Same calendar range each year: 06-01 → 08-31. Every window gets exactly 12 months of prior visibility before it, so a customer only counts as new if we saw nothing from them in the preceding year. Percentage rows compare in points, count and money rows in %.
| Measure | 2026 2026-06-01 → 2026-08-31 | 2025 2025-06-01 → 2025-08-31 | 2024 2024-06-01 → 2024-08-31 | vs last yr | vs 2 yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First instalments attempted | 2,912 | 2,581 | 2,379 | +12.8% | +22.4% |
| — like-for-like (studios open in all three windows) | 2,196 | 2,250 | 2,379 | -2.4% | -7.7% |
| First instalment went through | 53.1% | 51.5% | 55.7% | +1.6pp | -2.6pp |
| Money banked on first instalments | $445,269 | $408,495 | $399,321 | +9.0% | +11.5% |
| Average first instalment | $221 | $243 | $241 | -9.0% | -8.3% |
| Median first instalment | $209 | $225 | $220 | -7.0% | -4.9% |
| Paid again within 30 days | 7.8% | 11.9% | 6.9% | -4.1pp | +0.9pp |
| All recurring charges in the window | 31,047 | 23,082 | 17,612 | +34.5% | +76.3% |
| First instalments as a share of all recurring charges | 9.4% | 11.2% | 13.5% | -1.8pp | -4.1pp |
Not every studio existed in all three windows. Chicago, Nashville each have a studio that opened after 2024-08-31 (2 locations), so part of the headline growth is estate, not demand. The like-for-like row above counts only the 4 studios trading in all three windows: 2026 2,196 · 2025 2,250 · 2024 2,379.
Row-level detail is in the CSV, never on this page — new_accounts.csv.
All six Square merchant accounts. “1st charge OK” is the share whose very first attempt went through rather than failing and needing a retry.
| City | 2026 1st instalments | 2026 banked | 2026 1st OK | 2025 1st instalments | 2025 banked | 2025 1st OK | 2024 1st instalments | 2024 banked | 2024 1st OK | 1st instalments vs last yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | 812 27.9% | $111,647 | 48.9% | 802 31.1% | $130,874 | 47.0% | 752 31.6% | $141,765 | 57.6% | +1.2% |
| Florida | 699 24.0% | $128,921 | 55.9% | 398 15.4% | $67,616 | 54.8% | 320 13.5% | $57,714 | 65.3% | +75.6% |
| New York | 406 13.9% | $58,387 | 51.5% | 657 25.5% | $95,842 | 48.9% | 998 42.0% | $142,522 | 48.2% | -38.2% |
| Chicago | 392 13.5% | $57,125 | 53.1% | 2 0.1% | $2,050 | 100.0% | 0 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | +19500.0% |
| Nashville | 324 11.1% | $44,800 | 52.8% | 329 12.7% | $51,668 | 50.8% | 0 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | -1.5% |
| Boston | 279 9.6% | $44,389 | 60.9% | 393 15.2% | $60,445 | 62.1% | 309 13.0% | $57,320 | 65.4% | -29.0% |
| TOTAL | 2,912 | $445,269 | 53.1% | 2,581 | $408,495 | 51.5% | 2,379 | $399,321 | 55.7% | +12.8% |
Banded on the first charge we actually banked. An account whose first charge never went through at all is in the counts but contributes no value.
| First payment size | 2026 1st instalments | 2026 banked | 2026 1st OK | 2025 1st instalments | 2025 banked | 2025 1st OK | 2024 1st instalments | 2024 banked | 2024 1st OK | 1st instalments vs last yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under $100 | 408 14.0% | $25,965 | 74.5% | 264 10.2% | $17,488 | 78.0% | 229 9.6% | $15,203 | 79.0% | +54.5% |
| $100 – $249 | 927 31.8% | $167,036 | 76.9% | 725 28.1% | $136,031 | 80.0% | 767 32.2% | $135,444 | 79.8% | +27.9% |
| $250 – $499 | 641 22.0% | $188,427 | 78.2% | 643 24.9% | $185,610 | 79.8% | 600 25.2% | $178,048 | 81.3% | -0.3% |
| $500 – $999 | 12 0.4% | $7,765 | 83.3% | 20 0.8% | $14,873 | 80.0% | 32 1.3% | $20,182 | 71.9% | -40.0% |
| $1,000 – $1,999 | 9 0.3% | $12,175 | 77.8% | 16 0.6% | $23,793 | 75.0% | 17 0.7% | $24,845 | 64.7% | -43.8% |
| $2,000 – $4,999 | 15 0.5% | $43,900 | 73.3% | 11 0.4% | $30,699 | 18.2% | 10 0.4% | $25,600 | 100.0% | +36.4% |
| Never banked | 900 30.9% | $0 | 0.0% | 902 34.9% | $0 | 0.0% | 724 30.4% | $0 | 0.0% | -0.2% |
| TOTAL | 2,912 | $445,269 | 53.1% | 2,581 | $408,495 | 51.5% | 2,379 | $399,321 | 55.7% | +12.8% |
| Brand | 2026 1st instalments | 2026 banked | 2026 1st OK | 2025 1st instalments | 2025 banked | 2025 1st OK | 2024 1st instalments | 2024 banked | 2024 1st OK | 1st instalments vs last yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VISA | 1,938 66.6% | $293,867 | 51.8% | 1,755 68.0% | $272,159 | 47.7% | 1,647 69.2% | $263,385 | 52.8% | +10.4% |
| MASTERCARD | 782 26.9% | $118,064 | 55.1% | 704 27.3% | $111,678 | 57.2% | 642 27.0% | $108,036 | 59.7% | +11.1% |
| DISCOVER | 145 5.0% | $23,881 | 54.5% | 57 2.2% | $9,566 | 61.4% | 43 1.8% | $13,334 | 81.4% | +154.4% |
| AMERICAN_EXPRESS | 47 1.6% | $9,456 | 70.2% | 64 2.5% | $14,911 | 82.8% | 40 1.7% | $8,623 | 77.5% | -26.6% |
| UNKNOWN | 0 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | 1 0.0% | $180 | 100.0% | 7 0.3% | $5,943 | 100.0% | -100.0% |
| TOTAL | 2,912 | $445,269 | 53.1% | 2,581 | $408,495 | 51.5% | 2,379 | $399,321 | 55.7% | +12.8% |
KEYED and CONTACTLESS are someone standing in the studio. ON_FILE is a stored card charged later.
| Entry method | 2026 1st instalments | 2026 banked | 2026 1st OK | 2025 1st instalments | 2025 banked | 2025 1st OK | 2024 1st instalments | 2024 banked | 2024 1st OK | 1st instalments vs last yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ON_FILE | 2,837 97.4% | $416,295 | 52.0% | 2,534 98.2% | $385,646 | 50.7% | 2,302 96.8% | $370,331 | 54.3% | +12.0% |
| KEYED | 75 2.6% | $28,974 | 94.7% | 46 1.8% | $22,669 | 91.3% | 70 2.9% | $23,048 | 97.1% | +63.0% |
| UNKNOWN | 0 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | 1 0.0% | $180 | 100.0% | 7 0.3% | $5,943 | 100.0% | -100.0% |
| TOTAL | 2,912 | $445,269 | 53.1% | 2,581 | $408,495 | 51.5% | 2,379 | $399,321 | 55.7% | +12.8% |
Debit vs credit is not in this dataset — the daily pull keeps the brand but discards card_type. That split is being built separately at /card-types.
The issuer’s own reason on the first charge an account ever attempted. These are the worst declines we take — the customer has no payment history with us to fall back on.
| Why the very first charge failed | 2026 | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRANSACTION_LIMIT | 731 53.5% | 742 59.3% | 721 68.4% |
| GENERIC_DECLINE | 294 21.5% | 394 31.5% | 315 29.9% |
| INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS | 166 12.2% | 65 5.2% | 1 0.1% |
| CARDHOLDER_INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSIONS | 152 11.1% | 32 2.6% | 0 0.0% |
| INVALID_ACCOUNT | 12 0.9% | 8 0.6% | 0 0.0% |
| PAN_FAILURE | 5 0.4% | 7 0.6% | 12 1.1% |
| CARD_EXPIRED | 4 0.3% | 4 0.3% | 4 0.4% |
| INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSIONS | 1 0.1% | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% |
| PAYMENT_LIMIT_EXCEEDED | 1 0.1% | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% |
| ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_FAILURE | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 1 0.1% |
| TOTAL failed first charges | 1,366 | 1,252 | 1,054 |
| Month | Window | New accounts | Banked | Avg first payment | 1st charge OK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06 | 2026 | 993 | $159,591 | $161 | 51.1% |
| 2026-07 | 2026 | 947 | $144,505 | $153 | 56.3% |
| 2026-08 | 2026 | 972 | $141,173 | $145 | 52.1% |
| 2025-06 | 2025 | 892 | $150,493 | $169 | 50.9% |
| 2025-07 | 2025 | 883 | $140,930 | $160 | 52.7% |
| 2025-08 | 2025 | 806 | $117,071 | $145 | 50.9% |
| 2024-06 | 2024 | 929 | $148,581 | $160 | 49.5% |
| 2024-07 | 2024 | 690 | $125,382 | $182 | 57.8% |
| 2024-08 | 2024 | 760 | $125,359 | $165 | 61.3% |
A first payment here is the first instalment of the recurring series. Neil, 2 Sep 2026: “i dont mean the first card payment in the studio. i mean the first of the recurring series. discount the payment in the studio completely.” So the deposit and the studio-sale payment taken on the day are excluded outright — they are a different event with a different failure mode (someone at a till with a card in hand, versus a stored card charged a month later with nobody present). An agreement is counted in a window if its earliest RECURRING charge in [window start − 12 months, window end] falls inside the window.
Which locations count. Every city has one recurring location, matched on the location NAME with /^Recurring/i — the canonical rule in lib/square.js. The prefix match is required rather than an exact compare because New York’s is named Recurring NYC, and an exact match on “Recurring” silently drops the biggest city.
Is 12 months long enough? Measured, not assumed: on the newest window, stretching the lookback from 12 months to 36 (the full depth on disk) reclassifies 1 agreement out of 2,912 — 0.03%. A customer resuming a recurring plan after a year of complete silence is effectively nonexistent, so the 12-month test is not a compromise here, it is exact.
Why the lookback is fixed at 12 months. If 2026 got three years of lookback and 2024 got one, 2024 would show more new accounts purely because we cannot see far enough back to disqualify a returning customer. Equal lookback makes the three counts comparable by construction.
Paid again within 30 days is measured only on accounts that actually have 30 days of visible runway behind them. An account opened a fortnight before the data ends cannot show a 30-day follow-on, and leaving it in the denominator would drag the newest window down for a calendar reason rather than a business one.
Inputs. square_attempts.jsonl (2025-01-01 → now, the daily incremental pull) plus square_attempts_pre2025.jsonl (2023-06-01 → 2025-01-01, backfilled for this report because the canonical file does not reach 2024). Both are /v2/payments looped per location — that endpoint returns the default location only otherwise. No Square or CRM call is made at report time.
Read this run: 491,465 raw lines → 463,120 unique payment ids (28,345 repeat lines dropped), 0 before 2023-06-01, 39,852 with no customer id (cannot be tied to an account, so excluded), 169,647 studio deposits / studio-sale / office charges discarded, leaving 253,621 recurring charges spanning 2023-06-01 → 2026-09-20.