Sendoso reported an 86% webinar attendance rate among recipients of a baseball-themed gift kit in a case study published on May 8, 2026. The programme paired the physical gift with a $50 ticket voucher for attending the live event. [S01]

Two offers and several contact points

The company offered kits to 429 field-marketing contacts, with 21% accepting. It also promoted the webinar to 450 additional contacts and used email and delivery-triggered follow-ups. The kit contained a branded baseball, snacks and registration instructions. [S01]

Scroll left or right to see all columns
Two offers and several contact points

Company-reported measure

Result and denominator

Gift acceptance

21% of 429 contacts offered the kit

Overall attendance

37% of all registrants

Gift-recipient attendance

86% of recipients of the kit

Non-gifted attendance

Approximately 14% in the reported comparison

The account, by Paige Jackson, provides an observational campaign comparison. It does not describe random assignment or reconcile every cohort count. The published rates therefore do not isolate the effect of the physical gift, the voucher or the follow-up messages. [S01]

The denominator changes the interpretation

Accepting a gift can itself signal interest. People who take that step may already be more likely to attend than people who do not. Comparing those groups without accounting for their starting differences can make an effective campaign look like a controlled experiment when it is not one.

The $50 voucher also matters to the design: it rewarded the action the marketer wanted, live attendance. That is a different mechanism from simply sending a present and hoping the recipient remembers the invitation.

For gifting teams, the case is useful because it makes the journey concrete. It connects an initial offer, a registration route, follow-up and a reward after attendance. A stronger evaluation would keep the audience groups comparable and track programme cost alongside qualified engagement.

The result supports a reported association within this campaign. It does not establish that gifting alone caused the attendance difference or predict the same response in another audience.