HWM’s furniture-brand case documents what was broken, the 8 Klaviyo flows built (4 core, 4 advanced), A/B-tested flow revisions and a reported holiday-quarter result. It does not isolate the contribution of each change. Use the case to ask better questions about execution, measurement and whether the context resembles your own account.
On this page6 sections
What the case documents
This teardown uses HWM's original case slides for the account: what was wrong before the work, what was built, and the fourth-quarter result.
What was built
HWM built eight Klaviyo flows in two tiers:
| Tier | Flows |
|---|---|
| Core flows | Four core flows (the case does not name them individually) |
| Advanced flows | Four advanced flows: sequences for each lifecycle stage, and post-order emails with care tips and related product suggestions |
Before the work, metric errors stopped the account from tracking customer information, the newsletter list was growing slowly, the 5 existing flows had weak engagement, there were no advanced flows, and customers heard almost nothing after ordering. The flows were revised through A/B tests, and sign-up incentives with personalized content were added to grow the list.
The reported result
In the fourth quarter, the account generated $3.4M in email revenue[1].
What went into the result
Three parts of the build stand out. The case doesn't measure how much each one contributed:
- Full flow coverage. Four core flows, plus four advanced ones covering lifecycle stages and post-order contact, which the account had no emails for before.
- List growth, through sign-up incentives and personalized content.
- A/B-tested flow revisions. The case doesn't include a before/after comparison that isolates the effect of testing.
These are the inputs. No controlled test ties each one to the $3.4M figure[1].
Limits of this case
This is one account's reported result for one fourth-quarter period. The fourth quarter includes major sales events (Black Friday, Cyber Monday, holiday shopping) for many ecom categories, so part of this figure reflects seasonal volume that wouldn't repeat in an off-peak quarter. The case doesn't break out how much. The account's existing $30M/year[1] scale, its product margins, and its list quality all shaped what was achievable; a smaller or newer brand with a thinner list would not be expected to produce the same absolute number even with an identical flow structure. Treat this as a documented example of one account's outcome, not a benchmark to expect.
What this means for your account
Flow coverage, list growth, and tested flows are worth asking any agency about. They are not a formula that produces the same result everywhere. What they would produce for your account depends on your current flow coverage, list size, and category, which is only answerable by looking at your actual account. Book a free audit to see where your account currently stands. For other reported outcomes across different account types, see the case-study library.
For a comparison across metric types, read the cross-case analysis.