Paid media thread load by rep

Slack thread ownership across the partner-request channel and the internal QA channel.

Apr 15 – Jul 14, 2026 · 91 calendar days · 65 workdays (weekends excluded) · Prepared for Jess Parsons & Rachel Instone

The two channels are counted and reported separately. They measure different work under different ownership conventions, and the numbers are not additive.

Team leads (Jess, Rachel Instone, Rachel Bentley, Noah) and Partner Success staff are excluded from all counts. The 12 reps counted: Corey Sechrist, Tyler Beltz, Mayde Sierra, George Shaba, Aidan Tucker, Joe Blagrave, Sawyer Bergey, Tyler Barchek, Laura Ware, Erick Lopez, Daniela Huerta, Megan McInroy.

Channel one

#paid_media · partner requests

Partner request threads

Partner Success posts Partner | Topic and @-tags the rep(s) who own it — usually two, one for Google and one for Meta. That tag is the assignment.

Threads

683

With an owner

626

Assignments

1,034

Threads/workday

10.5

Threads owned — 90 days

George Shaba

127

Joe Blagrave

108

Laura Ware

107

Corey Sechrist

101

Erick Lopez

Aidan Tucker

Mayde Sierra

Megan McInroy

Daniela Huerta

Tyler Beltz

Tyler Barchek

Sawyer Bergey

Full detail

Rep	Threads	Threads/day	Replies	Replies/day	Replies/thread
George Shaba	127	1.95	1,321	20.3	10.4
Joe Blagrave	108	1.66	1,372	21.1	12.7
Laura Ware	107	1.65	860	13.2	8.0
Corey Sechrist	101	1.55	1,796	27.6	17.8
Erick Lopez	97	1.49	1,166	17.9	12.0
Aidan Tucker	91	1.40	1,037	16.0	11.4
Mayde Sierra	90	1.38	1,015	15.6	11.3
Megan McInroy	80	1.23	757	11.6	9.5
Daniela Huerta	80	1.23	803	12.4	10.0
Tyler Beltz	79	1.22	871	13.4	11.0
Tyler Barchek	43	0.66	313	4.8	7.3
Sawyer Bergey	35	0.54	509	7.8	14.5

Insights — partner request threads

Load spans 3.6x across the team. George owns 127 threads; Sawyer owns 35 and Tyler Barchek 43. That is a structural gap, not week-to-week noise.
Reply volume reorders the top. Corey is 4th on thread count but 1st on replies by a wide margin — 1,796 replies at 17.8 per thread, 32% ahead of the next rep. George is the opposite shape: most threads, but they close fastest (10.4 replies each). George is running a high-throughput queue; Corey is absorbing the escalations. Those are different jobs and should probably be resourced differently.
Sawyer's low count is misleading. Lowest thread volume on the team but 2nd-highest intensity at 14.5 replies per thread. He is on fewer, heavier engagements — not underloaded.
Tyler Barchek is light on both axes. 0.66 threads/day and the lowest replies-per-thread on the team (7.3). He is the only rep who is low on volume and intensity — every other low-count rep is heavy somewhere else.
The bottom two are trending down. Month over month, Barchek went 17 → 16 → 10 and Sawyer 12 → 13 → 10. The gap is widening, not closing.

Questions this raises: Is George's volume sustainable, or is he the default assignee? Should escalation-heavy accounts (Corey's) count differently against capacity than routine-request accounts? And are Barchek and Sawyer deliberately staffed lighter here — or drifting?

Method. Ownership taken from the @-mention in the parent message; mentions after "cc" or "FYI" were not counted as ownership. Verified against a 10-thread sample: in 7 of 8 threads with a tagged rep, that rep did the work, and work was essentially never silently reassigned.

Reply counts include all thread participants, so they measure thread complexity, not a rep's own message output. Multi-rep threads credit the full reply count to both owners, which is why replies sum above the channel total.

Channel two — separate data

#paid-media-internal · QA

Internal QA threads

A "QA Needed" bot posts the request. Every thread has a submitter (the rep whose work is checked) and a reviewer (the rep who checks it). Both are real load, so both are counted.

Threads

166

QA reviews done

120

Threads/workday

2.6

Workdays

Submitted for QA vs. QA reviews performed

Submitted for QA QA reviews performed

Laura Ware

40 / 4

Mayde Sierra

26 / 19

George Shaba

26 / 3

Megan McInroy

15 / 14

Joe Blagrave

12 / 14

Corey Sechrist

11 / 6

Erick Lopez

11 / 5

Tyler Barchek

10 / 5

Daniela Huerta

7 / 13

Aidan Tucker

7 / 16

Tyler Beltz

4 / 12

Sawyer Bergey

2 / 13

As submitter — work put up for QA

Rep	Threads	Threads/day	Replies	Replies/day	Replies/thread
Laura Ware	40	0.62	169	2.6	4.2
Mayde Sierra	26	0.40	108	1.7	4.2
George Shaba	26	0.40	100	1.5	3.8
Megan McInroy	15	0.23	83	1.3	5.5
Joe Blagrave	12	0.18	49	0.8	4.1
Corey Sechrist	11	0.17	62	1.0	5.6
Erick Lopez	11	0.17	45	0.7	4.1
Tyler Barchek	10	0.15	44	0.7	4.4
Daniela Huerta	7	0.11	32	0.5	4.6
Aidan Tucker	7	0.11	25	0.4	3.6
Tyler Beltz	4	0.06	3	0.05	0.8
Sawyer Bergey	2	0.03	12	0.2	6.0

As reviewer — QA actually performed

Rep	Reviews	Reviews/day	Replies	Replies/day	Replies/review
Mayde Sierra	19	0.29	74	1.1	3.9
Aidan Tucker	16	0.25	55	0.8	3.4
Megan McInroy	14	0.22	73	1.1	5.2
Joe Blagrave	14	0.22	88	1.4	6.3
Sawyer Bergey	13	0.20	69	1.1	5.3
Daniela Huerta	13	0.20	46	0.7	3.5
Tyler Beltz	12	0.18	52	0.8	4.3
Corey Sechrist	6	0.09	20	0.3	3.3
Erick Lopez	5	0.08	25	0.4	5.0
Tyler Barchek	5	0.08	21	0.3	4.2
Laura Ware	4	0.06	15	0.2	3.8
George Shaba	3	0.05	11	0.2	3.7

Insights — internal QA

This is a supplementary load, not a primary one. 2.6 threads/day here vs. ~10.5 in the partner channel. Nobody's week is defined by this channel — but the imbalances inside it are sharp.
Give-and-take is not reciprocal. Laura submits 40 items for QA and reviews 4 — a 10:1 ratio. George is 26:3. At the other end Sawyer is 2:13, Tyler Beltz 4:12, Aidan 7:16. The reps generating the most QA-able work are doing almost none of the checking, and vice versa.
Mayde carries both sides. 26 submitted and 19 reviewed — top of the reviewer table while still 2nd on submissions. She is the only rep heavy on both.
Unassigned QA is being absorbed by a volunteer. Many QA posts ping the usergroup with nobody named. Mayde picked up 9 such unclaimed requests in the last month alone. That is a routing gap currently papered over by one person's goodwill.
The rankings invert versus the partner channel. George is #1 on partner threads but 11th of 12 on QA reviews. Sawyer is last on partner threads but 5th on QA reviews. Judging capacity from either channel alone gives the wrong answer.

Questions this raises: Is there meant to be a QA rotation, and if so is it being followed? Should QA reviews be explicitly assigned rather than posted to the group and left to be claimed? And should reviewing count toward a rep's capacity the same way partner threads do?

Method. Reviewer = the rep who actually delivered the QA verdict in-thread (posted the QA tracker link, "QA is done", listed errors/fixes) — not merely whoever was tagged. This matters, because many QA requests are posted to the usergroup with nobody named and a rep volunteers. Because this required reading verdicts, treat reviewer counts as ±2.

Rachel Instone performed the QA in 12 threads. She is excluded from the counts per the brief, so the 120 reviews understate total QA throughput in this channel.