Contents
Starting point
Company A is a Finnish company providing digital design, consulting and development services. As the company grew, leadership no longer had a reliable overall view of its client relationships. Account owners knew their own clients well, but leadership could not easily see which relationships needed attention or which issues were recurring across accounts.
Company B is a Finnish company providing creative and digital design and consulting services. It wanted to see risks in its key client relationships as early as possible, so that it could respond quickly and follow how they developed.
How the reviews are organised
Company A collects evaluations from both clients and its own account owners. Key clients are asked for an evaluation once a quarter and smaller clients twice a year. The results show two things: which individual relationships need attention, and which themes recur across the client portfolio.
Company B has limited its reviews to key clients. Evaluations are collected from key clients and account owners two to three times a year. The results are reviewed with each client individually. Together they identify improvement areas, agree on actions and follow progress in subsequent reviews.
Response rate
| Participant group | Company A | Company B |
|---|---|---|
| Key clients | 77% | 86% |
| Smaller clients | 51% | not reviewed |
| Account owners | 53% | 100% |
The response rate shows what share of those invited to evaluate responded over the six months. It is worth reading before the other results, because everything else reflects only the views of those who responded.
At Company A, key clients responded clearly more actively than smaller clients. About half of the account owners responded, so the company's internal view is also based on partial data. At Company B, every account owner responded and the key client response rate was 86%. The group reviewed, however, was limited to key clients.
Risks
Both companies measured risk the same way: the share of annual revenue that is at acute risk, or can be estimated to be at acute risk. A client relationship is considered at risk when significant dissatisfaction has been identified, or when there is a long-unresolved issue that someone in the relationship has repeatedly raised.
Read more about how risk and dissatisfaction develop →
Company A: about 4% of annual revenue
Over the six months, about 4% of the company's annual revenue was at acute risk or was estimated to be. The data does not show what happened to these client relationships.
87 risk signals
A total of 87 risk signals were reported in the reviews over six months. Two examples:
Invoicing delays
Late invoices and unclear line items were causing distrust.
Internal review
A client wanted more thorough internal checks before materials were delivered.
…and 85 more.
Company B: about 8% of annual revenue in two key client relationships
Two key client relationships showed early risk signals, and about 8% of the company's annual revenue was at acute risk in them. The issues were worked through with both clients, and both relationships continued. The data does not show what would have happened to these relationships without the reviews.
Growth opportunities
Company A: 24 growth opportunities
The same reviews identified 24 growth opportunities. They show that the reviews surfaced not only problems but also clients' upcoming needs. Examples:
Website expansion
A client planned to expand its website project.
CRM implementation support
A client identified a need for additional support with a new CRM implementation.
…and 22 more.
Development points
Company B: 114 development points, 91 of them handled within the account team
A development point is something that is causing friction in a client relationship, or that the client has raised as a problem. Over six months of reviews, 114 development points surfaced. Most were small issues that had not previously been visible.
The account owner or team handled 91 of them (80%) on their own. The remaining 23 were points they judged complex or advanced enough to need help, for example from business leadership.
What clients gave feedback on
Feedback was grouped into topics and tracked over six months. In the charts, the length of each bar shows how much feedback a topic received. The colours show how much of it concerned strengths (green) and how much concerned development areas (orange).
Company A: feedback across 12 topics
Company B: feedback across eight topics
Schedules & budgets was among the largest topics at both companies, and at both, most of its feedback concerned development areas.
How they work today
At Company A, client relationship reviews are now part of regular account management. Key clients are reviewed once a quarter and smaller clients twice a year.
Company B reviews its key client relationships two to three times a year. The results are reviewed together with the client and used to track improvements, risks and agreed actions.
What the data does not show
The data covers two companies over six months and has no comparison group. It therefore cannot show that the reviews caused the outcomes described, for example that Company B's two at-risk relationships continued.
Nor can the two companies' figures be compared directly. The groups reviewed, the client segments and the feedback topic categories differ, and the results reflect only the views of those who responded. Response rates ranged from 51% to 100%.
Method
This article is based on anonymised Foxie data from two Finnish companies covering January–June 2026. The data is shared with the clients' permission, and figures are presented in aggregate without client names. Evaluations were collected from clients and from the companies' account owners. The share of revenue at risk was calculated the same way at both companies, as a share of annual revenue. The risk signal and growth opportunity examples are AI extractions from the original response data. Feedback was grouped into topics and divided into strengths and development areas.