Integrations That Actually Stick

Most integrations are abandoned within weeks

Here's a dispiriting statistic: the majority of integrations see declining usage within 30 days of setup. Users connect tools with enthusiasm, then gradually forget they exist.

We've built dozens of integrations over the years, and the pattern is consistent. The successful ones share traits that have nothing to do with technical sophistication. The failed ones share different traits—usually the same mistakes, repeated.

Why integrations fail

Before talking about what works, let's understand what doesn't.

They solve the wrong problem. The integration exists because it was technically possible, not because users desperately needed it.

Setup is too painful. By the time users finish configuration, they've lost enthusiasm.

Value isn't immediately obvious. If users can't see the benefit within minutes, they won't stick around.

Maintenance burden falls on users. Things break, permissions expire, and suddenly the integration requires ongoing attention.

It duplicates existing workflows. Users have their established habits. An integration that requires new workflows rarely wins.

The principle of invisible value

The best integrations disappear into the background. Users don't think about them because they just work.

Email to CRM logging: you don't click anything, customer emails automatically appear on the right contact record.

Calendar sync: you don't manage two calendars, they're just unified.

Invoice generation: you don't manually create invoices, they appear when contracts are signed.

Notice the pattern? The user does nothing. The integration handles it.

The setup that doesn't feel like setup

Integration setup should be measured in seconds, not minutes.

OAuth over credentials. Nobody wants to generate API keys and copy-paste tokens. OAuth click-to-connect is the baseline expectation.

Smart defaults. Don't ask users to configure things they don't understand. Pick sensible defaults and let power users adjust later.

Immediate proof of value. The moment connection succeeds, show something useful. Sync their recent data. Display a preview. Prove it works.

Graceful failure handling. When something goes wrong (it will), explain clearly and offer fixes. "Connection failed" with no context is a death sentence.

Designing for the happy path

Most integrations over-engineer for edge cases while neglecting the primary use case.

Figure out what 80% of users need. Build that perfectly. Handle edge cases gracefully but don't let them complicate the core experience.

Example: We built a form-to-CRM integration. The obvious feature was syncing form submissions to contact records. But we initially included options for custom field mapping, conditional routing, duplicate handling, and data transformation.

Result: setup completion dropped to 40%. Users got lost in options they didn't need.

We stripped it back. Auto-detect form fields. Map to standard CRM fields automatically. Handle duplicates silently with sensible defaults. Setup completion jumped to 85%.

The notification balance

Integrations often err on one extreme: too many notifications or complete silence.

Too many notifications and users develop banner blindness or disable them entirely. Complete silence and users forget the integration exists.

The right balance:

• •High-value actions: notify (new lead synced, payment received)
• •Routine operations: silent (regular data sync, background updates)
• •Errors: always notify with clear next steps
• •Summary digests: weekly/monthly value recap

Users should hear from your integration when there's something worth knowing. Otherwise, silence.

Error handling that maintains trust

Every integration breaks eventually. APIs change. Permissions expire. Rate limits hit. How you handle these moments determines whether users stick around.

Bad error handling: "Sync failed. Please reconnect your account."

Good error handling: "Sync paused: Google Calendar connection expired. This happens every 90 days for security. Click here to reconnect (takes 10 seconds) and we'll sync the 14 events we missed."

The difference: explanation, context, and a clear path forward.

Measuring integration success

Vanity metrics like "integrations connected" mean nothing if nobody uses them.

What to track:

• •Active usage rate (connected AND used in last 30 days)
• •Setup completion rate
• •Time to first value
• •Disconnection rate
• •Support ticket rate

Red flags:

• •High connection, low usage = setup is easy but value is unclear
• •Low completion rate = setup is too complex
• •Rapid disconnection = integration doesn't deliver promised value
• •High support tickets = reliability or UX problems

The long-term stickiness factors

Integrations that last years share these traits:

They improve over time. New features, better performance, expanded capabilities. Users notice when things get better.

They don't break. Sounds obvious, but reliability is the biggest predictor of long-term usage.

They adapt to platform changes. When the connected platform updates their API, a quality integration updates seamlessly. A poor one breaks and leaves users stranded.

They provide unique value. If users could achieve the same outcome with a different integration or manual effort, stickiness is low.

Building vs. buying integrations

The build-vs-buy calculation for integrations:

Build when: - The integration is core to your product value - You need deep customisation - You have ongoing engineering resources - Platform APIs are stable

Buy (use Zapier, Make, etc.) when: - The integration is nice-to-have - Speed to market matters - You lack dedicated engineering - API changes would be painful to track

There's no shame in using integration platforms. For non-core integrations, they're often the right choice.

The documentation gap

Integration documentation is almost universally terrible. This creates support burden and reduces adoption.

What good integration docs include:

• •What the integration does (simply)
• •Prerequisites and requirements
• •Step-by-step setup with screenshots
• •Common use cases with examples
• •Troubleshooting for common issues
• •Changelog of updates

What bad integration docs include:

• •Technical API reference nobody asked for
• •Outdated screenshots
• •Assumptions about user technical knowledge

Write docs for the least technical person who might need the integration. Everyone else can skim.

The launch checklist

Before releasing an integration:

• OAuth flow tested across browsers
• Error messages are helpful
• Rate limiting handled gracefully
• Reconnection flow works smoothly
• Documentation complete and accurate
• Support team briefed on common issues
• Analytics tracking active
• Rollback plan if issues emerge

The maintenance mindset

Shipping the integration is maybe 30% of the work. Maintaining it is the other 70%.

Ongoing requirements:

• •API version compatibility as platforms update
• •Performance monitoring and optimisation
• •User feedback incorporation
• •Security patch application
• •Documentation updates

Integrations aren't features you ship and forget. They're ongoing commitments. If you can't commit to maintenance, don't build the integration.

The bottom line

Successful integrations aren't technically impressive. They're practically useful.

They solve real problems. They set up in seconds. They deliver visible value immediately. They work reliably in the background. They handle errors gracefully.

Build with that mindset and users won't just connect your integration—they'll keep using it.

And that's the only metric that actually matters.