Churn Risks
Definition
Named at-risk accounts, root-cause analysis of why they're at risk, and the mitigation plan in flight. Pairs with the quantitative `arr_at_risk` and `percent_arr_at_risk` and gives the board the names + the playbook. Common pitfall: listing the at-risk accounts without the diagnosis or the plan — the board reader needs to see what the team is doing about it, not just what the team is worried about. Also: avoid using this surface as a generic "things are bad" venting forum — keep it account-specific and action-specific.
Why it matters
Converts the dollar exposure (`arr_at_risk`) into a board-readable narrative of named accounts and concrete plans. Forces the CS team to articulate the diagnosis, not just the symptom.
How it's calculated
Qualitative — no calculation. Per-account list: account name, ARR exposure, churn driver (usage decline, exec churn, missed milestone, competitive loss, integration friction, etc.), mitigation owner, mitigation plan, next checkpoint date. How to interpret it
Anti-pattern: an aggregate "we have $X at risk" with no per-account breakdown. Strong content lists the top 3–5 at-risk accounts by ARR, with cause and plan for each. If the team is asking the board for help (intro, exec sponsor, pricing relief), surface the ask here explicitly — boards routinely catch resolvable churn that the team would not have escalated.
Source
imboard Editorial
Stage relevance
Typically owned by
Related KPIs
Sum of ARR from customers flagged "at-risk" by the customer-success team — typically driven by usage decline, low health score, executive turnover at the customer, missed milestones, or explicit churn intent. The board reads this as the worst-case near-term churn exposure if no intervention happens. Common pitfall: the "at-risk" definition drifts across CSMs and quarters; standardize the criteria (e.g. health score below threshold OR 30-day usage drop > X% OR cancellation request received) and version-control the playbook so the absolute number is comparable period-over-period. Pair with `percent_arr_at_risk` for the proportional read.
Share of total ARR flagged as at-risk for churn or contraction — the proportional view that complements the absolute `arr_at_risk` dollar figure. Computed as `arr_at_risk ÷ total ARR`. The board reads this as the worst-case-near-term-NRR-impact ceiling: if every at-risk account actually churned in-period, NRR would drop by roughly this percentage (before expansion offset). Common pitfall: the "at-risk" definition is internal and varies by company — a 12% percent_arr_at_risk under a conservative flagging rule is a very different signal than 12% under an aggressive rule. Document the flag rule and hold it constant.
Share of total ARR contributed by the top N customers — typically top 5 or top 10. Measures revenue concentration risk: a high concentration means losing one big customer would materially dent ARR. The board reads this alongside `arr_at_risk` and the customer list to gauge how much of the company's future is tied to a handful of accounts. Common pitfall: hiding parent-account aggregation — if three "customers" are subsidiaries of the same parent, true concentration is higher than the count-by-logo view shows; settle parent-rollup rules and document them in `customer_definition_note`.
Free-form commentary from the CS / Sales leadership on retention trends, cohort behavior, and underlying drivers of loyalty (or its absence). Pairs with the quantitative retention KPIs (NRR, GRR, logo retention) and gives the board the "why" behind the numbers — which cohorts are strong, which are weak, what feature engagement correlates with retention, what onboarding changes are landing. Common pitfall: filler prose that restates the numbers without adding causal insight — a board reader should learn something here they could not infer from the metrics page alone.
Active programs the CS / Product / Sales team is running to improve customer health, NPS, retention, or expansion — onboarding revamps, health-score model updates, success-plan rollouts, expansion playbooks, advocacy programs, executive-business-review cadence changes. The board reads this as the "what are we doing about it" companion to the metric pages and the at-risk narrative. Common pitfall: listing initiatives without owner, target metric movement, or checkpoint date — the board cannot follow up on vague programs.
Track these KPIs with your board
I'mBoard helps startup CEOs report the metrics that matter, track resolutions, and run better board meetings.