A recurring webinar engine that fills attorney seats from three segmented lists instead of one

The programme had a real asset — genuinely useful practice-development content delivered live by a recognised practitioner — and was promoting it the way most people promote a webinar: one email, one link, one list. Attendance was inconsistent in a way that had no obvious pattern, which usually means the list is doing the work rather than the message. Several campaigns had already run, so there was history to read, and the history showed that the reasons a solo practitioner would attend and the reasons a senior partner would attend are not the same reasons at all.

One list, one message, one link. A solo practitioner and a senior partner at a 200-lawyer firm were receiving identical invitations to the same session.

1. 01

   The audience was three audiences

   General practitioners, partners and senior attorneys, and solo and small-firm owners have different economics, different time pressure and different reasons to spend ninety minutes on a live session. Segmenting these three produced three genuinely different invitations rather than three variations of one.

2. 02

   Asking for a registration in the first email was costing replies

   A first email carrying a link reads as a broadcast. A first email that asks a question and carries no link reads as a message from a person. The registration link belongs in the second email, sent to the people who answered the first.

3. 03

   Signature and sender identity were inconsistent across sends

   Earlier sends had gone out under the wrong signature. For a programme whose entire value proposition is the credibility of the person delivering it, that is not a formatting error, it is a trust error.

4. 04

   Nothing was being reused between sessions

   Each session was promoted, delivered and then dropped. Registrants who did not attend were not re-invited. Attendees were not segmented for the next relevant topic.

We rebuilt the programme as an engine rather than a series of events. The audience is segmented into three lists with distinct messaging. Each campaign runs a two-email structure: the first tests interest and carries no link, the second delivers the registration link to people who engaged. Sender identity and signature are fixed per programme and checked before every send. Registrants who do not attend roll into the invitation list for the next session on a related topic rather than being discarded, and attendees are tagged by topic so the next campaign can target on demonstrated interest instead of on job title alone.

1. 1

   Week 1

   Segment the list

   Three segments with distinct fit criteria, duplicates removed

   Owner: OmniFlow

2. 2

   Week 1

   Write three campaigns

   Segment-specific subject lines and body copy, no shared template

   Owner: OmniFlow

3. 3

   Week 2, day 1

   Interest-check send

   Email 1, no registration link

   Owner: OmniFlow

4. 4

   Week 2, day 3–4

   Registration send

   Email 2 to engaged recipients only

   Owner: OmniFlow

5. 5

   Week 2

   Session delivery

   Live session, recorded

   Owner: Programme host

6. 6

   Week 3

   Tag and roll over

   Attendees tagged by topic, non-attendees queued for the next relevant session

   Owner: OmniFlow

Report registrations per session and registration-to-attendance rate as a trend across the last six sessions rather than as a single figure, because the value of the engine is consistency rather than any one peak. Pull attendance from the webinar platform's own report, not from a manual count.

Measured in the webinar platform and Instantly, window to be confirmed at publication. Supplied by the client and used with permission; identifying details removed. Cited: ON24 *2025 Webinar Benchmarks Report*. ---.

These are the surfaces this engagement is run and measured from, shown with representative figures built around the benchmarks cited on this page. Every account we run reports into views like these, and you keep ownership of all of them.

4 of the figures on this engagement are not published yet. Rather than estimate them, this is the standard they will be held to: the system each is read from, and the exact definition and window that will be used. Nothing appears above until it has been pulled from the system named here.

We segmented on job title first and on demonstrated topic interest second. It should have been the other way round — an attorney who attended a session on one topic is a far better predictor of attending the next one than their seniority is. We now tag on topic from the first session onward.

Real client work. Every figure is measured in a named system and carries the window it was measured over. See all our work