Hey @Travis Sago I’m running into a friction point applying this no-upfront, revenue-share style model to email marketing, and I wanted to get your take on how you would think about it. Here’s the issue: Most businesses I see have completely neglected email. They send occasional campaigns, their list is half-dead, and open rates are usually sitting around 5% to 10%, sometimes even worse. So finding a partner with a healthy, properly activated email list is rare. Now, I do know how to rehabilitate lists. I can repair the setup, improve deliverability, reactivate the database, raise open rates, and turn email into a meaningful revenue channel again. But that process usually takes anywhere from 30 to 90 days. That’s where I’m getting stuck. I don’t think it’s reasonable for me to fully absorb all the cost, time, and effort of that rehabilitation work upfront under a pure performance deal, especially when the channel is basically broken when I come in. So my question is: How do you and your team think about partnerships when the asset is underperforming that badly from day one? Do you have a qualification threshold? For example, do you look at something like: minimum open rates list size recent sending activity offer quality sales process / close rate average order value or LTV And if the email list is clearly neglected but still has potential — say 100,000 subscribers but very low engagement — would you still consider that a partnership deal? Or would you charge something upfront first to rehabilitate the list before moving into a rev-share structure? I’d really love to understand how you draw that line