There is a two-fold purpose to the analyses contained herein:
First, we want to understand if there are parts of the market are more performant than others, even if we don’t know why.
Second, we want to understand if there are any particular factors which increase the likelihood of a visit, to help find other places where we should expect a visit. Basically, can we explain why certain parts of the market are more performant.
Before we get into anything more complex, we need to understand how our factors are distributed and how the visits are distributed within them.
Starting with the structure of the company.
| Structure | N | Visits | Percent_Visited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private | 11715 | 159 | 1.4% |
| Public | 2507 | 165 | 6.6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NA | 134 | 13 | 9.7% |
| Industry | N | Visits | Percent_Visited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing | 3042 | 62 | 2.0% |
| Business Services | 1922 | 27 | 1.4% |
| Retail | 1426 | 42 | 2.9% |
| Hospitality | 1029 | 16 | 1.6% |
| Finance | 672 | 28 | 4.2% |
| Hospitals & Physicians Clinics | 662 | 43 | 6.5% |
| Construction | 627 | 9 | 1.4% |
| Software | 555 | 18 | 3.2% |
| Transportation | 510 | 10 | 2.0% |
| Government | 458 | 8 | 1.7% |
| Energy, Utilities & Waste | 456 | 12 | 2.6% |
| Real Estate | 401 | 6 | 1.5% |
| Insurance | 367 | 21 | 5.7% |
| Media & Internet | 345 | 10 | 2.9% |
| Consumer Services | 288 | 1 | 0.3% |
| Holding Companies & Conglomerates | 277 | 5 | 1.8% |
| Organizations & Non-Profits | 274 | 8 | 2.9% |
| Healthcare Services | 238 | 3 | 1.3% |
| Telecommunications | 217 | 2 | 0.9% |
| NA | 216 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Law Firms & Legal Services | 134 | 4 | 3.0% |
| Agriculture | 121 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Metals, Minerals, and Mining | 82 | 1 | 1.2% |
| Education | 40 | 1 | 2.5% |
| DEI_C_Level_Binary | N | Visits | Percent_Visited |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 13589 | 215 | 1.6% |
| 1 | 770 | 122 | 15.8% |
Besides looking at C-Level contacts, we can try to get at commitment / size of DEI at a firm by looking at all of the DEI contacts we have in sF.
In this case:
| DEI_Contacts_Bin | N | Visits | Percent_Visited |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 11643 | 20 | 0.2% |
| 1 | 1401 | 96 | 6.9% |
| 2 | 580 | 76 | 13.1% |
| 3 | 295 | 48 | 16.3% |
| 4 | 165 | 24 | 14.5% |
| 5+ | 275 | 73 | 26.5% |
| PrimaryState | N | Visits | Percent_Visited |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA | 1843 | 45 | 2.4% |
| TX | 1175 | 27 | 2.3% |
| NY | 990 | 52 | 5.3% |
| FL | 849 | 3 | 0.4% |
| IL | 635 | 12 | 1.9% |
| PA | 549 | 16 | 2.9% |
| OH | 493 | 13 | 2.6% |
| GA | 491 | 9 | 1.8% |
| NJ | 450 | 13 | 2.9% |
| MA | 442 | 14 | 3.2% |
| MI | 395 | 5 | 1.3% |
| NC | 377 | 6 | 1.6% |
| VA | 355 | 13 | 3.7% |
| WA | 296 | 8 | 2.7% |
| MN | 293 | 10 | 3.4% |
| CO | 277 | 3 | 1.1% |
| MO | 264 | 8 | 3.0% |
| WI | 262 | 10 | 3.8% |
| AZ | 255 | 1 | 0.4% |
| MD | 249 | 6 | 2.4% |
| TN | 246 | 6 | 2.4% |
| IN | 226 | 4 | 1.8% |
| CT | 186 | 7 | 3.8% |
| SC | 147 | 2 | 1.4% |
| UT | 146 | 0 | 0.0% |
| DC | 138 | 3 | 2.2% |
| OR | 124 | 1 | 0.8% |
| KY | 119 | 3 | 2.5% |
| KS | 112 | 0 | 0.0% |
| AL | 105 | 0 | 0.0% |
| IA | 101 | 4 | 4.0% |
| NV | 100 | 0 | 0.0% |
| LA | 94 | 3 | 3.2% |
| OK | 94 | 1 | 1.1% |
| NE | 87 | 1 | 1.1% |
| AR | 68 | 1 | 1.5% |
| DE | 60 | 1 | 1.7% |
| ID | 52 | 2 | 3.8% |
| NH | 50 | 1 | 2.0% |
| MS | 39 | 0 | 0.0% |
| RI | 38 | 2 | 5.3% |
| ME | 30 | 1 | 3.3% |
| HI | 27 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NM | 25 | 0 | 0.0% |
| SD | 23 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ND | 21 | 1 | 4.8% |
| PR | 21 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WV | 20 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MT | 19 | 0 | 0.0% |
| AK | 17 | 0 | 0.0% |
| VT | 17 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WY | 14 | 0 | 0.0% |
| New York | 7 | 0 | 0.0% |
| California | 5 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Texas | 5 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Florida | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Ohio | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Illinois | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| New Jersey | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Virginia | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Connecticut | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| IO | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Iowa | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Louisiana | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Maryland | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Massachusetts | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| North Carolina | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Pennsylvania | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Tennessee | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Wisconsin | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NA | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
The smattering across industries doesn’t suggest an industry driven explanation.
| Industry | N | Visits | Percent_Visited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business Services | 130 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Hospitality | 106 | 1 | 0.9% |
| Manufacturing | 96 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail | 81 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Real Estate | 45 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Hospitals & Physicians Clinics | 43 | 2 | 4.7% |
| Construction | 38 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Government | 34 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Finance | 30 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Insurance | 30 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Transportation | 30 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Consumer Services | 22 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Healthcare Services | 22 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Media & Internet | 22 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Energy, Utilities & Waste | 19 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Software | 18 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Telecommunications | 16 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NA | 16 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Holding Companies & Conglomerates | 14 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Organizations & Non-Profits | 13 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Law Firms & Legal Services | 10 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Agriculture | 9 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Education | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Metals, Minerals, and Mining | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
Looking at the relationship between annual revenue and employees, we note a few data trends:
What if we look only at the companies at which we are getting visits. What does that tell us?
#### Scatterplot- Manufacturing
### Where do we get manufacturing visits?
Looking at the distribution of employees by industry and visit.
Similar to what we found from the above viz, we are consistently sourcing visits from