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. Looking at only GRP 3-4 Eligible Schools: Private and OpEx above 150M OR Public and OpEx above 200M

SAS Analysis

Renewal by Decision Type
  1. NNLOA is towards the top of the NNLOA renewal rate for forums.
  2. Opt Out performance and volume is helping overall renewal rate, Volume is pretty high: ~40%
Renewal Ratio by Decision Type
DecisionType N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 154 87 67 1.3 56.5%
Opt Out 101 97 4 24.2 96.0%
Total 255 184 71 2.6 72.2%
Renewal Rate by Account Segment
  1. Most of the partners are in Large Public & Private or Selective
  • Large P&P and Regional Public renew quite well, above the average.
    • Selective performs just below the average.
    • ~60% of the partnerships are with Large P&P schools.
Renewal Ratio by Account Segment
AccountSegment N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Large Public & Private 148 110 38 2.9 74.3%
Regional Private 3 1 2 0.5 33.3%
Regional Public 37 28 9 3.1 75.7%
Selective 67 45 22 2.0 67.2%
Decision by Segment and Program
  1. [Large P&P]
    • AAF and HESF are high renewal rates.
    • BAF and SAF are the lowest amongst the bunch.
  2. [Selective]
    • BAF in Selectives performs above the rest of the programs.
    • EMF seems to fall below other programs.
    • The rest are tightly bunched together.
  3. [Regional Public]
    • EMF and SAF perform below the average.
Renewal Ratio by Account Segment
AccountSegment ProgramAcronym N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Large Public & Private EDAF 28 19 9 2.1 67.9%
Large Public & Private EDEM 27 19 8 2.4 70.4%
Large Public & Private EDPF 10 10 0 Inf 100.0%
Large Public & Private EDPV 54 42 12 3.5 77.8%
Large Public & Private EDSA 29 20 9 2.2 69.0%
Regional Private EDPV 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Regional Private EDSA 2 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Regional Public EDAF 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Regional Public EDEM 5 3 2 1.5 60.0%
Regional Public EDPF 4 3 1 3.0 75.0%
Regional Public EDPV 15 12 3 4.0 80.0%
Regional Public EDSA 8 5 3 1.7 62.5%
Selective EDAF 22 17 5 3.4 77.3%
Selective EDEM 12 6 6 1.0 50.0%
Selective EDPF 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Selective EDPV 17 11 6 1.8 64.7%
Selective EDSA 13 9 4 2.2 69.2%
Renewal by Decision Type & Segment
  1. [Large P&P]
  • Performance on NNLOA is pretty high.
    • Performance on Opt Outs is superb - nearly perfect score.
  1. [Selective]
  • NNLOA is a particular problem for Selectives.
    • Opt Out Performance appears to be solid.
  1. [Regional Public]
  • NNLOA is low but not as low as we’ve seen in some individual forums.
    • Opt Out Performance is fantastic.
Renewal Ratio by Account Segment
AccountSegment DecisionType N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Large Public & Private Need New LOA 94 58 36 1.6 61.7%
Large Public & Private Opt Out 54 52 2 26.0 96.3%
Regional Private Need New LOA 2 0 2 0.0 0.0%
Regional Private Opt Out 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Regional Public Need New LOA 17 8 9 0.9 47.1%
Regional Public Opt Out 20 20 0 Inf 100.0%
Selective Need New LOA 41 21 20 1.0 51.2%
Selective Opt Out 26 24 2 12.0 92.3%
GRP 3-4
  1. Currently, 49 of the partnerships fall in to GRP 3-4 right now.
  2. Performance-wise, no differences between the GRP Opt Out and non-GRP opt outs.
  3. Why 49? Butler only had 3 partnerships and Metroplitan State U only has 1 in the window. That’s 6 missing. We should have 55.
Renewal Ratio by Navigate Bundling
AccountSegment DecisionType GRP3-4 N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Large Public & Private Need New LOA 0 89 53 36 1.5 59.6%
Large Public & Private Need New LOA 1 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Large Public & Private Opt Out 0 25 23 2 11.5 92.0%
Large Public & Private Opt Out 1 29 29 0 Inf 100.0%
Regional Private Need New LOA 0 2 0 2 0.0 0.0%
Regional Private Opt Out 0 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Regional Public Need New LOA 0 17 8 9 0.9 47.1%
Regional Public Opt Out 0 10 10 0 Inf 100.0%
Regional Public Opt Out 1 10 10 0 Inf 100.0%
Selective Need New LOA 0 41 21 20 1.0 51.2%
Selective Opt Out 0 21 19 2 9.5 90.5%
Selective Opt Out 1 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Impact Interaction Volume Histogram
  1. A decent degree of low engagement - 0, 1
  2. Decent density between 2 and 5
  3. Long right tail of utilization.
  4. AAF (EDPV) and BAF (EDAF) over-represented in the lower end of the graph.
  5. EMF (EDEM) strongly located in the more dense part of the distribution - 2-5.
  6. AAF (EDPV) also has some strong utilizers, as well.

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

  1. Opt Outs are roughly uniform up until the higher ends of the impact interactions, where they taper off.

Renewal by Interaction Volume and Decision Type, Unbinned
  1. Threshold: 3 or fewer interactions for NNLOA appears to be the threshold
  2. 4 through 7 interactions looks strong for NNLOA.
  3. As the N tapers off and the volume gets larger, you see a lot more variability.
  4. Opt Out performance is invariant to Impact interaction volume.
Renewal Ratio by Impact Interaction Volume
DecisionType II_Credited_Volume N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 12 3 9 0.3 25.0%
Need New LOA 1 14 8 6 1.3 57.1%
Need New LOA 2 26 11 15 0.7 42.3%
Need New LOA 3 22 11 11 1.0 50.0%
Need New LOA 4 26 16 10 1.6 61.5%
Need New LOA 5 19 13 6 2.2 68.4%
Need New LOA 6 10 7 3 2.3 70.0%
Need New LOA 7 11 10 1 10.0 90.9%
Need New LOA 8 4 2 2 1.0 50.0%
Need New LOA 9 5 3 2 1.5 60.0%
Need New LOA 10 2 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Need New LOA 11 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 12 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Opt Out 0 10 10 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 1 8 8 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 2 12 11 1 11.0 91.7%
Opt Out 3 20 19 1 19.0 95.0%
Opt Out 4 13 13 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 5 14 14 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 6 8 7 1 7.0 87.5%
Opt Out 7 8 8 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 8 5 4 1 4.0 80.0%
Opt Out 9 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 10 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by Impact Interaction ACROSS SAS Programs at an Account
  1. If an account only has a single program, then 4+ seems to be the right number.
  2. If an account has multiple programs - 2+ - then 9+ looks like a good threshold.
Renewal Ratio by Impact Interaction Volume
AccountFormalName ProgramAcronyms Partnerships II_Volume ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
North Carolina A & T State University EDAF 1 0 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Tarleton State University EDSA 1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign EDPF 1 0 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Iowa EDPV 1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of Kansas EDPV 1 0 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of North Carolina at Wilmington EDAF EDPV 2 0 1 1 1.0 50.0%
University of North Florida EDSA 1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0%
North Dakota State University EDPV 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
SUNY-Albany EDPV 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of California- San Francisco EDAF 1 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of Mississippi EDPV 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Rochester EDEM 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of South Florida EDSA 1 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of West Florida EDPV 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Webster University EDPV 1 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Western Washington University EDPV 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
American University EDEM 1 2 0 1 0.0 0.0%
East Carolina University EDPV 1 2 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Loyola Marymount University EDSA 1 2 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Pomona College EDPV 1 2 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Texas Christian University EDPV 1 2 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Texas Southern University EDAF 1 2 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Tufts University EDSA EDPV 2 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Illinois System EDAF 1 2 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Massachusetts Lowell EDEM 1 2 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of Michigan EDEM 1 2 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities EDPV 1 2 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of New England EDSA 1 2 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Southern Mississippi EDPV 1 2 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Texas at San Antonio EDPV 1 2 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Brown University EDAF 1 3 0 1 0.0 0.0%
California State University System EDPV 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Colorado College EDSA 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
CUNY System Office EDPV 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Fordham University EDEM 1 3 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Gonzaga University EDPV EDAF 2 3 0 2 0.0 0.0%
Grand Valley State University EDPV 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Johnson & Wales University-Rhode Island EDPV 1 3 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Loyola University Maryland EDEM 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
North Carolina Central University EDAF 1 3 0 1 0.0 0.0%
United States Military Academy EDPV 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Alabama in Huntsville EDPV 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of California- Irvine EDAF 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Connecticut EDAF 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Idaho EDEM 1 3 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of Nevada, Las Vegas EDPV 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of North Dakota EDPV EDEM EDSA 3 3 0 3 0.0 0.0%
University of Pittsburgh EDEM 1 3 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of Tampa EDPV 1 3 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Arizona State University EDAF 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Baylor College of Medicine EDSA 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Bowling Green State University EDSA 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Howard University EDSA 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Kansas State University EDAF EDPV 2 4 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Mercer University EDEM 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Central Arkansas EDPV 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Central Florida EDPV 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Florida EDAF 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Georgia EDEM 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Maryland, Baltimore EDSA EDPV 2 4 2 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Nebraska - Lincoln EDSA 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Nevada, Reno EDPV 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Virginia EDSA 1 4 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Wyoming EDSA 1 4 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Binghamton University EDSA 1 5 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Boston University EDEM 1 5 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Central Washington University EDPV 1 5 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Chapman University EDSA 1 5 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Ferris State University EDPF 1 5 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Indiana University Bloomington EDEM 1 5 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Louisiana State University EDPV 1 5 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Rice University EDAF 1 5 1 0 Inf 100.0%
South Dakota State University EDPV 1 5 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Colorado Denver EDPV EDEM EDAF 3 5 2 1 2.0 66.7%
University of Missouri-Columbia EDPV EDEM 2 5 0 2 0.0 0.0%
University of Missouri-St. Louis EDPV EDSA 2 5 0 2 0.0 0.0%
University of Oregon EDPV 1 5 0 1 0.0 0.0%
University of South Dakota EDPV 1 5 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Brandeis University EDSA 1 6 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Clemson University EDEM EDPV 2 6 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Georgia Southern University EDPV 1 6 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Montclair State University EDAF EDPV 2 6 0 2 0.0 0.0%
Portland State University EDPV 1 6 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Alaska Anchorage EDAF 1 6 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Hartford EDSA EDPV 2 6 0 2 0.0 0.0%
University of Houston EDPF EDEM 2 6 2 0 Inf 100.0%
University of South Alabama EDPV 1 6 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley EDAF EDPV 2 6 0 2 0.0 0.0%
Washington University EDAF 1 6 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Georgia Institute of Technology EDAF 1 7 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Missouri University of Science and Technology EDSA EDSA 2 7 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Northern Illinois University EDEM 1 7 1 0 Inf 100.0%
St. Cloud State University EDPV 1 7 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of California- Berkeley EDPV EDAF 2 7 2 0 Inf 100.0%
University of North Carolina at Greensboro EDEM EDPV 2 7 2 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Texas at Austin EDPV EDAF 2 7 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Iowa State University EDSA 1 8 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Lamar University EDPF 1 8 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Middle Tennessee State University EDPV 1 8 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Adelphi University EDEM 1 9 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University EDAF EDPV 2 9 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Florida Atlantic University EDPF EDAF EDSA 3 9 2 1 2.0 66.7%
University of West Georgia EDSA EDPV EDPV 3 9 3 0 Inf 100.0%
West Virginia University EDPV 1 9 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Lehigh University EDSA EDAF 2 10 1 1 1.0 50.0%
University of Wisconsin-Madison EDEM EDAF 2 10 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Butler University EDEM EDPF EDAF 3 11 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Rochester Institute of Technology EDPV EDSA 2 11 0 2 0.0 0.0%
Texas A&M University EDAF EDEM 2 11 2 0 Inf 100.0%
The University of Tennessee Health Science Center EDAF 1 11 1 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Central Missouri EDPV EDSA EDEM 3 11 0 3 0.0 0.0%
Wichita State University EDSA EDPV 2 11 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Villanova University EDSA 1 12 0 1 0.0 0.0%
Wayne State University EDPV EDAF EDSA EDEM 4 12 2 2 1.0 50.0%
New York University EDPV EDAF 2 13 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Texas Tech University EDSA EDAF EDPF EDEM EDPV 5 13 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University EDEM EDAF 2 13 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Case Western Reserve University EDAF EDPV 2 14 1 1 1.0 50.0%
Creighton University EDPV EDSA EDAF 3 14 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Furman University EDAF EDSA EDPV 3 14 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Georgia State University EDAF EDSA EDEM EDPF EDPV 5 14 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Miami University EDPV EDAF EDEM EDSA EDPF 5 14 5 0 Inf 100.0%
The New School EDAF EDEM EDPV EDSA 4 14 4 0 Inf 100.0%
University of North Texas EDPF EDSA EDEM EDPV EDAF 5 14 5 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Northern Colorado EDPV EDAF 2 14 2 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Texas at Arlington EDEM EDPV EDAF 3 14 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Northern Arizona University EDPV EDEM EDSA 3 15 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Oakland University EDAF EDSA EDEM EDPF EDPV 5 15 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Southern Connecticut State University EDPV EDSA EDEM 3 15 0 3 0.0 0.0%
University of California- Davis EDPV EDAF EDSA 3 15 0 3 0.0 0.0%
Baylor University EDPV EDAF EDSA EDEM 4 17 4 0 Inf 100.0%
University of Colorado Colorado Springs EDAF EDEM EDPF EDSA EDPV 5 18 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Oregon State University EDPV EDPV EDAF 3 19 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Carnegie Mellon University EDSA EDPF EDPV EDAF 4 20 2 2 1.0 50.0%
North Carolina State University EDPV EDSA EDEM EDAF 4 20 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Ohio University EDPV EDAF EDSA EDEM 4 21 1 3 0.3 25.0%
Illinois State University EDSA EDPV EDEM EDPF EDPV EDAF 6 22 6 0 Inf 100.0%
Colorado School of Mines EDPV EDAF EDSA EDEM EDPF 5 24 5 0 Inf 100.0%
SUNY-Buffalo State College EDSA EDEM EDPF EDPV EDAF 5 26 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Seton Hall University EDAF EDPV EDSA EDEM 4 27 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Metropolitan State University of Denver EDPF EDAF EDSA EDPV EDEM 5 28 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by Impact Interaction Volume, (Binned)
  1. [NNLOA] When you take the variation out, you might say 4+ is the threshold.
Renewal Ratio for Impact Interaction Volume
DecisionType II_Volume_Bins N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 12 3 9 0.3 25.0%
Need New LOA 1 14 8 6 1.3 57.1%
Need New LOA 2-3 48 22 26 0.8 45.8%
Need New LOA 4-6 55 36 19 1.9 65.5%
Need New LOA 7+ 25 18 7 2.6 72.0%
Opt Out 0 10 10 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 1 8 8 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 2-3 32 30 2 15.0 93.8%
Opt Out 4-6 35 34 1 34.0 97.1%
Opt Out 7+ 16 15 1 15.0 93.8%
Renewal by Previous Yr Impact Interaction Volume & Decision
  1. [NNLOA] Looks like at least 4 interactions in the previous year is a good sign.
  2. [NNLOA] It is important to note the heavy part of the distribution is in the 3-5 range and the renewal rate is just above the average.
  3. [Opt Out] Invariance.
Renewal Ratio by Previous Year Impact Interaction
DecisionType PreviousYr_II_Volume N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 14 8 6 1.3 57.1%
Need New LOA 1 14 6 8 0.8 42.9%
Need New LOA 2 13 6 7 0.9 46.2%
Need New LOA 3 24 10 14 0.7 41.7%
Need New LOA 4 25 15 10 1.5 60.0%
Need New LOA 5 18 11 7 1.6 61.1%
Need New LOA 6 13 8 5 1.6 61.5%
Need New LOA 7 7 6 1 6.0 85.7%
Need New LOA 8 4 1 3 0.3 25.0%
Need New LOA 9 4 3 1 3.0 75.0%
Need New LOA 10 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA 14 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Need New LOA NA 16 11 5 2.2 68.8%
Opt Out 0 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 1 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 2 6 6 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 3 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 4 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 5 6 6 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 6 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 7 5 5 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 8 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
Opt Out 10 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 13 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 27 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out NA 59 56 3 18.7 94.9%
Renewals Previous Yr and Current Yr Interaction Volume

Only looking at NNLOAs in the below table.

  1. For high utilization, maintenance looks like it is key.
  2. Low utilization in the previous year, especially at 0, getting interactions is a positive. However, for 1 and 2-3, it looks like there is not much of an upward effect.
Renewal Ratio by Previous and Current Year Impact Interaction
II_PrevYr_Volume_Bins II_Volume_Bins N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
0 0 2 0 2 0.0 0.0%
0 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
0 2-3 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
0 4-6 5 3 2 1.5 60.0%
0 7+ 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
1 0 2 0 2 0.0 0.0%
1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
1 2-3 4 2 2 1.0 50.0%
1 4-6 5 2 3 0.7 40.0%
1 7+ 2 1 1 1.0 50.0%
2-3 0 3 1 2 0.5 33.3%
2-3 1 4 1 3 0.3 25.0%
2-3 2-3 14 5 9 0.6 35.7%
2-3 4-6 12 5 7 0.7 41.7%
2-3 7+ 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
4-6 0 3 1 2 0.5 33.3%
4-6 1 6 4 2 2.0 66.7%
4-6 2-3 14 6 8 0.8 42.9%
4-6 4-6 21 16 5 3.2 76.2%
4-6 7+ 12 7 5 1.4 58.3%
7+ 1 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
7+ 2-3 7 4 3 1.3 57.1%
7+ 4-6 6 5 1 5.0 83.3%
7+ 7+ 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
NA 0 2 1 1 1.0 50.0%
NA 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
NA 2-3 6 3 3 1.0 50.0%
NA 4-6 6 5 1 5.0 83.3%
NA 7+ 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Simple Regression for Impact Interaction Volume

Note: Looking at NNLOAs, only.

  1. Increasing Impact Interactions is positively associated with renewal probability. More interactions mean a higher likelihood to renew.
Simple Regression Model with Impact Interaction Volume
term estimate std.error statistic p.value
Intercept -0.39 0.304 -1.3 0.194
Impact Interaction Volume 0.17 0.069 2.5 0.012
Penetration by Event Grouping
  1. Relatively high consistency across Opt Outs and NNLOAs on Event Category utilization:
  • The differences in penetration don’t exceed 6%
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 65.6% 17.5% 54.5% 20.1% 13.0% 5.2% 50.6%
Opt Out 60.4% 12.9% 68.3% 18.8% 18.8% 2.0% 55.4%
Renewal by Event Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Small lift, ~3%, above the average. And roughly a 8.5% bump in renewal from consuming vs. not.
  2. [Opt Outs] Basically the same renewal percentage with or without event attendance.
Renewal Ratio by Event Consumption
DecisionType II_Events_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 53 27 26 1.0 50.9%
Need New LOA 1 101 60 41 1.5 59.4%
Opt Out 0 40 38 2 19.0 95.0%
Opt Out 1 61 59 2 29.5 96.7%
Renewal by Service Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Service consumption is positively related to renewal. It is ~3% lift above the average for NNLOA.
  2. [Opt Out] Unlike NNLOA, we have negative relationship to renewal. Nearly a 12% decrease vs. the average.
Renewal Ratio by Service Consumption
DecisionType II_Service_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 127 71 56 1.3 55.9%
Need New LOA 1 27 16 11 1.5 59.3%
Opt Out 0 88 86 2 43.0 97.7%
Opt Out 1 13 11 2 5.5 84.6%
Renewal by SL Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Small lift for having an SL Led Interaction - 4% above NNLOA average, 9% bump above not having one.
  2. [Opt Outs] Small negative effect for having an SL Led Interaction. Too close to no effect to care.
Renewal Ratio by SL-Led Consumption
DecisionType II_SLLed_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 70 36 34 1.1 51.4%
Need New LOA 1 84 51 33 1.5 60.7%
Opt Out 0 32 31 1 31.0 96.9%
Opt Out 1 69 66 3 22.0 95.7%
Renewal by Research Interview Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Research Interviews show a decent lift, nearly 8% above the NNLOA average and not consuming it is a 2% drop below. Difference is 10%.
  2. [Opt Out] Small N, but some separation here, with Research Interviews showing higher renewal rates.
Renewal Ratio by Research Interview Consumption
DecisionType II_ResearchInterview_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 123 67 56 1.2 54.5%
Need New LOA 1 31 20 11 1.8 64.5%
Opt Out 0 82 78 4 19.5 95.1%
Opt Out 1 19 19 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by PLW OR Onsite Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Onsite and/or PLW positively associated with renewal! Small N, though. Big lift, nearly 19%.
  2. [Opt Out] Relationship reverses for Opt Outs with a nearly 7% drop from the average.
Renewal Ratio by PLW OR Onsite Consumption
DecisionType II_PLW_Onsite_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 134 72 62 1.2 53.7%
Need New LOA 1 20 15 5 3.0 75.0%
Opt Out 0 82 80 2 40.0 97.6%
Opt Out 1 19 17 2 8.5 89.5%
Renewal by Experience Consumption

1.[NNLOA] Small N, but positive relationship with renewal.

Renewal Ratio by Experience Consumption
DecisionType II_Experience_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 146 82 64 1.3 56.2%
Need New LOA 1 8 5 3 1.7 62.5%
Opt Out 0 99 95 4 23.8 96.0%
Opt Out 1 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
Renewal by Expert Call Consumption
  1. [NNLOA] Small negative relationship with Renewal, basically 0. So no bump from consuming this interaction.
  2. [Opt Out] Some evidence of negative relationship Expert Center Consumption, but also close to the average, so not much concern here.
Renewal Ratio by Expert Call Consumption
DecisionType II_ExpertCall_Binary N ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA 0 76 43 33 1.3 56.6%
Need New LOA 1 78 44 34 1.3 56.4%
Opt Out 0 45 45 0 Inf 100.0%
Opt Out 1 56 52 4 13.0 92.9%
Correlation betwen Event Groupings, and Renewal (for fun)
  1. Correlation with Renewal: Volume of impact interaction consumption, across nearly all (except service and experience) event categories, correlates with renewal, positively.
    • SL Led and Research Interviews have the highest correlation
  2. Halo Effect: Events, Expert Calls, and Onsites highly correlated with the other categories.
  3. Negative Halo: SL Led impact interactions are correlated with smaller volumes of some other impact interactions. Same with Research Interviews.

##### Multivariate Regression (still kind of simple)

Note: Looking at NNLOA, only.

  1. Several categories are significant: SL Led, Research Interviews.
Regression Estimates for a Model Fitted on Event Grouping Volumes
term estimate std.error statistic p.value
(Intercept) -0.48 0.312 -1.53 0.13
II_Events_Volume 0.15 0.131 1.17 0.24
II_SLLed_Volume 0.32 0.166 1.90 0.06
II_ResearchInterview_Volume 0.68 0.323 2.10 0.04
II_PLW_Onsite_Volume 0.48 0.505 0.94 0.35
II_ExpertCall_Volume 0.01 0.155 0.03 0.97
II_Service_Volume 0.08 0.358 0.24 0.81