AAF Analysis
Key Takeaways
Renewal by Decision Type
- NNLOA is hovering just above 50%, which is relatively low.
- Opt Out performance and volume is buoying overall renewal rate.
Renewal Ratio by Decision Type
|
DecisionType
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
Need New LOA
|
92
|
51
|
41
|
1.2
|
55.4%
|
|
Opt In
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
2.0
|
66.7%
|
|
Opt Out
|
59
|
54
|
5
|
10.8
|
91.5%
|
|
Total
|
154
|
107
|
47
|
2.3
|
69.5%
|
Renewal Rate by Account Segment
- Decent amount of variation in performance across segments.
- Large P&P at the top and almost twice as likely to renew as Regional Private (low N)
- Opportunity: A few extra % points in Regional Public, where the N is relatively large, would bring the whole product up.
Renewal Ratio by Account Segment
|
AccountSegment
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
International
|
12
|
9
|
3
|
3.0
|
75.0%
|
|
Large Public & Private
|
65
|
52
|
13
|
4.0
|
80.0%
|
|
Regional Private
|
16
|
7
|
9
|
0.8
|
43.8%
|
|
Regional Public
|
43
|
28
|
15
|
1.9
|
65.1%
|
|
Selective
|
18
|
11
|
7
|
1.6
|
61.1%
|
Renewal by Decision Type & Segment
- NNLOA particularly poor in the Regional Space.
- Opt Outs perform well in the Regional Space, albeit below the Large P&P standard.
Renewal Ratio by Account Segment
|
AccountSegment
|
DecisionType
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
International
|
Need New LOA
|
10
|
7
|
3
|
2.3
|
70.0%
|
|
International
|
Opt Out
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
Large Public & Private
|
Need New LOA
|
41
|
29
|
12
|
2.4
|
70.7%
|
|
Large Public & Private
|
Opt In
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
Large Public & Private
|
Opt Out
|
23
|
22
|
1
|
22.0
|
95.7%
|
|
Regional Private
|
Need New LOA
|
10
|
2
|
8
|
0.2
|
20.0%
|
|
Regional Private
|
Opt Out
|
6
|
5
|
1
|
5.0
|
83.3%
|
|
Regional Public
|
Need New LOA
|
21
|
9
|
12
|
0.8
|
42.9%
|
|
Regional Public
|
Opt In
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1.0
|
50.0%
|
|
Regional Public
|
Opt Out
|
20
|
18
|
2
|
9.0
|
90.0%
|
|
Selective
|
Need New LOA
|
10
|
4
|
6
|
0.7
|
40.0%
|
|
Selective
|
Opt Out
|
8
|
7
|
1
|
7.0
|
87.5%
|
AAF Bundled w/ Nav, Broken Out by Decision Type
- NNLOA is boosted by its associated with Navigate contracts.
- Opt Outs for bundles with Navigate perform fantastically.
Renewal Ratio by Navigate Bundling
|
AAF_Nav
|
DecisionType
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
Need New LOA
|
78
|
40
|
38
|
1.1
|
51.3%
|
|
0
|
Opt In
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
0
|
Opt Out
|
34
|
29
|
5
|
5.8
|
85.3%
|
|
1
|
Need New LOA
|
14
|
11
|
3
|
3.7
|
78.6%
|
|
1
|
Opt In
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1.0
|
50.0%
|
|
1
|
Opt Out
|
25
|
25
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
GRP 3-4
- Looks like AAF renews very well when the partner is of the 3-4 type.
Renewal Ratio by Navigate Bundling
|
GRP3-4
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
145
|
98
|
47
|
2.1
|
67.6%
|
|
1
|
9
|
9
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
Impact Interaction Volume Histogram
- Central Tendency is moving much closer to 4!
- Still a decent number of renewals with 0-1 interactions in the year leading up to the renewal.
##### Renewal by Interaction Volume, Unbinned
- Impact interaction volume @ around 4 is when we climb above the average.
- What happens @6 is an eyesore and might need further investigation.
- Otherwise, generally increasing renewal rates as engagement increases.
Renewal Ratio by Impact Interaction Volume
|
II_Credited_Volume
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
13
|
7
|
6
|
1.2
|
53.8%
|
|
1
|
19
|
12
|
7
|
1.7
|
63.2%
|
|
2
|
17
|
9
|
8
|
1.1
|
52.9%
|
|
3
|
27
|
18
|
9
|
2.0
|
66.7%
|
|
4
|
23
|
17
|
6
|
2.8
|
73.9%
|
|
5
|
19
|
14
|
5
|
2.8
|
73.7%
|
|
6
|
13
|
8
|
5
|
1.6
|
61.5%
|
|
7
|
10
|
10
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
8
|
5
|
5
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
9
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
10
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
12
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0.0
|
0.0%
|
Renewal by Impact Interaction Volume, (Binned)
- 4+ is still the threshold.
- No meaningful difference between 1 and 2-3.
Renewal Ratio by Impact Interaction Volume (Binned)
|
II_Volume_Bins
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
13
|
7
|
6
|
1.2
|
53.8%
|
|
1
|
19
|
12
|
7
|
1.7
|
63.2%
|
|
2-3
|
44
|
27
|
17
|
1.6
|
61.4%
|
|
4-6
|
55
|
39
|
16
|
2.4
|
70.9%
|
|
7+
|
23
|
22
|
1
|
22.0
|
95.7%
|
Renewal by Previous Yr Impact Interaction Volume
- Tough to figure out a pattern, as there is a lot of variation.
- Some schools did not have a previous year - captured by NA.
Renewal Ratio by Previous Year Impact Interaction
|
PreviousYr_II_Volume
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
14
|
8
|
6
|
1.3
|
57.1%
|
|
1
|
15
|
10
|
5
|
2.0
|
66.7%
|
|
2
|
17
|
11
|
6
|
1.8
|
64.7%
|
|
3
|
19
|
8
|
11
|
0.7
|
42.1%
|
|
4
|
17
|
15
|
2
|
7.5
|
88.2%
|
|
5
|
12
|
9
|
3
|
3.0
|
75.0%
|
|
6
|
10
|
6
|
4
|
1.5
|
60.0%
|
|
7
|
6
|
4
|
2
|
2.0
|
66.7%
|
|
8
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
0.5
|
33.3%
|
|
9
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1.0
|
50.0%
|
|
10
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
13
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
27
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
Inf
|
100.0%
|
|
NA
|
35
|
30
|
5
|
6.0
|
85.7%
|
Trend of Impact Interactions YoY
Note: (-1 = Negative Trend, 0 = Neutral, 1 = Positive Trend)
- We can safely say that decreasing usage YoY is an indicator of decreased likelihood to renew.
- Stability YoY performs just below the average.
- Increasing consumption YoY is correlated with higher renewal rates.
Renewal Ratio by Previous Year Impact Interaction
|
Volume_Trend
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
-1
|
44
|
25
|
19
|
1.3
|
56.8%
|
|
0
|
20
|
13
|
7
|
1.9
|
65.0%
|
|
1
|
90
|
69
|
21
|
3.3
|
76.7%
|
Simple Regression for Impact Interaction Volume
- The Estimate for Impact Interaction Volume is Positive -> increased consumption means increased likelihood to renew.
- This is statistically significant.
Simple Regression Model with Impact Interaction Volume
|
term
|
estimate
|
std.error
|
statistic
|
p.value
|
|
Intercept
|
0.1
|
0.316
|
0.32
|
0.751
|
|
Impact Interaction Volume
|
0.2
|
0.079
|
2.59
|
0.010
|
Penetration by Event Grouping
- Predominantly, we see that AAF consumption involves Events, SL Led Impact, and Expert Calls.
- Very little in Service, Experience, and Research Interviews.
Percent of Renewals w/ At Least 1 Interaction in a Group
|
Perc_Events
|
Perc_Service
|
Perc_SLLed
|
Perc_ResearchInt
|
Perc_PLW_Onsite
|
Perc_Experience
|
Perc_ExpertCall
|
|
59.7%
|
11.7%
|
58.4%
|
5.2%
|
22.1%
|
8.4%
|
54.5%
|
Renewal by Event Consumption
- Nearly a 14% bump and the N relatively large in both bins.
Renewal Ratio by Event Consumption
|
II_Events_Binary
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
62
|
38
|
24
|
1.6
|
61.3%
|
|
1
|
92
|
69
|
23
|
3.0
|
75.0%
|
Renewal by Service Consumption
- There is a bump from service consumption, but the N is relatively small and the difference is not quite large enough for statistical significance.
Renewal Ratio by Service Consumption
|
II_Service_Binary
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
136
|
93
|
43
|
2.2
|
68.4%
|
|
1
|
18
|
14
|
4
|
3.5
|
77.8%
|
Renewal by SL Consumption
- Similar to Events: about a 14% bump with a large enough N in both buckets.
Renewal Ratio by SL-Led Consumption
|
II_SLLed_Binary
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
64
|
39
|
25
|
1.6
|
60.9%
|
|
1
|
90
|
68
|
22
|
3.1
|
75.6%
|
Renewal by Research Interview Consumption
- The largest bump we see across any of the groupings.
- But N is very small.
Renewal Ratio by Research Interview Consumption
|
II_ResearchInterview_Binary
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
146
|
100
|
46
|
2.2
|
68.5%
|
|
1
|
8
|
7
|
1
|
7.0
|
87.5%
|
Renewal by PLW OR Onsite Consumption
- We see that consumption of this is negatively related to renewal!
Renewal Ratio by PLW OR Onsite Consumption
|
II_PLW_Onsite_Binary
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
120
|
84
|
36
|
2.3
|
70.0%
|
|
1
|
34
|
23
|
11
|
2.1
|
67.6%
|
Renewal by Experience Consumption
- Similar to Service in size of the effect and N.
Renewal Ratio by Experience Consumption
|
II_Experience_Binary
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
141
|
97
|
44
|
2.2
|
68.8%
|
|
1
|
13
|
10
|
3
|
3.3
|
76.9%
|
Renewal by Expert Call Consumption
- Similar to PLW OR Onsite, negative relationship with Renewal.
Renewal Ratio by Expert Call Consumption
|
II_ExpertCall_Binary
|
N
|
ATL
|
Dropped
|
Ratio
|
Perc_Renewed
|
|
0
|
70
|
50
|
20
|
2.5
|
71.4%
|
|
1
|
84
|
57
|
27
|
2.1
|
67.9%
|
Correlation betwen Event Groupings, and Renewal (for fun)
- Consuming an Event generally means you consume some other event group.
- Interestingly, SL Led and PLW/Onsite are positively correlated, yet one is positively associated with renewal and the other is negatively associated with renewal.
##### Multivariate Regression (still kind of simple)
- Events is the only statistically significant result. It is positively associated with Renewal.
- SL Led could be considered statistically significant, depending on the desired cutoff. Also positively related to Renewal.
- PLW and Expert Call are confirmed to be negatively associated with Renewal.
Regression Estimates for a Model Fitted on Event Grouping Volumes
|
term
|
estimate
|
std.error
|
statistic
|
p.value
|
|
(Intercept)
|
0.1364742
|
0.3168843
|
0.4306751
|
0.6667046
|
|
II_Events_Volume
|
0.4533211
|
0.1924381
|
2.3556726
|
0.0184892
|
|
II_Service_Volume
|
0.7555243
|
0.5709709
|
1.3232272
|
0.1857598
|
|
II_SLLed_Volume
|
0.3035385
|
0.1622576
|
1.8707198
|
0.0613839
|
|
II_ResearchInterview_Volume
|
1.0339434
|
1.1115649
|
0.9301692
|
0.3522835
|
|
II_PLW_Onsite_Volume
|
-0.5243041
|
0.3351852
|
-1.5642223
|
0.1177654
|
|
II_Experience_Volume
|
0.2573686
|
0.6311587
|
0.4077716
|
0.6834414
|
|
II_ExpertCall_Volume
|
-0.0623920
|
0.1867607
|
-0.3340744
|
0.7383234
|