Methodology

  1. We start with all events logged in SF as ‘Webinars’ AND which reside in the
  2. We exclude any of these webinars IFF they are not for a 4 Year Research product
    • Note this includes any webinars that had NO CODE, which was the case for a few of the early mass appeal COVID webinars
  3. Key Issue: Registrations for these webinars are not associated to a particular partnership product.
    • Example: ‘Fall Academic Planning: How to Provide High-Quality and Flexible Instruction in the Age of Covid-19’ is a webinar associated to many different products - AAF, AF, Global Public, Global Private.
    • Solution 1: Pull in all decisions at the account.
    • Solution 2: Pull in all decisions related to programs listed on the webinar. Ex: If Georgetown has AAF and AF, then both decisions would be included.
    • Solution 3: Only include decisions for products to which the contact is related. This connection is established via Key Contact designations, although a more inclusive approach could be considered.
  4. We are only looking at webinar registration and attendance within a year of the decision: the usual framework.

Inspecting the Data

There are 259 unique contacts across 109 accounts - which equates to nearly 2.4 people per account attending a ToF webinar. And there are 14 different webinars included in this analysis.

Unique Registrations by Webinar
Name Unique_Contacts Unique_Accounts Contacts_per_Acct
Connecting Employers and Students in a Virtual Career Services World: A Discussion with Career Services Leaders and Employers 33 25 1.3
Consolidation in US Higher Education: What Boards and Cabinets Need to Know Before Evaluating New Opportunities 4 3 1.3
Evaluating Alternative Pricing Strategies: Preview of New EAB Research Helping You Assess Whether High-Stakes Pricing Changes Are Right for Your Institution 1 1 1.0
Fall Academic Planning: How to Provide High-Quality and Flexible Instruction in the Age of Covid-19 41 29 1.4
Meet EAB: An Introduction to Your Partnership 8 3 2.7
Promoting Physical Distancing for Students on Campus 67 27 2.5
Reimagining Community College Marketing for 2020 and Beyond: Recruiting for a New Reality 11 6 1.8
Reinventing Higher Ed in the Shadow of COVID-19 37 21 1.8
Responding to New Pressures on Campus Safety and Police: Balancing Stakeholder Demands, Student Well-Being, and Security Considerations 32 19 1.7
Serving the Students of the Pandemic 14 12 1.2
Supporting Student Mental Health and Wellness in Spring 2021 11 7 1.6
The Advancement Investment and Performance Initiative: A Walkthrough of the FY2020 Data Submission Workbook 2 1 2.0
The COVID-19 Outbreak’s Impacts Across the Professional and Adult Portfolio 3 2 1.5
The Uncertain Fall: Rethinking Campus Repopulation and Spring Planning 5 5 1.0

Attendance by Key Contact Designation

Out of the 259 unique contacts, 78 (30%) are listed in some fashion as a key contact on a partnership.

Key Contact
Role N
NA 186
Key Contact 42
MPOC 36

Contact by EAB Role

Nearly 93 of the 259 (36%) unique contacts fall into Direct, AVP, Dean, or VP classifications. Many of the titles are not classified, yet this is still useful in indicating that the right people are attending.

Titles
EAB_Role N
NA 126
Director 45
Dean 19
Assistant/Associate/Vice President 18
Vice Chancellor/Vice President/CXO 11
Other 10
Assistant/Associate/Vice Provost 5
Faculty 3
Vice President/Vice Chancellor 3
Advisor 2
Chief of Staff 2
Division Head 2
Manager 2
Provost/Chief Academic Officer 2
Vice President/Chancellor 2
Assistant 1
Chief Financial Officer 1
Chief Information Officer 1
Chief Research Officer 1
Head of School 1
President/Chancellor 1
Trustee 1

Renewal Rate by Webinar

Here we are looking at unique contracts that could be associated to the webinar.

Renewals by Webinar
Name Unique_Contacts Unique_Accounts Unique_Decision ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
Consolidation in US Higher Education: What Boards and Cabinets Need to Know Before Evaluating New Opportunities 3 3 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
Evaluating Alternative Pricing Strategies: Preview of New EAB Research Helping You Assess Whether High-Stakes Pricing Changes Are Right for Your Institution 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
Meet EAB: An Introduction to Your Partnership 4 3 4 4 0 Inf 100.0%
The Advancement Investment and Performance Initiative: A Walkthrough of the FY2020 Data Submission Workbook 1 1 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
The COVID-19 Outbreak’s Impacts Across the Professional and Adult Portfolio 2 2 7 7 0 Inf 100.0%
Supporting Student Mental Health and Wellness in Spring 2021 7 7 8 7 1 7.0 87.5%
The Uncertain Fall: Rethinking Campus Repopulation and Spring Planning 5 5 7 6 1 6.0 85.7%
Reimagining Community College Marketing for 2020 and Beyond: Recruiting for a New Reality 6 6 6 5 1 5.0 83.3%
Fall Academic Planning: How to Provide High-Quality and Flexible Instruction in the Age of Covid-19 32 29 67 48 19 2.5 71.6%
Connecting Employers and Students in a Virtual Career Services World: A Discussion with Career Services Leaders and Employers 25 25 62 43 19 2.3 69.4%
Reinventing Higher Ed in the Shadow of COVID-19 22 21 62 43 19 2.3 69.4%
Serving the Students of the Pandemic 11 11 18 17 8 2.1 68.0%
Promoting Physical Distancing for Students on Campus 29 27 76 45 31 1.5 59.2%
Responding to New Pressures on Campus Safety and Police: Balancing Stakeholder Demands, Student Well-Being, and Security Considerations 20 19 35 16 19 0.8 45.7%

Decisions by Program - Solution 1

The most liberal way of associating a decision with registration for a webinar is to include any decisions at the account. That is, if the Provost for Georgetown attends a webinar, and subsequently, there are decisions for SAF, AAF, and FF, then all of those decisions are included in the analysis. Using this method, we have 215 decisions.

Decisions At Accounts with Webinar Registration
ProgramAcronym DecisionType Unique_Contacts Unique_Accounts Unique_Decision ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
EDAF Need New LOA 64 19 18 43 26 1.7 62.3%
EDAF Opt Out 12 7 7 15 0 Inf 100.0%
EDAFS Need New LOA 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCC Need New LOA 12 11 8 28 6 4.7 82.4%
EDCC Opt Out 10 5 3 18 12 1.5 60.0%
EDCD Need New LOA 52 15 15 33 41 0.8 44.6%
EDCD Opt Out 14 7 7 17 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCP Need New LOA 53 16 16 22 36 0.6 37.9%
EDCP Opt Out 8 4 4 9 2 4.5 81.8%
EDEM Need New LOA 57 14 14 28 36 0.8 43.8%
EDEM Opt Out 13 4 4 15 2 7.5 88.2%
EDFF Need New LOA 71 17 16 97 32 3.0 75.2%
EDFF Opt Out 8 4 4 9 2 4.5 81.8%
EDGP Need New LOA 2 1 1 6 0 Inf 100.0%
EDGP Opt Out 8 2 2 10 0 Inf 100.0%
EDGPS Opt Out 1 1 1 0 3 0.0 0.0%
EDIT Need New LOA 26 5 5 3 26 0.1 10.3%
EDIT Opt Out 11 5 5 13 2 6.5 86.7%
EDPF Need New LOA 1 1 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
EDPF Opt Out 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDPV Need New LOA 74 26 26 114 30 3.8 79.2%
EDPV Opt Out 25 14 14 33 1 33.0 97.1%
EDPVS Need New LOA 2 1 1 2 0 Inf 100.0%
EDRF Need New LOA 30 6 6 15 17 0.9 46.9%
EDRF Opt Out 5 2 2 8 0 Inf 100.0%
EDSA Need New LOA 89 24 25 46 63 0.7 42.2%
EDSA Opt Out 7 4 4 9 1 9.0 90.0%
EDSF Need New LOA 1 1 1 2 0 Inf 100.0%
EDSF Opt Out 5 3 3 7 0 Inf 100.0%

Goldilocks Estimate - Solution 2

If we are looking for strict agreement between the webinar programs and the decision unit programs, we end up with 114 overall units.

when looking at the programs with larger Ns - AAF, FF, SAF - we do see decent lift on the NNLOA front.

Decsions by Program and Type - Goldilocks
ProgramAcronym DecisionType Unique_Contacts Unique_Accounts Unique_Decision ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
EDAF Need New LOA 6 6 6 4 2 2.0 66.7%
EDAF Opt Out 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCC Need New LOA 8 8 8 5 3 1.7 62.5%
EDCC Opt Out 3 3 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
EDCD Need New LOA 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCD Opt Out 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCP Need New LOA 7 7 7 6 1 6.0 85.7%
EDCP Opt Out 2 2 2 1 1 1.0 50.0%
EDEM Need New LOA 2 2 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
EDFF Need New LOA 12 12 12 9 3 3.0 75.0%
EDFF Opt Out 2 2 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
EDGP Need New LOA 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDGP Opt Out 2 2 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
EDIT Need New LOA 2 2 2 0 2 0.0 0.0%
EDIT Opt Out 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDPV Need New LOA 21 21 21 13 8 1.6 61.9%
EDPV Opt Out 10 10 10 9 1 9.0 90.0%
EDRF Need New LOA 1 1 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
EDRF Opt Out 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDSA Need New LOA 22 22 23 14 9 1.6 60.9%
EDSA Opt Out 3 3 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
EDSF Need New LOA 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDSF Opt Out 3 3 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%

Very Conservative Estimate

If we restrict the decisions to only those for which we could establish that the contact was associated to the partnership, then we have a reduced set of 40 decisions.

Decsions by Program and Type - Conservative
ProgramAcronym DecisionType Unique_Contacts Unique_Accounts Unique_Decision ATL Dropped Ratio Perc_Renewed
EDAF Need New LOA 3 3 3 1 2 0.5 33.3%
EDAF Opt Out 2 2 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCC Need New LOA 2 2 2 2 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCC Opt Out 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCD Need New LOA 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDCP Need New LOA 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDFF Need New LOA 3 3 3 2 1 2.0 66.7%
EDIT Need New LOA 1 1 1 0 1 0.0 0.0%
EDPV Need New LOA 7 7 7 6 1 6.0 85.7%
EDPV Opt Out 3 3 3 3 0 Inf 100.0%
EDPVS Need New LOA 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDSA Need New LOA 12 12 13 7 6 1.2 53.8%
EDSA Opt Out 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%
EDSF Need New LOA 1 1 1 1 0 Inf 100.0%