K-12 Analysis

The purpose of this notebook is to explore firmographic variables in the common core data set to delineate likelihood to purchase or to take a visit.

Overall Findings

There are 4 firmographic features we believe help us to separate out those schools who are likely to buy and those schools who are not:

Total Students - District
Locale
Percent of Students who are Hispanic
Local Revenue as a percent of Total Revenue

Below we will show evidence to support these 4 dimensions. The first two dimensions, we can narrow in on the states we believe support a GTM. The second two dimensions - Hispanic Percentage, Local Revenue - help to us to refine our targeting even further after the states have been selected. We can think of this as a layered approach to understanding and targeting the market.

Grounding Ourselves - KPIs across the years

A lot of factors, including internal factors such as the number of PDEs/PDRs staffed,

Dependent Variables by Year (At Acct Level)
Year	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
2016	0	11	11	11	1
2017	0	262	249	188	29
2018	194	354	311	299	52
2019	2180	295	225	224	62
2020	2491	149	107	97	28

KPIs by State

KPIs by State
StateName	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
Texas	935	498	108	82	85	21
New York	568	448	86	68	70	18
Missouri	429	198	64	56	60	17
Illinois	382	204	63	51	50	12
California	310	171	39	36	29	11
Virginia	121	146	53	45	38	11
Indiana	261	143	28	21	23	7
New Mexico	84	71	20	18	18	7
Kansas	267	122	30	26	21	6
Washington	223	83	36	32	32	6
Wisconsin	355	205	27	21	21	6
Iowa	328	90	20	19	18	5
Massachusetts	143	116	37	35	28	5
Michigan	480	256	50	46	39	5
Arizona	93	64	12	12	8	4
Georgia	136	98	24	21	20	4
Pennsylvania	448	287	61	52	42	4
South Carolina	72	40	16	14	16	4
Minnesota	307	152	21	17	13	3
Nebraska	241	54	14	12	12	3
Oregon	154	98	10	8	5	2
Tennessee	86	38	9	6	6	2
Alaska	50	23	3	3	2	1
Florida	61	48	18	17	12	1
New Hampshire	63	27	1	1	1	1
New Jersey	178	154	36	32	27	1
North Carolina	90	72	29	25	20	1
Ohio	556	288	46	41	31	1
Oklahoma	411	103	5	5	5	1
Rhode Island	21	15	10	9	5	1
Utah	39	21	7	6	5	1
Alabama	88	33	8	8	6	0
Arkansas	218	62	1	1	1	0
Colorado	140	44	1	1	1	0
Connecticut	78	77	17	15	10	0
Delaware	9	5	2	2	2	0
Idaho	107	32	1	1	1	0
Kentucky	134	42	10	3	5	0
Louisiana	43	34	8	6	4	0
Maine	161	41	4	3	2	0
Maryland	19	20	10	6	6	0
Mississippi	128	66	9	5	7	0
Montana	60	11	0	0	0	0
Nevada	10	7	1	1	1	0
North Dakota	5	8	4	3	3	0
South Dakota	148	25	2	2	2	0
Vermont	106	12	1	1	1	0
West Virginia	13	9	9	8	5	0
Wyoming	3	4	0	0	0	0

KPIs by Locale

Locale is almost surely a proxy for a host of other important variables; it just so happens to be neatly packaged for us.

Below we see a few things fall out of the data:

Nearly 50% of our units reside within the Suburb: Large locale AND
From an MQL and Visit perspective, we have not reached 75% of the market.

KPIs by Locale
Locale	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
21-Suburb: Large	1456	1283	464	404	360	70
13-City: Small	265	255	112	98	84	18
12-City: Mid-size	118	131	92	76	66	16
32-Town: Distant	982	544	84	67	62	13
11-City: Large	110	114	51	44	39	10
41-Rural: Fringe	1174	581	87	67	64	10
42-Rural: Distant	2421	765	52	36	41	9
33-Town: Remote	626	317	38	30	29	8
23-Suburb: Small	174	102	23	19	20	7
22-Suburb: Mid-size	240	164	37	33	30	6
31-Town: Fringe	421	239	26	24	20	5
	65	1	0	0	0	0
43-Rural: Remote	1759	369	5	5	4	0

Large Suburb by State

If we to use this feature alone, which states would we choose in our top 10?

PA, OH, IL, Tri-State(NJ, CT, NY) + MA, MI, TX, CA -> this is roughly 1000 schools.

Looking at the table below, one compelling characteristic is the breadth of our ability to sell to these types of schools. We have units for this local in 23 states. And most of the states which do not have a unit are rather low on this type of locale.

KPIs by Suburb Locale
State	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
NY	170	179	45	37	34	5
PA	164	123	42	37	32	4
OH	153	93	25	24	20	0
NJ	150	127	30	26	21	1
MA	111	89	30	28	23	3
MI	91	65	22	21	18	1
TX	69	86	38	31	33	8
CA	65	44	16	16	12	4
IL	64	80	38	29	28	6
CT	41	36	10	8	4	0
MO	40	56	41	33	37	11
IN	32	26	13	10	12	2
WI	29	25	6	4	4	1
MN	26	29	13	11	9	2
WA	24	15	12	12	11	3
FL	19	19	7	7	5	1
GA	19	26	8	7	6	2
VA	18	29	15	14	9	3
OK	17	11	3	3	3	1
RI	16	10	8	8	4	1
KY	13	7	2	1	1	0
SC	12	9	8	8	9	3
OR	11	12	3	3	2	1
AL	10	6	2	2	1	0
LA	10	12	4	3	2	0
AZ	9	10	4	4	4	3
KS	9	8	5	4	4	2
UT	9	6	3	2	2	0
IA	8	5	2	2	2	1
NC	7	11	4	4	3	0
AR	6	5	0	0	0	0
CO	5	2	0	0	0	0
MD	5	5	1	1	1	0
NH	5	4	0	0	0	0
TN	5	2	0	0	0	0
DE	4	4	2	2	2	0
MS	4	1	1	1	1	0
NE	3	3	0	0	0	0
NM	2	3	1	1	1	1
ID	1	0	0	0	0	0

Quartile Search

The purpose of this section is to inspect performance of our business across quartiles of variables. That is, we take a variable like Total Students, split the population into 4 equal groups based on the distribution of Total Students, and look at the performance of KPIs across each of the groups.

We are looking for a few patterns when scanning these tables: either we see bunching - a lot of Visits/Units/Pipeline - in a quartile or two OR we see increases or decreases across the quartiles. The absence of a pattern is an indicator that the variable, in and of itself, is not a good determinant of likelihood to take a visit or to purchase our product.

Quartile: Total Students

We can clearly say that the top quartile - the most students - is where the supermajority of our units reside.

KPIs By Total Students Quartiles
TotalStudents_District_qrt	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,522)	2486	450	10	7	8	2
[522,1.23e+03)	2619	851	26	17	20	4
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	2535	1368	113	85	80	17
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	2430	2190	920	794	711	149

Quartiles: Total Students Over Time

I’ve included this here because it helps us to evaluate whether we’ve given the quartiles below the 2800 students a fair shake.

Marketing Engagement increased in the middle two quartiles in 2019 and 2020 for the smallest two quartile. The results downfunnel, however, did not increase.
The top quartile has been in decline between 2019 and 2020, although some of this can be attributed to COVID.

KPIs By Total Students Quartiles, Over Time
TotalStudents_District_qrt	Year	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,522)	2016	2310	0	0	0	0	0
[0,522)	2017	2327	0	1	0	0	0
[0,522)	2018	2324	11	3	2	2	0
[0,522)	2019	2322	211	3	2	3	1
[0,522)	2020	2323	228	3	3	3	1
[522,1.23e+03)	2016	2361	0	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	2017	2364	0	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	2018	2357	15	5	3	5	1
[522,1.23e+03)	2019	2365	375	11	7	9	3
[522,1.23e+03)	2020	2327	461	10	7	6	0
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	2016	2326	0	0	0	0	0
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	2017	2318	0	1	0	0	0
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	2018	2329	30	27	22	22	4
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	2019	2308	587	52	38	34	7
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	2020	2325	751	33	25	24	6
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	2016	2360	0	11	11	11	1
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	2017	2349	0	260	249	188	29
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	2018	2348	138	319	284	270	47
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	2019	2348	1006	228	178	178	51
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	2020	2311	1046	102	72	64	21

Units Sold Below Upper Quartile - Any Pattern?

When you dig into the data a little bit more, the units below 2800 students predominantly belong to NY, for which there is separate context as to why they purchased.

Units for Schools Below Top Quartile Total Students, By State
StateName	n
New York	10
Massachusetts	3
Missouri	3
Illinois	2
California	1
Kansas	1
Minnesota	1
Nebraska	1
Wisconsin	1

Schools in Upper Quartile of Total Students

If we were simply to go by schools with the highest number of ‘big’ schools:

TX, OH, PA, CA, MI, NJ, GA, IL, WA, IN, VA

Schools In Top Quartile of Total Students, By State
StateName	n
Texas	242
Ohio	141
New York	139
Pennsylvania	137
California	124
Michigan	118
New Jersey	85
Georgia	84
Illinois	76
Washington	72
Indiana	71
Virginia	71
Wisconsin	70
Missouri	69
Massachusetts	68
North Carolina	64
Kentucky	55
Minnesota	54
Mississippi	50
Florida	49
South Carolina	49
Oregon	47
Tennessee	47
Oklahoma	36
Alabama	34
Iowa	32
Connecticut	31
Kansas	30
Louisiana	30
Arizona	28
Arkansas	27
Utah	25
New Mexico	22
Idaho	21
Maryland	18
Nebraska	18
Colorado	13
West Virginia	13
Maine	12
New Hampshire	12
Rhode Island	10
South Dakota	9
Delaware	8
Alaska	6
North Dakota	5
Nevada	3
Wyoming	3
Montana	1
Vermont	1

Total Student Bivariate Relationships

We now have two features we believe are indicative of likelihood to purchase: Locale and Total Students…how are they related?

When we mix Total Students and Locale, we see that there are a few other Locales which might be worth pursuing: City - Small and Mid Size. With this inclusion we we are getting nearly 100 of the 160+ units. That is, we’ve lost some units to other locales, as expected, but retain a supermajority.

KPIs by Total Students (Top Quartile) and Locale
TotalStudents_District_qrt	Locale	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	21-Suburb: Large	931	906	424	374	329	65
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	13-City: Small	223	227	109	97	83	17
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	12-City: Mid-size	102	127	90	76	66	16
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	41-Rural: Fringe	295	219	66	52	50	8
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	32-Town: Distant	273	176	55	45	41	7
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	11-City: Large	94	107	49	42	38	10
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	22-Suburb: Mid-size	136	99	33	29	27	5
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	21-Suburb: Large	453	308	32	26	26	5
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	42-Rural: Distant	135	77	29	24	23	3
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	33-Town: Remote	149	99	30	23	23	7
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	32-Town: Distant	494	265	24	19	18	5
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	23-Suburb: Small	67	47	18	16	17	6
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	31-Town: Fringe	129	100	16	15	13	5
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	41-Rural: Fringe	514	230	16	11	9	1
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	31-Town: Fringe	221	102	10	9	7	0
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	33-Town: Remote	275	141	6	6	4	0
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	22-Suburb: Mid-size	89	54	4	4	3	1
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	42-Rural: Distant	376	170	11	4	8	3
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	23-Suburb: Small	75	40	5	3	3	1
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	11-City: Large	10	5	1	1	1	0
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	13-City: Small	33	21	3	1	1	1
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	43-Rural: Remote	99	31	1	1	0	0
[2.8e+03,1e+09)	43-Rural: Remote	18	6	1	1	1	0
[522,1.23e+03)	11-City: Large	1	0	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	12-City: Mid-size	1	0	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	13-City: Small	2	0	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	21-Suburb: Large	26	7	2	0	1	0
[522,1.23e+03)	22-Suburb: Mid-size	1	0	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	23-Suburb: Small	2	0	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	31-Town: Fringe	9	0	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	32-Town: Distant	36	6	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	33-Town: Remote	21	1	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	41-Rural: Fringe	41	8	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	42-Rural: Distant	61	6	0	0	0	0
[522,1.23e+03)	43-Rural: Remote	13	2	0	0	0	0
[1.23e+03,2.8e+03)	12-City: Mid-size	7	1	0	0	0	0

Quartile Hispanic Students

This is the first instance where we see an increasing pattern.

The higher the percentage of hispanic students, the higher the counts are across the board.

KPIs by Percent Hispanic Quartiles
Perc_Hispanic_qrt	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,0.025)	3336	892	86	68	60	11
[0.025,0.059)	3345	1165	240	208	198	33
[0.059,0.165)	2757	1270	339	281	246	57
[0.165,1)	2379	1516	402	345	313	71

States by High Percentage of Hispanic Schools

TX, CA, NY, NJ, WA, CO, NM, OK, AZ, OR

States with Highest Hispanic Schools
StateName	n
Texas	751
California	274
New York	115
New Jersey	102
Washington	102
Colorado	87
New Mexico	81
Oklahoma	73
Arizona	71
Oregon	55
Illinois	54
Kansas	50
Idaho	39
Nebraska	38
Michigan	37
Pennsylvania	37
North Carolina	36
Wisconsin	35
Minnesota	33
Florida	31
Indiana	31
Iowa	31
Georgia	28
Massachusetts	26
Connecticut	25
Arkansas	23
Ohio	19
Missouri	16
Virginia	16
Utah	9
Alabama	8
Nevada	6
Rhode Island	6
South Carolina	6
Delaware	5
Kentucky	5
South Dakota	5
Maryland	4
Tennessee	4
Montana	2
Alaska	1
Louisiana	1
Mississippi	1
Wyoming	1

Quartile: Local Revenue as Percent of Total Revenue

This measure is different in kind, since it focuses on finances whereas other metrics might be proxies for finances.

Units is not increasing at all across the quartiles.
However, MQLs, Visits, and Pipeline are increasing! This means we can infer that the higher the source of local revenue, the more likley you are to take a conversation with us.

KPIs by Total Local Revenue Percent of Total
TLOCREV_Perc_TOTALREV_qrt	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,27.7)	2829	1053	193	168	150	35
[27.7,40.1)	3174	1212	248	204	195	42
[40.1,56.1)	3073	1237	267	223	198	51
[56.1,100)	2687	1361	352	297	265	43

Local Revenue as Percentage of Total Revenue, By State, For Top Quartile

States with Top Quartile of Local Rev
StateName	n
Texas	366
Nebraska	214
Ohio	214
New York	200
Pennsylvania	198
Illinois	188
New Jersey	129
Missouri	120
Wisconsin	116
South Dakota	105
Massachusetts	103
Maine	80
Oklahoma	73
Michigan	65
California	62
Iowa	58
Connecticut	54
Colorado	51
New Hampshire	45
Arizona	39
Virginia	28
Kansas	20
Rhode Island	18
Arkansas	16
Oregon	16
Georgia	15
Florida	14
Montana	11
Utah	7
Louisiana	6
Maryland	6
South Carolina	6
Tennessee	6
Nevada	5
Alabama	2
Alaska	2
New Mexico	2
Mississippi	1
Washington	1
West Virginia	1
Wyoming	1

Quartiles without much power to delineate

Quartile: Total Expenditure Per Pupil

KPIs by Total Expenditure per Pupil Quartile
TotalExp_PerPupil_qrt	Year	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,1.1e+04)	2017	3683	0	75	70	57	11
[0,1.1e+04)	2018	3239	49	109	95	96	16
[0,1.1e+04)	2019	2773	622	84	60	61	10
[0,1.1e+04)	2020	2326	528	24	16	16	6
[1.1e+04,1.31e+04)	2017	2173	0	55	53	41	7
[1.1e+04,1.31e+04)	2018	2227	59	87	75	73	17
[1.1e+04,1.31e+04)	2019	2377	548	74	60	57	17
[1.1e+04,1.31e+04)	2020	2326	602	37	29	24	7
[1.31e+04,1.7e+04)	2017	1785	0	61	60	45	7
[1.31e+04,1.7e+04)	2018	1936	40	82	71	64	12
[1.31e+04,1.7e+04)	2019	2009	460	66	56	56	21
[1.31e+04,1.7e+04)	2020	2324	608	40	27	22	7
[1.7e+04,1e+05)	2017	1651	0	69	65	44	4
[1.7e+04,1e+05)	2018	1879	46	70	65	62	7
[1.7e+04,1e+05)	2019	2126	538	71	49	50	14
[1.7e+04,1e+05)	2020	2304	741	47	35	35	8
NA	2016	9362	0	11	11	11	1
NA	2017	70	0	2	1	1	0
NA	2018	81	0	6	5	4	0
NA	2019	77	12	0	0	0	0
NA	2020	82	12	1	0	0	0

Quartile: Percent Free And Reduced Lunch

KPIs by Percent Reduced Free Lunch Quartiles
Perc_RedFreeLunch_qrt	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,0.342)	2581	1277	232	188	177	37
[0.342,0.475)	2940	963	144	117	113	34
[0.475,0.61)	2928	985	151	114	116	27
[0.61,1)	2777	1095	183	152	149	34

Quartile: Total Revenue Per Pupil

KPIs by Total Revenue per Pupil
TOTALREV_PerPupil_qrt	Year	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,1.13e+04)	2017	3666	0	83	77	64	11
[0,1.13e+04)	2018	3155	60	125	108	109	22
[0,1.13e+04)	2019	2669	603	90	64	66	13
[0,1.13e+04)	2020	2327	580	27	19	19	7
[1.13e+04,1.34e+04)	2017	2213	0	61	59	42	11
[1.13e+04,1.34e+04)	2018	2301	54	87	77	76	15
[1.13e+04,1.34e+04)	2019	2418	601	84	63	63	18
[1.13e+04,1.34e+04)	2020	2328	580	35	27	24	8
[1.34e+04,1.69e+04)	2017	1671	0	50	50	38	3
[1.34e+04,1.69e+04)	2018	1895	30	62	54	46	8
[1.34e+04,1.69e+04)	2019	2114	424	50	48	45	15
[1.34e+04,1.69e+04)	2020	2327	587	40	26	20	5
[1.69e+04,1e+05)	2017	1742	0	66	62	43	4
[1.69e+04,1e+05)	2018	1932	50	74	67	64	7
[1.69e+04,1e+05)	2019	2084	540	71	50	50	16
[1.69e+04,1e+05)	2020	2307	733	46	35	34	8
NA	2016	9362	0	11	11	11	1
NA	2017	70	0	2	1	1	0
NA	2018	79	0	6	5	4	0
NA	2019	77	12	0	0	0	0
NA	2020	73	11	1	0	0	0

Quartile: Local Revenue Per Pupil

KPIs by Total Local Revenue per Pupil
TLOCREV_PerPupil_qrt	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,3.42e+03)	3116	1056	214	184	167	39
[3.42e+03,5.35e+03)	3350	1255	262	220	212	42
[5.35e+03,8.44e+03)	3088	1206	277	228	201	50
[8.44e+03,1e+05)	2514	1326	298	254	223	40
NA	9362	22	20	17	16	1

KPIs by Federal Revenue Per Pupil
TFEDREV_PerPupil_qrt	n	Mktg	MQLs	Visits	Pipeline	Units
[0,581)	3090	1343	319	272	246	55
[581,857)	3601	1185	231	191	176	33
[857,1.23e+03)	3533	1130	245	202	187	41
[1.23e+03,1e+04)	2851	1172	255	220	193	41
NA	9362	35	21	18	17	2