Media Funds & CTAP Inc.: 14-year relationship reported as of March 2025
Updated 11 September 2026 · by Mark Glazer · ReplyLead-reported programme account
The short answer: ReplyLead reports a working relationship with Media Funds and CTAP Inc. beginning in 2011. The 14-year duration refers to its March 2025 account. ReplyLead describes the sending scope and service responsibilities below; a bounded monthly outcome series is not published.
This profile connects the named businesses with ReplyLead's description of service scope. Separate relationship history, campaign activity and commercial outcomes when evaluating relevance to your own proposal.
CTAP / commercial evidence
Five-year revenue contract value from lead generation
$3,160,525.10
Reported revenue contract value from lead generation across the 2023 and 2024 campaigns, calculated over the five-year client contract term.
- 2023 CONTRACT VALUE
- $1,463,610.40
- 2024 CONTRACT VALUE
- $1,696,914.70
How is contract value calculated?
ReplyLead reports a 2023 revenue basis of $292,722.08 and a corrected 2024 campaign revenue basis of $339,382.94, with a five-year client contract term. The calculation is $292,722.08 × 5 = $1,463,610.40 for 2023 and $339,382.94 × 5 = $1,696,914.70 for 2024. Combined five-year contract value: $3,160,525.10. Figures and contract term confirmed by ReplyLead on 11 September 2026. Contract value covers the full term; it is not revenue already collected.
Who the client is
ReplyLead identifies Basil Aribi with Media Funds and CTAP Inc. and reports a relationship beginning in 2011. The linked profiles provide identity and business context; use them for identity and business context when considering a comparable programme.
Use the linked business and professional profiles for context. Verify the current service scope and any reference availability through agreed channels; this page does not promise that a named person is available to act as a reference.
What we run
The engagement runs on the same three-pillar system described on our methodology page: deliverability infrastructure built on dedicated sending domains and mailboxes, kept separate from the client's primary domain, with SPF, DKIM and DMARC configured and monitored; ICP-matched list building with every contact email-verified before a single send; and copy written and A/B tested for replies rather than opens, with positive replies managed until they become conversations. All of it is operated end to end, the arrangement described on our done-for-you outbound page: we own targeting, data, infrastructure, copy, sending and reply handling, and closing stays with the client.
Two operating numbers give a sense of what 75,000 emails a month means in practice. We hold each mailbox to 10 to 12 cold emails a day on Google Workspace, and around 1 to 2 on Microsoft 365, so volume at this level comes from a wide fleet of warmed mailboxes rather than a few loud ones, and each new mailbox gets two to two and a half weeks of warmup before it carries campaign traffic. Divide the monthly volume by that per-mailbox ceiling and you get a sense of the infrastructure running underneath this one client. Our ROI calculator publishes the list-price technology cost at exactly this tier: $4,315 a month in sending infrastructure at 75,000 emails a month.
Our current published pricing model combines infrastructure fees with agreed revenue share. That explains how a new proposal is structured; it does not disclose this client’s historical invoices, attribution terms or contract. Compare your own written scope and total costs before drawing an economic conclusion from a case study.
The results
ReplyLead describes a sending programme of 75,000 emails monthly in its historical engagement account. The public material does not provide a month-by-month export or a bounded reporting series. Sending volume is an activity measure, not evidence of qualified leads, attended meetings or closed revenue.
For a new programme, define positive replies, accepted leads, booked meetings, held meetings and opportunities separately. Agree how automatic replies, referrals and declines are classified. This profile does not publish a reconciled outcome series at those stages.
A reported long relationship can provide context, but tenure alone does not establish ROI, renewal reasons, closed revenue or a forecast for another client.
Verify it yourself
What to verify for a buying decision
Ask for the proposed audience, reporting period, qualification rules, sales follow-up and complete commercial terms. If case-study performance is material to the decision, request dated aggregate source records and distinguish campaign activity from sales outcomes.
The linked business and professional profiles identify the people and companies in this account. Use them to understand the business and the audience served. Discuss a relevant, agreed reference process as part of evaluating a proposal.
Common questions
What results does ReplyLead deliver for CTAP and Media Funds?
ReplyLead describes a historical sending scope of 75,000 emails per month. This public profile does not provide independently reconciled monthly lead, held-meeting or revenue results. Sending activity should not be treated as a guaranteed commercial outcome.
How can I verify this case study?
Use the linked business and professional profiles for identity context. For performance verification, ask for dated aggregate source records, outcome definitions and an agreed reference process. Agree which dated records and outcome definitions would make the case comparable to your proposal.
How long has CTAP and Media Funds been a ReplyLead client?
ReplyLead reports a relationship beginning in 2011; the 14-year description refers to its March 2025 account. It is not a newly verified tenure or proof of continuous campaign activity or financial returns.
From a first meeting to a technical discussion
A meeting becomes useful to sales when the next person can see what was discussed, which specialist is needed and what must happen next. An anonymized August-September 2026 correspondence thread shows those follow-up details in practice.
- 18 August: first discussion. A same-day follow-up thanks the prospect for meeting and proposes another call involving engineering participants.
- 24 August: product context. The prospect sends a working product brochure before the next discussion. The sales team has concrete material to review, rather than relying only on the booking form.
- 9 September: technical follow-through. The sender describes a subsequent meeting as productive, acknowledges the additional participant and commits to a call summary with outstanding technical questions.
- Before kickoff: engagement preparation. The same message proposes drafting an engagement letter and requests company, ownership and cost information first. It places kickoff after a signed agreement; the thread reviewed here does not establish that signing occurred.
What the sales team needs next
Attach the buyer's working material, identify the specialist needed for the next conversation and preserve unresolved questions. Record the agreed next action separately from the meeting status. In this example, the next action was engagement preparation and technical clarification.
Evidence: one selected email thread, reviewed 11 September 2026. The first meeting is corroborated by its invitation and same-day follow-up; the later discussion is described in the sender's follow-up. The exact later meeting date, campaign attribution, signed agreement and revenue are not established. This is a documented workflow example, not a campaign-wide conversion result.
Use the sales follow-up worksheet to preserve this context, and the campaign review workbook to distinguish booked meetings, held discussions and accepted opportunities.
What progressed after the meeting: an anonymized example
In retained January 2024 correspondence, a prospect responded after reviewing an SR&ED services proposal: they wanted to proceed and requested an engagement letter. This is a documented next step beyond an information request.
- Discussion: the proposal email refers to a prior meeting about the services.
- Scope: the sender provides a proposal describing the proposed work and rate.
- Prospect decision: the 22 January 2024 reply confirms the proposal was reviewed and asks for the engagement letter.
- Next action: prepare the engagement document and retain the prospect's approval alongside the proposal.
Why the distinction matters
A positive reply, a proposal discussion and an engagement request are different stages. Recording the actual requested next step gives the sales owner a clear action and evidence to support the stage, rather than treating every interested response as a completed sale.
Evidence: selected historical proposal correspondence reproduced in a retained client-results deck; reviewed 11 September 2026. Prospect identity and private messages are withheld. This example documents proposal follow-through, not a signed contract, collected revenue, acquisition-channel attribution or a campaign conversion rate.
Use the campaign review and sales follow-up workbook to keep those stages distinct in your own reporting.
Want results you would let a prospect verify?
We build and run the whole campaign, and our pay is tied to the revenue we help you close.
Apply to work with us See all case studies