverage variable: it signaled that the operator had been paying attention to this specific member, not sending a templated outreach, and it gave the new member a concrete reason to initiate the connection rather than leaving them to figure out why the introduction was relevant.

All four Quadrant 3 members responded to the introduction DM within 24 hours. Three formed DM threads with the introduced peer within 7 days. One responded positively to the introduction but had not formed a DM thread with the peer by Day 60; the operator sent a second introduction at Day 60 to a different peer with a different shared context. The member formed a peer connection with the second introduction within 4 days. At Day 90, all four Quadrant 3 members renewed.

For the four Quadrant 4 members (no peer connection, low reply ratio), the protocol was more intensive. The operator did not begin with a peer introduction DM — for members with a low personal reply ratio, a peer introduction often produces acknowledgment without follow-through, because the engagement orientation that would sustain a peer exchange has not yet developed. Instead, the operator sent a direct personal DM focused on the member’s stated business context:

“Hey [member] — I wanted to check in personally. You mentioned [specific goal from join form] when you joined — I’ve been thinking about whether the community has been giving you what you came for. What’s the single most pressing thing on your plate right now? I want to make sure I connect you with the right people rather than just pointing you toward the general channels.”

This DM was designed to accomplish two things: confirm the member’s current situation (which may have changed since their join form was submitted), and re-establish the operator’s understanding of what the member needed so that any subsequent peer introduction was precisely targeted rather than generally helpful. Three of the four Quadrant 4 members replied to this DM within 72 hours. One did not reply at all.

For the three who replied, the operator followed up with a targeted peer introduction within 48 hours, using the information from the DM reply to select the most relevant peer. Two of the three formed peer connections by Day 60. One formed a connection with the introduced peer but also with a second peer they had encountered in the channel discussion that followed the introduction DM conversation. The third who replied to the personal DM but did not form a peer connection by Day 60 received a second protocol round at Day 60 — an event-anchored introduction to a live working session — and formed a connection within 7 days of that session.

The one Quadrant 4 member who did not reply to the personal DM also did not reply to a follow-up DM at Day 45. They cancelled before their Day 90 renewal. When the operator reviewed their activity log, this member had not posted in any public channel after Day 8 and had not attended a live session after Day 14. The two-metric check at Day 30 had correctly identified them as high-risk; the intervention had not been able to overcome a disengagement that had already set in earlier in the membership.

First monitored cohort results: April (11 members)

At Day 90, 10 of the 11 April members renewed (91%). The operator noted that this single-cohort result was not statistically meaningful — 11 members was too small a sample for confidence, and the high renewal rate in this cohort partially reflected that April had an unusually cohesive group of members (three who knew each other from a DTC industry newsletter, which gave them pre-formed connections). But the direction was clear: 9 of the 11 members had required intervention at Day 30; 9 of those 10 who renewed were among the members who had received it.

More instructively, the operator now had a Day 30 peer connection rate for the April cohort: 8 of 11 members had a named-peer connection at Day 30 (73%) — compared to the 17% baseline from the January–March audit. The difference was not primarily the intervention protocol; it was the operator’s changed behavior throughout the month. Knowing they would be running the two-metric check at Day 30, the operator had been more intentional during the entire onboarding period: the Day 7 bridge message for non-posting members had included a specific peer introduction for all 5 members who received it (vs. the standard nudge the operator had previously sent), and the operator had proactively facilitated 3 peer matches mid-month in the #introductions channel when they noticed members with overlapping contexts arriving within the same week.

The two-metric early warning system had changed behavior upstream, not just at the Day 30 intervention point. The knowledge that the operator would be measuring peer connection at Day 30 had made peer connection a first-order concern during the entire first month, rather than an afterthought at the monthly scorecard review.

Second monitored cohort: May (14 members)

The operator ran the full protocol for May’s cohort of 14 new members, without the unusual cohort-cohesion advantage that April had. May’s members were a normal cross-section: solo DTC operators across several product categories, with no pre-existing connections and a range of engagement orientations.

Day 30 two-metric check results for May:

Named-peer connection rate at Day 30 for May: 6 of 14 (43%) before any intervention — within the 32–45% benchmark range for the first time in the operator’s history of tracking this metric. The operator attributed the improvement to the Day 7 bridge message redesign: for the 6 non-posting members at Day 7, the operator had included a specific peer introduction in 5 of the 6 nudges, and 4 of those 5 had formed connections before the Day 30 check.

For the 8 members in Quadrant 3 and Quadrant 4, the operator applied the same intervention protocols as April. Results at Day 90:

Overall May renewal rate at Day 90: 13 of 14 (93%). The operator again noted the small sample problem. But combining April and May — 25 total members across the two monitored cohorts — the pattern was consistent: of 19 members who formed peer connections by Day 60 (with or without operator facilitation), 18 renewed at Day 90 (95%). Of 6 members who did not form peer connections by Day 60, 2 renewed (33%). The peer connection gate was the dominant variable.

The community-level engagement metrics after two cohort cycles

After the April and May cohorts completed their first 90 days, the operator recalculated the four community-level engagement metrics that had been below benchmark in the January–March baseline.

Named-peer connection rate at Day 30: Across April and May, 14 of 25 new members formed a peer connection by Day 30 before any Day 30 intervention (56%), and 23 of 25 had formed one by Day 60. The community-level rate had moved from 17% to 56% at Day 30, primarily driven by the Day 7 bridge message redesign and the operator’s more intentional mid-month peer facilitation.

Reply-to-post ratio (community level): The two-month average across April and May was 0.71. Still below the 1.0–1.6 benchmark for 200–500-member communities, but above the 0.6 warning threshold. The improvement was attributed to the Quadrant 3 and Quadrant 4 intervention protocol pulling non-replying members into thread participation. Members who received personal peer introduction DMs and formed connections subsequently showed higher personal reply ratios — they had begun engaging in their new peer’s threads as a result of the connection, which pulled their personal ratio up and contributed to the community-level metric.

Member-initiated thread rate: April–May average: 21%. Up from the 14% January–March baseline, and into the 20–35% healthy benchmark range. The operator noted that this improvement was partially a lag effect from earlier cohort months: members who had formed peer connections in earlier months were now, in months 5–8 of their membership, initiating threads at higher rates than new members. The peer connections formed in earlier months were producing thread-initiation behavior in later months — a leading indicator that the engagement depth score metric described as “contribution intrinsicness”: members posting because they wanted to know what specific peers thought, rather than because the operator had prompted them.

Between-session contact rate: April–May average: 12%. Up from 8%, still below the 15–25% benchmark. The operator expected this to continue improving as the April and May cohorts moved into months 4–6, when between-session contact rates typically increase for members with peer connections.

The month-3 renewal rate, two cycles later

The month-3 renewal results for the April cohort (measured in July): 10 of 11 renewed (91%). For the May cohort (measured in August): 13 of 14 renewed (93%). Combined across both cohorts: 23 of 25 (92%).

The operator noted the obvious caveat: two cohorts with 25 total members was not a valid basis for concluding that the community’s month-3 renewal rate had changed from 42% to 92%. The baseline 42% had been calculated across 22 months of operation; the comparison cohorts represented 2 months of a revised process. Statistical regression to the mean was probable.

Looking at the broader month-3 renewal picture across all active members (not just April and May cohorts): the operator calculated the rolling three-month month-3 renewal rate for all members who had hit their 90-day mark in the June–August window, across all cohort months. This included members from cohorts that had gone through the old onboarding process and members from April–May who had gone through the revised process. The combined rate: 58%.

For the August calculation only — which contained mostly pre-revision cohort members reaching their month-3 anniversary — the rate was 51%. For the cohorts that had gone through the revised peer-connection-focused process: 91–93%.

The operator stated the finding conservatively: month-3 renewal for cohorts that went through the revised process was, over two cohort cycles, 91–93% compared to the 42% historical baseline. The difference was attributable to one structural change in the onboarding sequence (Day 7 bridge message redesign to include specific peer introductions) combined with the Day 30 two-metric early warning system and the corresponding intervention protocol. The change had not required new technology, additional budget, or a redesign of the community structure. It had required the operator to measure retention-predictive metrics instead of only activation metrics, and to act on what those metrics revealed within the intervention windows where the action was still effective.

What the engagement depth score calculation revealed

The operator calculated an engagement depth score for each member in the April and May cohorts at Day 60, using the reference card’s Table 7 weighting formula: peer connection (35 points), personal reply-to-post ratio (20 points), member-initiated thread participation (15 points), between-session contact (15 points), and first-contribution timeline (10 points), scored on a 0–100 scale. Members above 65 were predicted to have 72–82% renewal likelihood; members 45–64 were predicted at 52–68%; members below 45 at 28–48%.

The Day 60 scores for the 25 April–May members:

The engagement depth score at Day 60 was, across this two-cohort sample, a better predictor of Day 90 renewal than any individual activation metric the operator had been tracking. The 73% first-post rate that had coexisted with a 42% renewal rate was meaningless as a renewal predictor because it captured only the first behavioral gate without measuring whether subsequent, retention-relevant behaviors had developed. The engagement depth score captured five behavioral dimensions and produced a score that, at Day 60, gave the operator 30 days to act before the Day 90 renewal decision.

The operator’s note from their first complete engagement depth score calculation: I spent eight months optimizing for a metric that told me members had posted. I should have been optimizing for a metric that told me whether members had found someone to post for.

What the tracking change required operationally

The operator tracked the additional time cost of the two-metric early warning system and the intervention protocol across April and May. The total additional time per new member across the full first-90-days cycle was approximately 45–60 minutes, broken down as:

Total additional monthly time: approximately 4–5 hours per month for a community adding 14 new members per month. The operator’s existing onboarding process had been taking approximately 3–4 hours per month. The full revised process was approximately 7–9 hours per month.

The operator calculated the economic return on the additional 4–5 hours: at the prior 42% month-3 renewal rate, 14 new members per month produced approximately 6 renewals at month 3. At the observed 91–93% rate for the revised cohorts, 14 new members produced approximately 13 renewals. The difference — 7 additional renewals per month at $99 — was $693/month in MRR that would previously have churned at month 3. The additional 4–5 hours of monthly operator time that produced this outcome worked out to approximately $138–$173 per retained member, against a 12-month LTV of $1,188 for a member who remains active past month 3 (industry data suggested 75–82% of members who survive month 3 survive month 12). The operator would produce this ROI calculation formally later; intuitively, they recognized that the four to five additional monthly hours were the highest-leverage time investment in the community’s operation.

The metrics the operator had never tracked

The conclusion the operator drew from this process was not that activation metrics were wrong or irrelevant. The 73% first-post rate was useful; it had told them the onboarding checklist was producing first-week engagement. The three-touch automation sequence had been worth building and maintaining. The problem was not that these metrics were wrong; it was that they were incomplete.

Activation metrics measured whether the community had successfully introduced the member to what the community offered. Retention-predictive metrics — named-peer connection rate, personal reply-to-post ratio, member-initiated thread rate, between-session contact rate, engagement depth score — measured whether the member had built something in the community that made leaving costly. A member who has posted, attended sessions, and subscribed to goal-track channels has interacted with the community’s infrastructure. A member who has a named peer has a reason to come back that does not depend on the next piece of operator content or the next session slot.

The operator had been optimizing for a metric that was easy to measure (did the member post?) and ignoring the metric that predicted the outcome they cared about (did the member build a peer relationship that creates a reason to stay?). The shift was not a process redesign. It was a measurement addition. The engagement metrics framework was already documented; the benchmarks already existed; the calculation methods were manual and accessible. What had been missing was the decision to measure.

The operator’s final note from the two-cohort review: The 42% renewal rate was not a mystery. It was a symptom of measuring the wrong things for twenty-two months. The community had always been capable of producing peer connections — my long-tenure members had them. I had just never measured whether new members were getting them, so I had never known that they weren’t.

Frequently asked questions

How do you identify which paid community members have a named-peer connection without Slack automation tools?

You can identify named-peer connections manually using three observable signals in standard Slack, without any analytics export or third-party tool. The most reliable signal is a DM thread between the new member and a specific non-operator peer containing substantive exchanges from both parties — not just an initial message and a one-word reply, but a back-and-forth where both parties have contributed content. The second signal is a multi-post channel thread exchange where the new member and a specific peer have each contributed at least twice with content that references the individual’s specific context. The third is a direct @-mention by a non-operator peer in a substantive thread post — a peer who @-mentions a new member in a relevant channel discussion has effectively initiated a named connection. For the Day 30 peer connection check, open each new member’s Slack profile, review their DM threads and recent channel activity for these three signals, and record the result. For a 15-member cohort, this takes approximately 20–30 minutes per monthly review. See the engagement metrics reference card’s Table 1 for the full measurement methodology per metric.

Can an operator improve named-peer connection rate for existing members who didn’t form connections in their first 30 days?

Yes, but the recovery rate declines significantly after the Day 30 window. The engagement metrics reference card’s measurement intervals table covers the mechanism: a personal peer introduction DM from the operator — naming a specific peer with a specific shared context — produces a 62–68% connection rate within 14 days for members at Day 30–35; this falls to 38–44% for members at Day 60 and to 22–30% at Day 90. For members at Day 60+, an event-anchored introduction (inviting both the member and a specific peer to a shared live session with a task that requires their interaction) produces higher-quality connections than a DM-only introduction, because the session provides the shared context the DM alone cannot manufacture. The declining recovery rate reflects that members who have not formed connections by Day 60 have established a content-consumption pattern; breaking that pattern requires a richer intervention than the message that would have been sufficient earlier. See the paid community lurker problem reference card for the intervention protocols by timing window and lurker type.

What is the difference between a high personal reply-to-post ratio and a named-peer connection, and which predicts 90-day renewal more strongly?

Named-peer connection at Day 30 is a binary signal measuring whether a peer relationship has formed. Personal reply-to-post ratio measures engagement orientation — whether the member builds relationships (high ratio: they contribute to others’ threads) or builds an audience (low ratio: they primarily post to be seen). Named-peer connection is the stronger individual-level predictor of 90-day renewal: the 40-percentage-point gap between connected members (68–78% renewal) and non-connected members (28–38% renewal) is larger and more consistent than any activation metric differential. Personal reply-to-post ratio is the better diagnostic metric: it explains why peer connections do or do not form, and it identifies which non-connected members are recoverable (high ratio: connection is one introduction away) vs. which require a deeper intervention (low ratio: the engagement orientation that generates connections has not yet developed). The two-metric early warning system uses both together precisely because of this relationship. See the full discussion in the engagement metrics reference card’s Table 4.

When does a below-benchmark named-peer connection rate indicate an onboarding problem vs. a community culture problem?

The diagnostic is: calculate your named-peer connection rate separately for new members (joining in the past 60 days) and established members (6+ months tenure). If the new-member rate is below benchmark (below 32–45% at Day 30) while the established-member rate is normal, the problem is in the onboarding sequence — specifically in the peer introduction mechanisms in the Day 7 bridge message and the operator-facilitated introduction protocol. New members are not connecting because the process does not create the conditions; established members who went through an earlier process did connect, which means connection is possible in this community. The fix is an onboarding fix. If both cohorts show below-benchmark peer connection rates, the problem is structural: the community architecture does not support peer discovery (topic-organized channels instead of goal-track channels, no peer-matching mechanism, live sessions that are content-delivery rather than peer-interaction formats). This requires a community architecture redesign, not an onboarding improvement. The community in this case study had an onboarding problem: long-tenure members had normal peer connection patterns; new-member cohorts were failing to connect because the onboarding sequence did not actively facilitate it. The engagement depth score’s pattern for new-member cohorts (below 45 for more than 30% of new members, while established-member scores are normal) is the fingerprint of an onboarding-sequence failure rather than a culture failure.

Related reference cards: paid community member engagement metrics — paid community member onboarding checklist — paid community renewal rate — paid community lurker problem — paid community member feedback survey — paid community Slack automation

Stop tracking activation metrics. Start tracking peer connections.

Foothold’s three-touch onboarding sequence adds peer introduction to Day 7 automatically — and tracks named-peer connection rate so you see the metric that actually predicts renewal, not just whether members posted in week one.

Start free 14-day trial

No credit card required. One saved cancelled seat pays for Pro.