Thousands of Pitches, and Not One Renewal Missed
“I found the process a painless exercise, which involved very little extra work from me, and the success was very high. I would recommend anyone who is experiencing issues with old data to go through a data cleanse.”
–
Michael Gillespie, Manager of Field Testing, Sports Labs
The Client
How Sports Labs cleansed its contact data with Fetchify ahead of its busiest year yet, and got its emails landing again.
The Background
We were introduced to Sports Labs by our sister company FLG.
Behind every certified sports pitch is a test it has to pass. Sports Labs is one of the independent test houses that carries out that work. Operating since 1998, with its headquarters in Scotland and satellite offices and laboratories around the world, it certifies sports surfaces and technology against national and international standards, through both lab-based and field testing.
It is exacting work. The laboratory is ISO 17025 accredited, testing to strict safety and performance protocols, and the team actively contributes to the development of those standards, keeping them current with the latest product innovations. When a governing body needs to know a surface is safe to play on, this is where that assurance comes from.
The Project
This year brought something unusual. The England FA has changed its expiry system, which means a large batch of certificates will all expire in May 2027. With only three test houses in the running for the work, they decided to get ahead of it. As a result, Sports Labs decided to send a bulk email encouraging facilities to book their retests early, rather than wait for the rush.
There was a catch. The email addresses had not been updated in a long time, and the campaign hit a wall of bounce-backs high enough to get the domain flagged and even blocked. Left unchecked, that would have put every email the business sent at risk, right when it needed to be reaching more facilities than ever.
The solution
Fetchify took on the outdated email data for around 1,000 facilities and cleansed it from start to finish. Sports Labs had never had data cleansed before, but there was nothing to it.
Wesley, the Sports Labs account manager at FLG, spotted the cause and suggested running the contact data through a cleanse before it did any more damage. He arranged for the data to be sent across, and the cleaned file came back and went straight into the system: no disruption, no technical project, no fuss.
Since then, the bounce rates and domain problems have gone. Sports Labs is back to reaching the facilities it needs to reach, with a clean contact list and a protected sender reputation ahead of its busiest year.
With clean contact data and automated renewals in place, Sports Labs is set up to compete hard for the certificates coming due in 2027, and to keep pace with demand well beyond it, without a spreadsheet in sight.
“Every business depends on the quality of its data, but over time even well-managed databases become outdated. By working closely with FLG, we were able to help Sports Labs refresh their data efficiently and with minimal effort on their part. It is always satisfying to see a collaborative approach deliver such a positive result for the customer.”
– Tracey Moir, Fetchify
Fetchify keeps your contact data clean, accurate, and deliverable. If ageing data is affecting your campaigns or domain reputation, find or speak to the team at Fetchify.
Data quality is usually framed as a commercial problem. But for charities, inaccurate donor records have consequences that go well beyond a failed delivery. Every donor record in a charity database represents a relationship. Someone chose to give, trusted the organisation with their details, and expected to stay connected. When those details quietly go out of date, that connection starts to break down without anyone noticing. It happens gradually. An address changes, email gets abandoned, or a phone number is reassigned. None of it shows up as a problem immediately. The record still exists. The donor still appears active. But communications go nowhere, and in some cases, income already given isn't being claimed. The Gift Aid dimension Gift Aid is one of the most tangible ways that donor data quality translates into money. For HMRC to process a Gift Aid claim, the donor's address on file needs to match their tax record. When a donor moves house and the charity's database isn't updated, that match breaks down. The donation was made. The declaration was signed. The relief cannot be processed. Over £560 million in Gift Aid goes unclaimed by UK charities every year. Incomplete and out-of-date donor records account for a significant share of that figure. That is not money that was refused or withheld. It is money the charity was entitled to and could not access, because the data behind the claim was no longer accurate. For many organisations, the Gift Aid they are missing is not a small rounding error. It is a meaningful sum, spread quietly across a database that has never been properly maintained. It’s not just addresses Address decay gets the most attention in data quality conversations, partly because it is the most visible. But email addresses and phone numbers decay just as reliably. A supporter whose email has changed does not receive a thank-you letter, a renewal prompt, or a Gift Aid receipt. A wrong mobile number means a year-end appeal arrives nowhere. For charities running regular giving programmes on direct debit, banking details carry their own risk. A donor changes their bank account. The existing mandate becomes invalid. The payment fails quietly, and a regular gift stops without the donor ever intending to cancel. By the time the lapse is noticed, months of relationship-building have been lost alongside the income. Each of these is a separate failure point, but they share the same root cause. Data that was accurate when it entered the system has drifted, and nobody has looked closely enough at the database to see how far. Getting back on track, and staying there For most charities, the starting point is understanding the current state of the database. A data cleanse matches existing records against current address, email, and phone data, identifying where details have changed and what is still accurate. It gives the organisation a clear picture of who is genuinely reachable and who has drifted out of contact. For many, that picture is more recoverable than expected. Donors who appear lapsed are sometimes simply unreachable at an old address, and finding them again is a matter of data rather than re-engagement strategy. Once the database is in good shape, keeping it there is largely about what happens at the point of capture. When a donor gives online, signs up at an event, or updates their details, validating their address, email, phone, and bank details in real time means accurate information enters the system from the start. The cleanse that would have been needed further down the line often isn't, because the problem never got in. Neither of these is a large project. They are practical steps that compound over time, and the charities that take them tend to find that their fundraising performs better, their Gift Aid claims go through more reliably, and their donor relationships last longer. If it has been a while since anyone looked closely at the accuracy of your donor database, it is probably worth doing. Not as a major undertaking, but as a straightforward question: how much of what we think we know about our donors is still true? Fetchify helps charities keep donor records accurate at the point of capture and across existing databases. Click below for more details.
What is PAF? The Postcode Address File (PAF®) is Royal Mail’s definitive database of every deliverable address and postcode in the UK. It covers over 32 million delivery points and is updated monthly. If your business relies on accurate address data, at checkout, in your CRM, or for deliveries, PAF is the source that keeps it current. Aug 2026 in numbers Royal Mail made 69,614 changes to PAF this month, the highest monthly total of the summer. It represents new homes that need delivering to, businesses that have moved or closed, streets that have been renamed, and addresses that were simply wrong and have now been corrected. Every one of those changes is a record in someone’s database that may now be out of date, and a delivery, a campaign, or a customer communication that could go wrong if the data hasn’t been updated. Delivery point changes at a glance Here’s the full breakdown of what changed, was amended, or removed from PAF in Aug:
It looks like a carrier failure. Underneath it, it's usually the same bad address problem retail already knows well, just with a different name and a bigger bill. A pallet leaves the depot on time. Good driver, correct route. It arrives at the right street and the wrong building, because the address on the consignment note was missing a unit number that existed in the warehouse system but never made it onto the label. The driver calls it in. Someone reroutes it. The customer gets their delivery a day late, and nobody upstream ever finds out why. Nobody made an obvious mistake here. The routing was right. The driver did their job. What actually failed was the data underneath all of it, and that failure is far more common than most logistics operations treat it as. The leading cause hiding under an operational label Failed and misrouted deliveries get logged as operational problems: a carrier issue, or a routing error. But across the industry, the same root cause keeps showing up underneath the label. Inaccurate or incomplete addresses are consistently cited as the leading cause of failed delivery attempts: a missing apartment number or a transposed postcode. Roughly one in ten deliveries fails on the first attempt. One in ten that should have arrived on the first try and didn't, each triggering a redelivery or a callback to the depot. Multiply that across a few thousand consignments a month, and it stops being a rounding error. Address isn't the only failure point either. A growing share of last-mile coordination depends on reaching the customer directly: a text to confirm a delivery window, a call to arrange access. An incorrect phone number or a mistyped email breaks that link just as effectively as a wrong postcode. The parcel reaches the right building, but the driver can't reach anyone to confirm a safe place or agree a new time. Why the last mile makes this worse The last mile, the journey from depot to final address, is consistently the most expensive and most failure-prone leg of the whole delivery chain, accounting for as much as half of total shipping cost on some estimates. It's also where a bad address does the most damage, because by the time a consignment reaches this stage, the cost of turning it around is no longer a data fix. It's a re-routed van and a driver's afternoon gone. An address error caught at the point a shipment is booked costs almost nothing to fix. The same error caught by a driver standing outside the wrong building costs a redelivery, and a customer who now has a story about your service. What this actually costs UK failed deliveries cost retailers in the region of £1.6 billion a year, with the average failed delivery attempt costing around £11.60 once redelivery, customer service time, and wasted mileage are counted. Across a network moving thousands of consignments a week, that's not an occasional bad day. It's a predictable, recurring cost sitting quietly inside the operational budget, usually filed under fuel or carrier fees rather than the data problem that actually caused it. It also distorts the numbers used to manage the operation. A depot with a higher-than-average failure rate looks like it has a route or carrier problem, when the real issue might be that a disproportionate share of the addresses feeding into that depot were never validated to begin with. The fix sits before the parcel is booked, not after The instinct when a delivery fails is to fix the process that handles the failure: better redelivery workflows, clearer driver instructions. All useful. None of it addresses the address itself. The more useful moment is earlier, validating the address, phone number, and email at the point they enter the system, whether that's a consignment booking or a warehouse management system pulling data from somewhere else entirely. Caught there, a malformed address or an unreachable contact number gets corrected before a route is planned around it, not after a driver has already made the trip and can't get anyone on the phone. If your operation is seeing failed deliveries logged as carrier or routing problems, it's worth checking how many of them trace back to an address, phone number, or email that was wrong from the moment it was captured. More on how Fetchify helps logistics and transport businesses validate contact data at the source below.
Guest data captured at the point of booking is quietly falling apart before the stay even begins, and peak season is when it costs the most. A guest books a weekend away for the August bank holiday. Room type, dates, total cost, all confirmed on screen. Then nothing. No confirmation email lands in their inbox. Ten minutes later, they're calling the front desk to check the booking actually went through. Nobody did anything wrong here. The booking engine worked. Payment went through. What broke is quieter than that, and far more common than most hospitality businesses realise. The address you have isn't always the address you think you have A significant share of hotel bookings now arrives through an OTA (an online travel agency, like Booking.com or Expedia) rather than direct. That's not new. What's less well understood is what actually lands in the property management system when they do. Many OTAs pass through a masked or proxy email address rather than the guest's real one, generated specifically for that booking and often expiring shortly after the stay ends. It looks like a valid email address. It behaves like one, right up until the property tries to use it for anything beyond the original booking confirmation. Direct bookings aren't much safer. Industry estimates put the proportion of invalid addresses from manually entered guest data at 20 to 45%, a misspelt domain, a transposed digit, a typo made booking late at night on a small phone screen. None of that shows up as a problem until the moment it matters: a pre-arrival email, a late check-in code, a parking permit, a table reservation confirmation. Why this one email matters more than most Booking confirmations aren't treated like other guest communications, because guests don't treat them like other emails. Open rates for confirmation emails run considerably higher than standard marketing sends, and the expectation isn't "eventually"; it's immediate. A guest expects that confirmation within minutes, not by the end of the day. If it doesn't land straight away, the natural read isn't "it's still processing"; it's "something's gone wrong". A guest who doesn't receive a confirmation doesn't shrug it off. They worry, then they call, then someone on your team spends five minutes confirming something that should have taken none. Peak season is when this compounds None of this is especially visible in a quiet month. A handful of bounced confirmations, a few guests calling to check, easily absorbed. Peak season changes the maths. Higher volumes mean more bad records moving through the system at once, and less staff time available to catch each one before it becomes a guest's problem rather than a data problem. The property that could quietly absorb ten failed confirmations in March is dealing with a hundred in August, right when front desk and reservations teams are already stretched thinnest. Peak season doesn't create this problem. It just makes the one that was already there impossible to ignore. What this actually costs The cost isn't just the phone call. A guest who's already anxious about whether their booking is real arrives in a different frame of mind than one who received a warm, accurate pre-arrival email three days before. Upsell opportunities in that pre-arrival window - an early check-in, a room upgrade, a spa slot, depend on the guest actually receiving it in the first place. None of that happens if the address behind it was never valid to begin with. The fix sits earlier than most teams look The instinct when a confirmation bounce is to fix it after the fact: resend, follow up by phone, apologise. The more useful moment is earlier, verifying email and phone at the point they're captured, whether that's a direct booking form or a reconciliation step against whatever an OTA has actually handed over. In practice, that looks like validation built into the booking form itself: if a guest mistypes their email, the system flags it before they hit submit, the same way a checkout might flag an invalid card number. This is exactly what Fetchify does for hospitality businesses: verifying contact details at the source, so the confirmation, the pre-arrival email, the parking permit, all have somewhere real to land. Caught there, it never becomes a guest-facing problem at all. Getting this right at the point of entry does more than protect a confirmation email. It's a faster, less frustrating booking process for the guest, since a flagged typo takes a second to fix rather than derailing the whole form. It's cleaner data feeding into retargeting and post-stay marketing, since accurate contact details are what make audience targeting worth doing in the first place. And it's a real inbox to send a review request to once the stay is over, rather than one more email quietly bouncing into nothing. If your team is capturing guest contact details manually, or reconciling them from OTA bookings, catching the invalid ones before check-in is more straightforward to fix than it sounds. More on how Fetchify helps hospitality businesses keep guest data accurate below.
