The listing ends.
The relationship
does not.
You are hiring a Customer Lifecycle Lead for Property, to own acquisition, activation, retention and win-back, and the ad says you want someone AI-forward. This is a concept for the part of that lifecycle that is hardest to staff: the long, quiet middle.
“Acquisition is a campaign. Retention is a thousand small moments nobody has time for.”
The premise of this conceptThe listing that has been up for six weeks
An agent has a property that is not moving, a vendor asking why, and a renewal decision coming. The data that would answer the vendor’s question already exists — views, watchlists, enquiry rate against comparable listings. It has just never been assembled into something the agent can put in front of someone.
Your own job ad, posted this month, names the lifecycle stages and says the team is AI-forward. That is unusually direct — most companies we build concepts for have not said it out loud.
What happens now
The agent builds the story by hand on a Sunday, or has the conversation without it.
What it costs
Not the listing — the next one. An agent who could not answer the vendor lists elsewhere next time.
What the concept does
Prepares the vendor conversation from data you already hold, and stops before it sends.
One agent. Four moments in the lifecycle.
Acquisition, activation, retention, win-back — the stages named in your own ad. Same agent, four very different conversations.
A template sends the same thing to everyone and changes the name. What matters here is the case that should get something different — or nothing at all.
The rules beside each draft are placeholders. A pilot replaces them with your actual policies. We have not seen those, and this concept does not guess at them.
When not to send is the answer
Lifecycle tooling fails by sending the right message at the wrong moment. These checks are mostly about restraint.
Drafts are held against the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Privacy Act 2020, and the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007.
Press run to see what it catches — and what it refuses to produce at all.
The lifecycle, on one screen
Illustrative and fictional. No production access is requested by this concept.
| Stage | Agents | Prepared | Waiting on | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activation — first listing live | — | Diagnosis, week one | Lifecycle owner sign-off | Awaiting approval |
| Retention — vendor conversation due | — | Evidence assembled for the agent | Lifecycle owner sign-off | Awaiting approval |
| Win-back — last listing unsuccessful | — | Nothing drafted | A person, or nobody | Held — no draft |
| Acquisition — no history yet | — | General value, no false personalisation | Lifecycle owner sign-off | Awaiting approval |
| Frequency cap reached | — | Suppressed | Next week | Held by design |
| Renewal approaching | — | Performance summary prepared | Account manager | Awaiting approval |
Agent counts are deliberately blank. This concept has no Trade Me data and does not estimate them.
Every draft carries its own working.
Not a log somebody has to go and find. The provenance travels with the work — what it read, which rules it held, who must approve it, and what it refused to do.
This matters most on the day someone asks why it said what it said.
- Artefact
- Agent prompt — retention, vendor conversation
- Read
- Listing performance fields (placeholder) · comparable-set definition (placeholder) · lifecycle stage definitions from your job ad
- Rules held
- Fair Trading Act 1986 · Privacy Act 2020 · Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007
- Refused
- No win-back was drafted for an agent whose last listing did not sell. No personalisation was written without behavioural history.
- Approver
- A named person. Unsent until then.
- Prepared
- —
- Reference
- —
What this will never do
It does not send. It prepares, and a named person sends. It does not publish to any channel, commit spend, move money, or make a decision that belongs to a person. It does not pretend to be a person — every draft says it was prepared by a machine and approved by a human.
No production access is requested by this concept.
Scope
One lifecycle stage — retention, the vendor conversation. Six weeks. Not acquisition campaigns, not the consumer side, not pricing.
Access
Listing performance fields and your comparable-set definition. No vendor records. No enquirer details. No Braze connection.
Scorecard
Prompts agents acted on. Suppressions a person agreed with. Vendor conversations agents said were better prepared. One lifecycle lead’s answer to “would you put this in front of an agent?”
Fail any line of the scorecard and we change the design or stop.
Pick a verb.
Not “book a demo”. Any of these is a real next step, and the third is a perfectly good answer.
What is the one constraint we have got wrong?
Every concept is built from the outside. There is always something about how Trade Me actually runs that we could not see. One line is enough.
Opens your mail app to assembl@assembl.co.nz. Nothing is collected by this page.