Exec Summary

  1. There is less evidence to support the importance of impact interactions, borderline statistically significant. Effect size.

  2. The threshold for impact interactions appears to be 4.

  3. No particular impact interaction stands out, as there is a lot of correlation amongst several of them. Still, if you had to choose, Service is the closest to statistically significant, is if you draw the line at p < .1. Research Interviews have a larger effect, while not statistically significant (albeit close).

Methodological

  1. Similar to previous analyses, we are primarily looking at the year leading up to a decision.

  2. We are not looking at ‘integrated’ partnerships. That is, we are focusing on utilization at the account where the renewal decision is made.

  3. We include data from FY21 onwards.

  4. We look at unit decision rates, not $ Renewed.

PAE Analysis

ALR-Shared
  1. This looks like we have very different performance when PAE is bundled, so let’s take these out from here on.
Renewal Ratio by ALR Shared
DecisionType PAE_Shared N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 225 163 62 2.6 72.4%
Need New LOA 1 47 14 33 0.4 29.8%
Opt Out 0 132 122 10 12.2 92.4%
Opt Out 1 24 18 6 3.0 75.0%
Renewal by Decision Type & Fiscal Year
Renewal Ratio by Decision Type
DecisionType N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 225 163 62 2.6 72.4%
Opt Out 132 122 10 12.2 92.4%
Renewal by Decision Type & Fiscal Year

We want to understand whether we can combine fiscal years, because they look similar, and therefore get more power for our statistical tests. We also want to understand whether Opt Outs behave differently from NNLOA and we have to separate them when we get further into the analysis.

  1. FY25 looks a bit better compared to the rest of the years, but there is enough similarity to include all of the years.
  2. [NNLOA] Bookends, with FY21 lower and FY25 overperforming.
  3. [Opt Out] Performance and volume seems relatively consistent, with FY24 & FY25 volume lower and FY25 performance excellent.
Renewal Ratio by Decision Type
DecisionType FiscalYear N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 2021 32 20 12 1.7 62.5%
Need New LOA 2022 52 39 13 3.0 75.0%
Need New LOA 2023 45 33 12 2.8 73.3%
Need New LOA 2024 61 46 15 3.1 75.4%
Need New LOA 2025 35 25 10 2.5 71.4%
Opt Out 2021 14 12 2 6.0 85.7%
Opt Out 2022 31 28 3 9.3 90.3%
Opt Out 2023 44 41 3 13.7 93.2%
Opt Out 2024 27 25 2 12.5 92.6%
Opt Out 2025 16 16 0 Inf 100.0%
Total NA 357 285 72 4.0 79.8%
Renewal Rate by Account Segment
  1. Some consistency in performance across segments:
  • Large Public & Private, Selective, and Regional Public all close to each other.
  • Regional Privates are the underperformers.
  • Could be worth revisiting taking out Canada.
Renewal Ratio by Account Segment
AccountSegment N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Canada 14 8 6 1.3 57.1%
Large Public & Private 195 161 34 4.7 82.6%
Regional Private 25 17 8 2.1 68.0%
Regional Public 58 47 11 4.3 81.0%
Selective 65 52 13 4.0 80.0%
Renewal by Decision Type & Segment
  1. [Large P&P]
  • Performance on NNLOA is relatively high.
  • Performance on Opt Outs is clearly what driving the entire percentage up.
  1. [Selective]
  • Best NNLOA performance.
  • Perfect Opt Out renewals.
  1. [Regional Publics]
  • NNLOA is a particular problem for Regional Public.
  • Opt Out Performance appears to be pretty solid, so they continue with the service until the NNLOA and then drop.
  1. [Regional Privates]
  • NNLOA better than Publics, but still under LPP and Selectives.
Renewal Ratio by Account Segment
AccountSegment DecisionType N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Canada Need New LOA 11 6 5 1.2 54.5%
Canada Opt Out 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Large Public & Private Need New LOA 118 88 30 2.9 74.6%
Large Public & Private Opt Out 77 73 4 18.2 94.8%
Regional Private Need New LOA 19 13 6 2.2 68.4%
Regional Private Opt Out 6 4 2 2.0 66.7%
Regional Public Need New LOA 34 24 10 2.4 70.6%
Regional Public Opt Out 24 23 1 23.0 95.8%
Selective Need New LOA 43 32 11 2.9 74.4%
Selective Opt Out 22 20 2 10.0 90.9%
GRP 3-4
  1. Like AAS, clear evidence of a bump from GRP 3-4.
  2. GRP 3-4 distribution largely large public & private, correlation here makes sense.
Renewal Ratio by GRP 3-4 or Not
AccountSegment DecisionType GRP3-4 N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Canada Need New LOA 0 8 3 5 0.6 37.5%
Canada Need New LOA 1 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Canada Opt Out 0 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Canada Opt Out 1 2 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Large Public & Private Need New LOA 0 90 66 24 2.8 73.3%
Large Public & Private Need New LOA 1 28 22 6 3.7 78.6%
Large Public & Private Opt Out 0 63 59 4 14.8 93.7%
Large Public & Private Opt Out 1 14 14 0 Inf 100.0%
Regional Private Need New LOA 0 19 13 6 2.2 68.4%
Regional Private Opt Out 0 6 4 2 2.0 66.7%
Regional Public Need New LOA 0 27 20 7 2.9 74.1%
Regional Public Need New LOA 1 7 4 3 1.3 57.1%
Regional Public Opt Out 0 16 15 1 15.0 93.8%
Regional Public Opt Out 1 8 8 0 Inf 100.0%
Selective Need New LOA 0 39 28 11 2.5 71.8%
Selective Need New LOA 1 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Selective Opt Out 0 14 12 2 6.0 85.7%
Selective Opt Out 1 8 8 0 Inf 100.0%
Impact Interaction Volume Histogram
  1. Peak at 5.
  2. Solid density between 5-10.
  3. Long tail, some super users.

##### Impact Interaction Volume Histogram Split by Decision

  1. Would say that the two distributions - Opt Out & NNLOA - are roughly equivalent.

Impact Interaction Volume Histogram Split by Year
  1. Fiscal Year 25 looks a little light on impact interactions.
  2. FY 23 and 22 appear to have more utilization.
  3. Really checking to see if we can draw conclusion based on all of these years.Think we can.

Renewal by Interaction Volume and Decision Type, Unbinned
  1. NNLOA 0 still renews!
  2. NNLOA is confusing, because 7, 10, 11 aren’t as high as their neighbors. You seem to have minor evidence under 6.
Renewal Ratio by Impact Interaction Volume
DecisionType II_Credited_Volume N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 12 11 1 11.0 91.7%
Need New LOA 1 12 8 4 2.0 66.7%
Need New LOA 2 25 17 8 2.1 68.0%
Need New LOA 3 10 6 4 1.5 60.0%
Need New LOA 4 23 14 9 1.6 60.9%
Need New LOA 5 23 14 9 1.6 60.9%
Need New LOA 6 14 12 2 6.0 85.7%
Need New LOA 7 19 10 9 1.1 52.6%
Need New LOA 8 20 18 2 9.0 90.0%
Need New LOA 9 18 13 5 2.6 72.2%
Need New LOA 10 12 8 4 2.0 66.7%
Need New LOA 11 7 4 3 1.3 57.1%
Need New LOA 12 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 13 8 7 1 7.0 87.5%
Need New LOA 14 6 5 1 5.0 83.3%
Need New LOA 15 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 16 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 19 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 22 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 27 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 32 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 33 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 0 8 7 1 7.0 87.5%
Opt Out 1 9 9 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 2 6 6 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 3 5 3 2 1.5 60.0%
Opt Out 4 10 10 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 5 19 16 3 5.3 84.2%
Opt Out 6 10 9 1 9.0 90.0%
Opt Out 7 8 7 1 7.0 87.5%
Opt Out 8 9 9 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 9 12 12 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 10 4 3 1 3.0 75.0%
Opt Out 11 9 8 1 8.0 88.9%
Opt Out 12 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 13 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 14 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 15 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 18 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 19 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 20 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 21 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 22 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 26 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 28 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by Impact Interaction Volume, Just Fy24 & FY25
  1. NNLOA has so much variation to it across the board!
Renewal Ratio by Impact Interaction Volume
DecisionType II_Credited_Volume N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 9 8 1 8.0 88.9%
Need New LOA 1 7 5 2 2.5 71.4%
Need New LOA 2 13 10 3 3.3 76.9%
Need New LOA 3 6 3 3 1.0 50.0%
Need New LOA 4 7 2 5 0.4 28.6%
Need New LOA 5 7 4 3 1.3 57.1%
Need New LOA 6 6 6 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 7 5 2 3 0.7 40.0%
Need New LOA 8 12 11 1 11.0 91.7%
Need New LOA 9 4 3 1 3.0 75.0%
Need New LOA 10 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Need New LOA 11 4 2 2 1.0 50.0%
Need New LOA 12 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 13 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 14 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 15 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 22 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 27 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 32 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 0 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 1 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 2 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 3 2 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Opt Out 4 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 5 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 6 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 7 5 4 1 4.0 80.0%
Opt Out 8 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 9 6 6 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 11 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 12 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 13 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 14 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 19 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by Impact Interaction Volume, (Binned)
  1. [NNLOA] 7+ seems to have the most evidence for it.
Renewal Ratio for Impact Interaction Volume
DecisionType II_Volume_Bins N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 12 11 1 11.0 91.7%
Need New LOA 1 12 8 4 2.0 66.7%
Need New LOA 2-3 35 23 12 1.9 65.7%
Need New LOA 4-6 60 40 20 2.0 66.7%
Need New LOA 7+ 106 81 25 3.2 76.4%
Opt Out 0 8 7 1 7.0 87.5%
Opt Out 1 9 9 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 2-3 11 9 2 4.5 81.8%
Opt Out 4-6 39 35 4 8.8 89.7%
Opt Out 7+ 65 62 3 20.7 95.4%
Renewal by Impact Interaction Volume, (Binned), No MI
  1. [NNLOA] 4+ is the point at which the renewal rate climbs above the average.
Renewal Ratio for Impact Interaction Volume (No MI)
DecisionType II_Volume_Bins_NoMI N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 32 26 6 4.3 81.2%
Need New LOA 1 44 28 16 1.8 63.6%
Need New LOA 2-3 57 37 20 1.9 64.9%
Need New LOA 4-6 60 45 15 3.0 75.0%
Need New LOA 7+ 32 27 5 5.4 84.4%
Opt Out 0 14 13 1 13.0 92.9%
Opt Out 1 24 22 2 11.0 91.7%
Opt Out 2-3 33 30 3 10.0 90.9%
Opt Out 4-6 36 33 3 11.0 91.7%
Opt Out 7+ 25 24 1 24.0 96.0%
Renewal by Impact Interaction Volume, (Binned), MI Exclusively
  1. [NNLOA] 4+ here as well.
Renewal Ratio for Market Research Interactions
DecisionType II_MI_Binned N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 50 36 14 2.6 72.0%
Need New LOA 1 34 22 12 1.8 64.7%
Need New LOA 2-3 55 37 18 2.1 67.3%
Need New LOA 4-6 52 41 11 3.7 78.8%
Need New LOA 7+ 34 27 7 3.9 79.4%
Opt Out 0 25 23 2 11.5 92.0%
Opt Out 1 19 17 2 8.5 89.5%
Opt Out 2-3 38 35 3 11.7 92.1%
Opt Out 4-6 27 24 3 8.0 88.9%
Opt Out 7+ 23 23 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by Previous Yr Impact Interaction Volume & Decision
  1. [NNLOA] All over the place, no conclusion can be drawn here.
  2. [Opt Out] Invariance.
Renewal Ratio by Previous Year Impact Interaction
DecisionType PreviousYr_II_Volume N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 21 17 4 4.2 81.0%
Need New LOA 1 9 7 2 3.5 77.8%
Need New LOA 2 12 6 6 1.0 50.0%
Need New LOA 3 14 9 5 1.8 64.3%
Need New LOA 4 25 19 6 3.2 76.0%
Need New LOA 5 19 11 8 1.4 57.9%
Need New LOA 6 20 16 4 4.0 80.0%
Need New LOA 7 9 6 3 2.0 66.7%
Need New LOA 8 12 6 6 1.0 50.0%
Need New LOA 9 11 10 1 10.0 90.9%
Need New LOA 10 6 6 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 11 8 6 2 3.0 75.0%
Need New LOA 12 5 4 1 4.0 80.0%
Need New LOA 13 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 14 4 3 1 3.0 75.0%
Need New LOA 15 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Need New LOA 16 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 17 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 18 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 19 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 21 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 25 2 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Need New LOA 36 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA NA 32 21 11 1.9 65.6%
Opt Out 0 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Opt Out 1 4 3 1 3.0 75.0%
Opt Out 3 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 4 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 5 7 7 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 6 5 4 1 4.0 80.0%
Opt Out 7 6 6 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 8 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 9 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 10 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 11 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 12 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 13 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 14 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 15 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 16 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 18 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 21 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 22 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 23 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 28 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out NA 75 68 7 9.7 90.7%
Renewal by Previous Yr Impact Interaction Volume Binned & Decision

Note: If II_PrevYr_Volume_Bins = NA, then there was not an active contract in the previous year.

  1. Again, too much variation.
Renewal Ratio by Previous Year Impact Interaction
DecisionType II_PrevYr_Volume_Bins N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 21 17 4 4.2 81.0%
Need New LOA 1 9 7 2 3.5 77.8%
Need New LOA 2-3 26 15 11 1.4 57.7%
Need New LOA 4-6 64 46 18 2.6 71.9%
Need New LOA 7+ 73 57 16 3.6 78.1%
Need New LOA NA 32 21 11 1.9 65.6%
Opt Out 0 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Opt Out 1 4 3 1 3.0 75.0%
Opt Out 2-3 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 4-6 16 15 1 15.0 93.8%
Opt Out 7+ 32 32 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out NA 75 68 7 9.7 90.7%
Renewals Previous Yr and Current Yr Interaction Volume

Only looking at NNLOAs in the below table. Find this representation difficult to understand.

Renewal Ratio by Previous and Current Year Impact Interaction
II_PrevYr_Volume_Bins II_Volume_Bins N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
0 0 6 6 0 Inf 100.0%
0 1 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
0 2-3 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
0 4-6 7 5 2 2.5 71.4%
0 7+ 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
1 2-3 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
1 4-6 6 4 2 2.0 66.7%
1 7+ 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
2-3 0 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
2-3 1 4 2 2 1.0 50.0%
2-3 2-3 6 3 3 1.0 50.0%
2-3 4-6 7 6 1 6.0 85.7%
2-3 7+ 8 4 4 1.0 50.0%
4-6 0 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
4-6 1 4 3 1 3.0 75.0%
4-6 2-3 12 9 3 3.0 75.0%
4-6 4-6 17 10 7 1.4 58.8%
4-6 7+ 28 21 7 3.0 75.0%
7+ 2-3 7 7 0 Inf 100.0%
7+ 4-6 18 12 6 2.0 66.7%
7+ 7+ 48 38 10 3.8 79.2%
NA 0 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
NA 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
NA 2-3 5 0 5 0.0 0.0%
NA 4-6 5 3 2 1.5 60.0%
NA 7+ 19 15 4 3.8 78.9%
Simple Regression for Impact Interaction Volume

Note: Looking at NNLOAs, only.

  1. Significant. More impact interactions does translate to a higher percentage renewal rate.
Simple Regression Model with Impact Interaction Volume
term estimate std.error statistic p.value
Intercept 0.52 0.258 2.01 0.045
Impact Interaction Volume 0.07 0.035 2.01 0.045
Penetration by Event Grouping
  1. Service is the most heavily penetrated, with expert calls and events roughly even, yet 30% below Service in pen.
  2. The rest of the categories, which are consumed, are penetrated about the same amount.
  3. Opt Outs and NNLOA look distributed similarly across the interactions.
Percent of Renewals w/ At Least 1 Interaction in a Group
DecisionType Perc_Events Perc_Service Perc_SLLed Perc_ResearchInt Perc_PLW_Onsite Perc_Experience Perc_ExpertCall
Need New LOA 52.9% 81.8% 25.8% 27.1% 26.7% 0.0% 53.8%
Opt Out 62.9% 82.6% 30.3% 23.5% 25.0% 0.8% 59.1%
Renewal by Event Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Small bump from attending, >50%+ distributed towards attending.
Renewal Ratio by Event Consumption
DecisionType II_Events_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 106 77 29 2.7 72.6%
Need New LOA 1 119 86 33 2.6 72.3%
Opt Out 0 49 44 5 8.8 89.8%
Opt Out 1 83 78 5 15.6 94.0%
Renewal by Service Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Supermajority consume this impact interaction. Really doesn’t seem to have much benefit if compared to those who do not consume it. If there is benefit, it must be in consuming more than 1.
Renewal Ratio by Service Consumption
DecisionType II_Service_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 41 29 12 2.4 70.7%
Need New LOA 1 184 134 50 2.7 72.8%
Opt Out 0 23 21 2 10.5 91.3%
Opt Out 1 109 101 8 12.6 92.7%
Renewal by SL Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] 6% lift from consuming this vs. not. Most don’t consume this ~26%.
Renewal Ratio by SL-Led Consumption
DecisionType II_SLLed_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 167 117 50 2.3 70.1%
Need New LOA 1 58 46 12 3.8 79.3%
Opt Out 0 92 84 8 10.5 91.3%
Opt Out 1 40 38 2 19.0 95.0%
Renewal by Research Interview Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Very large lift, nearly 12% if consumed vs. not. Less 30% have consumed this.
Renewal Ratio by Research Interview Consumption
DecisionType II_ResearchInterview_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 164 113 51 2.2 68.9%
Need New LOA 1 61 50 11 4.5 82.0%
Opt Out 0 101 93 8 11.6 92.1%
Opt Out 1 31 29 2 14.5 93.5%
Renewal by PLW OR Onsite Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Again, not much lift from the onsite, and lower pen, similar to SL Led.
Renewal Ratio by PLW OR Onsite Consumption
DecisionType II_PLW_Onsite_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 165 119 46 2.6 72.1%
Need New LOA 1 60 44 16 2.8 73.3%
Opt Out 0 99 91 8 11.4 91.9%
Opt Out 1 33 31 2 15.5 93.9%
Renewal by Experience Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] No Data.
Renewal Ratio by Experience Consumption
DecisionType II_Experience_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 225 163 62 2.6 72.4%
Opt Out 0 131 121 10 12.1 92.4%
Opt Out 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by Expert Call Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Small lift, 3%, with over 50% of the population consuming this II.
Renewal Ratio by Expert Call Consumption
DecisionType II_ExpertCall_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 104 73 31 2.4 70.2%
Need New LOA 1 121 90 31 2.9 74.4%
Opt Out 0 54 52 2 26.0 96.3%
Opt Out 1 78 70 8 8.8 89.7%
Renewal by Benchmark Consumption
Renewal Ratio by Benchmark Consumption
DecisionType II_Benchmark_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 224 162 62 2.6 72.3%
Need New LOA 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 0 131 121 10 12.1 92.4%
Opt Out 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by AskEAB Consumption
Renewal Ratio by AskEAB Consumption
DecisionType II_AskEAB_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 225 163 62 2.6 72.4%
Opt Out 0 132 122 10 12.2 92.4%
Correlation betwen Event Groupings, and Renewal (for fun)
  1. Correlation with Renewal: Research Interview and Service, but more mild than what we’ve seen elsewhere.
  2. Nothing really negatively correlated with renewal rate.
  3. Expert Calls are most correlated with the other impact interactions; Onsites maybe next.
  4. Research interview least correlated with other impact interactions, except strong correlation with Events.

Multivariate Regression (still kind of simple)

Note: Looking at NNLOA, only.

  1. Too much correlation between everything, so nothing stands out.
  2. Onsite effect is likely the largest.
Regression Estimates for a Model Fitted on Event Grouping Volumes
term estimate std.error statistic p.value
(Intercept) 0.87 0.230 3.81 0.00
II_Events_Volume -0.03 0.108 -0.29 0.77
II_ResearchInterview_Volume 0.38 0.239 1.60 0.11
II_PLW_Onsite_Volume 0.06 0.282 0.20 0.84
II_ExpertCall_Volume 0.07 0.099 0.74 0.46
II_Service_Volume 0.08 0.047 1.80 0.07
II_SLLed_Volume 0.14 0.219 0.62 0.53