Import Customer Integration Associations

Hiya folks,
In order to migrate existing business data into Breww as an effective Source of Truth, integration associations will need to be imported along with the Customer data. This is blocks our Breww CRM use case.

The current process for Shopify, as an example, is to import existing Customer entities and manually map each Customer through the Breww UI as an order is pulled through from Shopify - this is unfeasible for migrations for this or future breweries.

Intiail thoughts on expected process for this:

  1. Import Customers with current process.
  2. Download Customers.
  3. Import CustomerID to ShopifyCustomerID
    This is multi-step on the assumption the integration mapping data is stored in a separate table to the Customer data. The same would apply for other integrations such as MailChimp.

I appreciate this may be slightly more advanced than for the typical user, but that’s why I’m working with the businesses the way I do.

Let me know if you have any questions!


Thanks for the suggestion, Fred, and apologies for the slow response.

This sounds like a great tool, but it’s not something that we’re going to be in a position to build in the short-term. I’m happy to leave it open as it may be something that we can get to in the future, but in terms of your own migration to Breww right now, this isn’t realistically going to be done in time for you to use it, I’m afraid.

However, we may well be able to help you with a one-off import of the Breww ID to Shopify ID mappings. If you can open a support ticket, we can disucss the finer details and get this sorted for you. It should only need a one-off mapping anyway, as once the integration is live, you can let it create any new accounts automatically and it will automatically map them together.

Mailchimp uses the email address as the unique identifier, so there isn’t any mapping required (or even possible if for some reason you wanted to map [email protected] to [email protected]).

Cheers :smile:

For anyone else reading this, we completed this manually as a one-off, so I’m closing this feature request :+1: