Virtual Tour Analyses

Methodology

1. Looking at decisions from FY20 - FY22.

2. I’m not differentiating between NNLOA - Auto Renews and NNLOA - Not Auto Renewals

3. Decisons are represented as units, not $ amounts, for now.

4. 4 Year Higher Ed, Domestic US.

Inquiries, Visits, Time On Tour, Locations

High Level Renewal Rate by Decision Type

Prima Facie - Making Sure Data is Aligned

1. Percent Renewed is pretty high - at least compared to all of the research forums I’ve looked at!

2. Opt Outs - low volume, high return.

Renewal Ratio by Decision Type

DecisionType	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA	616	550	66	8.3	89.3%
Opt Out	30	29	1	29.0	96.7%

Unit Rates by Account Segment & Decision Type

1. [NNLOA] Most of the segments renew at similar rates.

2. [NNLOA] Regional Private is the only sign of weakness.

3. Lowest presence in the Selectives. Regional Privates and Large P&P are similar in volume.

4. Opts Outs distributed more towards Regional Publics.

Renewal Ratio by Decision Type & Account Segment

DecisionType	AccountSegment	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA	4 Year Other	55	47	8	5.9	85.5%
Need New LOA	Large Public & Private	187	172	15	11.5	92.0%
Need New LOA	Regional Private	175	148	27	5.5	84.6%
Need New LOA	Regional Public	119	109	10	10.9	91.6%
Need New LOA	Selective	80	74	6	12.3	92.5%
Opt Out	4 Year Other	2	1	1	1.0	50.0%
Opt Out	Large Public & Private	5	5	0	Inf	100.0%
Opt Out	Regional Private	5	5	0	Inf	100.0%
Opt Out	Regional Public	15	15	0	Inf	100.0%
Opt Out	Selective	3	3	0	Inf	100.0%

Unit Renewal by FY & Decision Type

1. Roughly equivalent units in FY21 and FY22. Renewal rates dropped a little bit in FY22, on a smaller N.

Renewal Ratio by FY

DecisionType	PooLYear_FY	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
Need New LOA	2020	96	92	4	23.0	95.8%
Need New LOA	2021	288	254	34	7.5	88.2%
Need New LOA	2022	232	204	28	7.3	87.9%
Opt Out	2021	1	1	0	Inf	100.0%
Opt Out	2022	29	28	1	28.0	96.6%

Renewal Rates by Segment and Decision Type

Since there are so few decisions in FY20, we look at the past two FYs for most of the comparisons.

1. Large P&P: Slightly down across the past two FYs.

2. Regional Private: Absolute volume of drops is not much higher in FY22 vs. FY21, but the N is much lower -> hence the considerably lower unit renewal rate.

3. Regional Public & Selectives: similar N in FY22 vs. FY21, with lower drops -> great combination.

Renewal Ratio by Account Segment & Pool Year

AccountSegment	PooLYear_FY	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
4 Year Other	2020	11	11	0	Inf	100.0%
4 Year Other	2021	21	19	2	9.5	90.5%
4 Year Other	2022	25	18	7	2.6	72.0%
Large Public & Private	2020	26	25	1	25.0	96.2%
Large Public & Private	2021	88	79	9	8.8	89.8%
Large Public & Private	2022	78	73	5	14.6	93.6%
Regional Private	2020	29	27	2	13.5	93.1%
Regional Private	2021	86	74	12	6.2	86.0%
Regional Private	2022	65	52	13	4.0	80.0%
Regional Public	2020	19	19	0	Inf	100.0%
Regional Public	2021	57	50	7	7.1	87.7%
Regional Public	2022	58	55	3	18.3	94.8%
Selective	2020	11	10	1	10.0	90.9%
Selective	2021	37	33	4	8.2	89.2%
Selective	2022	35	34	1	34.0	97.1%

Inquiry Volume

Inquiry Volume in Last 12 Months - By Account Segment

The X-axis is in a log scale to normalize the distribution. 1 = 10, 2 = 100, 3 = 1,000, 4 = 10,000

1. We see an ordering of the ranges from smallest to largest: Regional Private, Regional Public, Large P&P, then Selectives

Differences in volume across the years

1. We start to see a shift more and more towards the right part of the graph, as the years increase.

2. Remember that small movements to the right are actually quite large in absolute inquiry terms, because we are on the log scale.

Mean Inquiry Volume by FY

Mean Inquiries in Last 12 Mo, By Pool Year

PooLYear_FY	N	Avg Inquiries
2020	96	1657
2021	289	2756
2022	261	5298

Creating Quartiles for Each segment

Inquiry Quartiles - Large Public and Private

1. The lowest quartile performs worse than the others.

2. Above the lowest quartile, more inquiries is not associated with higher likelihood of renewal.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Large Public & Private

InquiryQuartile_LPP	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 1362	47	42	5	8.4	89.4%
1362 to 3227	48	46	2	23.0	95.8%
3227 to 7542	48	44	4	11.0	91.7%
7542 +	49	45	4	11.2	91.8%

Inquiry Volume & Drops for Large Public and Private - Histogram

1. You can see drops peppered throughout the histogram. They are little heavier towards the left portion of the graph.

Inquiry Quartiles - Regional Private

1. Very similar to Large Public and Privates: lowest quartile contains a disproportionate # of drops. The remaining quartiles perform similarly.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Regional Private

InquiryQuartile_RPri	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 378	45	34	11	3.1	75.6%
378 to 713	45	40	5	8.0	88.9%
713 to 1180	45	40	5	8.0	88.9%
1180+	45	39	6	6.5	86.7%

Inquiry Volume & Drops for Regional Private - Histogram

1. You can see drops peppered throughout the histogram. They are little heavier towards the left portion of the graph.

2. You have a group that drops even towards the far right portion of the graph.

Inquiry Quartiles - Regional Public

1. Again, definitely do not want to be in the bottom quartile.

2. Drops in the other quartiles are minimal.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Regional Public

InquiryQuartile_RPub	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 998	34	29	5	5.8	85.3%
998 to 1551	33	31	2	15.5	93.9%
1551 to 2477	33	31	2	15.5	93.9%
2477+	34	33	1	33.0	97.1%

Inquiry Volume & Drops for Regional Public - Histogram

1. Almost no drops towards the right end of the graph.

#### Inquiry Quartiles - Selectives

1. For this segment, Inquiry volume might not matter much at all.

2. If the results stayed the same with a Higher N, then perhaps there might be an explanation around a Selective schools feeling like they don’t need the product as they are getting a lot of traffic already?

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Selectives

InquiryQuartile_Sel	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 2076	21	20	1	20.0	95.2%
2076 to 6632	20	20	0	Inf	100.0%
6632 to 12960	21	18	3	6.0	85.7%
12960+	21	19	2	9.5	90.5%

Inquiry Volume & Drops for Selectives - Histogram

1. Almost no drops towards the LEFT & RIGHT end of the graph.

Inquiry Volume YoY Change

1. Most of the partners experienced YoY growth in Inquiry Volume.

2. Getting over 200% YoY growth is a solid indicator of growth.

3. You do still see drops in the middle of the distribution, where there still is some growth.

Time on Tour

Time On Tour Volume in Last 12 Months - By Account Segment

The X-axis is in seconds. 200 = ~3.33m, 400 = ~6.66m, 600 = 10m

1. The bulk of folks spend 3-6 minutes on a tour, regardless of segment.

2. Selectives a little more distributed towards longer times on tour.

3. Regionals have a few more prospects toward the lower end of the spectrum.

Time on Tour Historgram with Drops

Differences in volume across the years

0. Overall you have a nicely normal distribution bounded between 5 and 10 minutes on a tour.

Mean Time On Tour Volume by FY

1. We see a dip in FY22.

Mean Time On Tour in Last 12 Mo, By Pool Year

PooLYear_FY	N	Avg Time On Tour
2020	96	408
2021	289	449
2022	261	436

Creating Quartiles for Each segment

Time On Tour Quartiles - Large Public and Private

1. The lowest quartile performs worse than the others.

2. Above the lowest quartile, more inquiries is not associated with higher likelihood of renewal.

3. Very similar to what we saw with inquiry volume!

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Large Public & Private

TimeOnTourQuartile_LPP	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 401	47	40	7	5.7	85.1%
401 to 455	48	46	2	23.0	95.8%
455 to 501	49	48	1	48.0	98.0%
501+	48	43	5	8.6	89.6%

Time On Tour & Drops for Large Public and Private - Histogram

1. You can see drops more focused in middle of the spectrum with the ends a little less droppy.

Time On Tour Quartiles - Regional Private

1. very different from Large P&P. Drops are associated with the 1st and 3rd quartile.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Regional Private

TimeOnTourQuartile_RPri	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 353	45	38	7	5.4	84.4%
353 to 384	44	35	9	3.9	79.5%
384 to 424	46	39	7	5.6	84.8%
424+	45	41	4	10.2	91.1%

Time On Tour Volume & Drops for Regional Private - Histogram

1. You can see drops peppered throughout the histogram. They are heavier towards the middle right (Quartile 3!).

Time On Tour Quartiles - Regional Public

1. Definitely do not want to be in the bottom quartile.

2. The top quartile is certainly better, but we’d like to be more convinced.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Regional Public

TimeOnTourQuartile_RPub	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 377	34	32	2	16.0	94.1%
377 to 430	33	33	0	Inf	100.0%
430 to 469	33	28	5	5.6	84.8%
469+	34	31	3	10.3	91.2%

Time On Tour Volume & Drops for Regional Public - Histogram

1. The drops at 0 are interesting. Can be double checked, but this would suggest we don’t have the data.

#### Time On Tour Quartiles - Selectives

1. Again, lowest quartile is undesirable. Driven by a couple of 0s. Otherwise, we might say that the metrics doesn’t make much of a difference.

2. Also, there are not many drops here.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Selectives

TimeOnTourQuartile_Sel	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 452	21	17	4	4.2	81.0%
452 to 528	20	20	0	Inf	100.0%
528 to 560	21	20	1	20.0	95.2%
560+	21	20	1	20.0	95.2%

Time On Tour Volume & Drops for Selectives - Histogram

1. Almost no drops towards the LEFT & RIGHT end of the graph.

Time on Tour and Inquiry Total Correlation

## [1] 0.59751

Visit Volume

Visit Volume in Last 12 Months - By Account Segment

The X-axis is in a log scale to normalize the distribution. 1 = 10, 2 = 100

1. We see an ordering of the ranges from smallest to largest: Regional Private, Regional Public, Large P&P, then Selectives.

2. Very similar to the Inquiries distribution. There might be more overlap between the Large P&P and Selectives, vs. Inquiries. Meaning there could be higher rate of conversion on the Selective Visits vs. the Large P&P visits.

Differences in volume across the years

1. Interestingly, Visit Volume looks relatively consistent YoY. The FY21 distribution looks like it is layered right on top of the FY22 distribution.

Mean Visit Volume by FY & Account Segment

1. Modest gains in Large P&P, the largest segment, FY21 to FY22.

2. Selectives saw a mighty gain between Fy21 and FY22 - although FY20 suggests this volume is not unprecedented.

3. Small gains in Regional Publics.

4. Small decline in Regional Private.

Mean Daily Visits in Last 12 Mo, By Pool Year

AccountSegment	PooLYear_FY	N	Avg Inquiries
4 Year Other	2020	11	15
4 Year Other	2021	21	15
4 Year Other	2022	25	12
Large Public & Private	2020	26	46
Large Public & Private	2021	88	56
Large Public & Private	2022	78	68
Regional Private	2020	29	13
Regional Private	2021	86	14
Regional Private	2022	65	13
Regional Public	2020	19	25
Regional Public	2021	57	23
Regional Public	2022	58	24
Selective	2020	11	125
Selective	2021	37	88
Selective	2022	35	115

Creating Quartiles for Each segment

Visit Quartiles - Large Public and Private

1. The lowest quartile performs worse than the others.

2. Above the lowest quartile, more inquiries is not associated with higher likelihood of renewal.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Large Public & Private

VisitQuartile_LPP	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 23	47	42	5	8.4	89.4%
23 to 38	48	45	3	15.0	93.8%
38 to 78	47	43	4	10.8	91.5%
78+	50	47	3	15.7	94.0%

Visit Volume & Drops for Large Public and Private - Histogram

1. You can see drops peppered throughout the histogram. They are little heavier towards the left portion of the graph.

Visit Quartiles - Regional Private

1. Very similar to Large Public and Privates: lowest quartile contains a disproportionate # of drops. The remaining quartiles perform similarly.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Regional Private

VisitQuartile_RPri	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 6	35	26	9	2.9	74.3%
6 to 11	51	42	9	4.7	82.4%
11 to 18	48	43	5	8.6	89.6%
18+	46	42	4	10.5	91.3%

Visit Volume & Drops for Regional Private - Histogram

1. You can see drops peppered throughout the histogram. They are little heavier towards the left portion of the graph.

2. You have a group that drops even towards the far right portion of the graph.

Visit Quartiles - Regional Public

1. Again, definitely do not want to be in the bottom quartile.

2. Drops in the other quartiles are minimal.

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Regional Public

VisitQuartile_RPub	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 12	27	23	4	5.8	85.2%
12 to 21	38	36	2	18.0	94.7%
21 to 28	33	32	1	32.0	97.0%
28+	36	33	3	11.0	91.7%

Visit Volume & Drops for Regional Public - Histogram

1. Almost no drops towards the right end of the graph.

#### Visit Quartiles - Selectives

1. For this segment, Visit volume might not matter much at all.

2. If the results stayed the same with a Higher N, then perhaps there might be an explanation around a Selective schools feeling like they don’t need the product as they are getting a lot of traffic already?

Renewal Ratio by Quartile, Selectives

VisitQuartile_Sel	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 46	20	19	1	19.0	95.0%
46 to 82	21	20	1	20.0	95.2%
82 to 126	20	19	1	19.0	95.0%
126+	22	19	3	6.3	86.4%

Visit Volume & Drops for Selectives - Histogram

1. Almost no drops towards the LEFT & RIGHT end of the graph.

Visit Volume YoY Change

1. Most of the partners experienced YoY growth in Visit Volume.

2. Getting over 200% YoY growth is a solid indicator of growth.

3. You do still see drops in the middle of the distribution, where there still is some growth.

Size of School

Size of School and Inquiry Volume

We are looking to see if there are any clusters of red and where they fall on the graph. There seem to be more red dots toward the lower left part of the graph - smaller schools with lower inquiries.

Correlation between Total Inquiries and Student Size

Relatively high correlation between the size of the school and the amount of inquiries.

## [1] 0.3968199

Creating Quartiles Based on School Size - And Account

Overall Student Quartile

Initially, the below table would tell us that the bottom two quartiles of student size schools perform a little worse than the upper quartiles.

Renewal Ratio by Size Quartile

Student_Quartile	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
1	161	143	18	7.9	88.8%
2	161	140	21	6.7	87.0%
3	161	149	12	12.4	92.5%
4	161	146	15	9.7	90.7%
NA	2	1	1	1.0	50.0%

Student Quartiles for Large Public & Private

1. The larger schools - upper two quartiles - renew at lower rates.

Renewal Ratio by Student Size Quartile, Large Public & Private

StudentQuartile_LPP	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 8353	48	47	1	47.0	97.9%
8353 to 14384	47	44	3	14.7	93.6%
14384 to 30983	48	41	7	5.9	85.4%
30983+	49	45	4	11.2	91.8%

Cross tab of Student Size and Inquiries

Reading this can be a bit tricky. I like to take a single Student quartile at a time, then scan across the different inquiry quartiles. I note a few things, how are the schools distributed within the inquiry quartiles, more toward the higher end, evenly, lower end. Then I look to see how the drops are distributed.

1. You see more of the drops toward the larger schools.
2. And within those larger schools, higher inquiry volumes do not make as much of a difference.
3. The smaller schools seem to renew at very high rates, with only marginal evidence to suggest the lower quartile is lower performing.

Renewal Ratio by Student & Inquiry Quartile, Large Public & Private

StudentQuartile_LPP	InquiryQuartile_LPP	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 8353	0 to 1362	17	16	1	16.0	94.1%
0 to 8353	1362 to 3227	16	16	0	Inf	100.0%
0 to 8353	3227 to 7542	12	12	0	Inf	100.0%
0 to 8353	7542 +	3	3	0	Inf	100.0%
8353 to 14384	0 to 1362	15	14	1	14.0	93.3%
8353 to 14384	1362 to 3227	12	11	1	11.0	91.7%
8353 to 14384	3227 to 7542	10	9	1	9.0	90.0%
8353 to 14384	7542 +	10	10	0	Inf	100.0%
14384 to 30983	0 to 1362	9	7	2	3.5	77.8%
14384 to 30983	1362 to 3227	17	16	1	16.0	94.1%
14384 to 30983	3227 to 7542	12	10	2	5.0	83.3%
14384 to 30983	7542 +	10	8	2	4.0	80.0%
30983+	0 to 1362	6	5	1	5.0	83.3%
30983+	1362 to 3227	3	3	0	Inf	100.0%
30983+	3227 to 7542	14	13	1	13.0	92.9%
30983+	7542 +	26	24	2	12.0	92.3%

Regional Private, Student Quartiles

No clear pattern to the drops for Regional Privates: the lower and higher quartiles are performing similarly.

Renewal Ratio by Student Size Quartile, Regional Private

StudenQuartile_RPri	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 1442	44	36	8	4.5	81.8%
1442 to 2348	45	41	4	10.2	91.1%
2348 to 3720	46	38	8	4.8	82.6%
3720+	45	38	7	5.4	84.4%

Regional Private, Student and Inquiry Quartiles

1. Being in the lowest inquiry quartile, underperforms across all of the school student size quartiles.

Renewal Ratio by Student & Inquiry Quartiles, Regional Private

StudenQuartile_RPri	InquiryQuartile_RPri	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 1442	0 to 378	18	14	4	3.5	77.8%
0 to 1442	378 to 713	9	8	1	8.0	88.9%
0 to 1442	713 to 1180	11	9	2	4.5	81.8%
0 to 1442	1180+	6	5	1	5.0	83.3%
1442 to 2348	0 to 378	7	6	1	6.0	85.7%
1442 to 2348	378 to 713	15	13	2	6.5	86.7%
1442 to 2348	713 to 1180	12	12	0	Inf	100.0%
1442 to 2348	1180+	11	10	1	10.0	90.9%
2348 to 3720	0 to 378	10	7	3	2.3	70.0%
2348 to 3720	378 to 713	13	12	1	12.0	92.3%
2348 to 3720	713 to 1180	12	11	1	11.0	91.7%
2348 to 3720	1180+	11	8	3	2.7	72.7%
3720+	0 to 378	10	7	3	2.3	70.0%
3720+	378 to 713	8	7	1	7.0	87.5%
3720+	713 to 1180	10	8	2	4.0	80.0%
3720+	1180+	17	16	1	16.0	94.1%

Regional Public, Student Quartiles

1. In this case, the highest quartile looks like the best performing. The rest are roughly equivalent.

Renewal Ratio by Student Size Quartile, Regional Public

StudenQuartile_RPub	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 4904	34	31	3	10.3	91.2%
4904 to 8099	33	30	3	10.0	90.9%
8099 to 12254	33	30	3	10.0	90.9%
12254+	34	33	1	33.0	97.1%

Regional Public, Student & Inquiry Quartiles

1. Similar to Regional Privates, within the Inquiry Quartiles, you are more likely to see the drops at the lower end, regardless of the size of the school.
2. I think we’d want to find a way to reduce that first line, the smallest schools with the lowest inquiry volumes. Seems like it could pose some longer term risk.

Renewal Ratio by Student & Inquiry Quartile, Regional Public

StudenQuartile_RPub	InquiryQuartile_RPub	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 4904	0 to 998	17	15	2	7.5	88.2%
0 to 4904	998 to 1551	9	9	0	Inf	100.0%
0 to 4904	1551 to 2477	3	3	0	Inf	100.0%
0 to 4904	2477+	5	4	1	4.0	80.0%
4904 to 8099	0 to 998	6	4	2	2.0	66.7%
4904 to 8099	998 to 1551	8	8	0	Inf	100.0%
4904 to 8099	1551 to 2477	11	10	1	10.0	90.9%
4904 to 8099	2477+	8	8	0	Inf	100.0%
8099 to 12254	0 to 998	9	8	1	8.0	88.9%
8099 to 12254	998 to 1551	11	10	1	10.0	90.9%
8099 to 12254	1551 to 2477	7	6	1	6.0	85.7%
8099 to 12254	2477+	6	6	0	Inf	100.0%
12254+	0 to 998	2	2	0	Inf	100.0%
12254+	998 to 1551	5	4	1	4.0	80.0%
12254+	1551 to 2477	12	12	0	Inf	100.0%
12254+	2477+	15	15	0	Inf	100.0%

Selective, Student and Inquiry Performance

1. Drops primarily happening at the largest of schools.

Renewal Ratio by Student Size Quartile, Selective

StudentQuartile_Sel	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 7134	21	20	1	20.0	95.2%
7134 to 17855	19	18	1	18.0	94.7%
17855 to 40175	21	21	0	Inf	100.0%
40175+	21	17	4	4.2	81.0%
NA	1	1	0	Inf	100.0%

Selective, Student and Inquiry Performance

1. Very few overall drops.
2. The largest schools who did drop were also performing well on Inquiries!

Renewal Ratio by Student Size Quartile, Selective

StudentQuartile_Sel	InquiryQuartile_Sel	N	ATL	Dropped	Ratio	Perc_Renewed
0 to 7134	0 to 2076	7	6	1	6.0	85.7%
0 to 7134	2076 to 6632	9	9	0	Inf	100.0%
0 to 7134	6632 to 12960	4	4	0	Inf	100.0%
0 to 7134	12960+	1	1	0	Inf	100.0%
7134 to 17855	0 to 2076	7	7	0	Inf	100.0%
7134 to 17855	2076 to 6632	5	5	0	Inf	100.0%
7134 to 17855	6632 to 12960	3	3	0	Inf	100.0%
7134 to 17855	12960+	4	3	1	3.0	75.0%
17855 to 40175	0 to 2076	4	4	0	Inf	100.0%
17855 to 40175	2076 to 6632	3	3	0	Inf	100.0%
17855 to 40175	6632 to 12960	6	6	0	Inf	100.0%
17855 to 40175	12960+	8	8	0	Inf	100.0%
40175+	0 to 2076	2	2	0	Inf	100.0%
40175+	2076 to 6632	3	3	0	Inf	100.0%
40175+	6632 to 12960	8	5	3	1.7	62.5%
40175+	12960+	8	7	1	7.0	87.5%
NA	0 to 2076	1	1	0	Inf	100.0%

Statistical Model

This says that Inquiries is statistically significant. The more a school gets, the more likely they are to renew.

The model also captures something that showed up above: some very large schools with high inquiry performance tend to drop. The effect is very small, within the model, which means it really only applies to very large schools.

## 
## Call:
## glm(formula = UnitRenewal_Binary ~ Students + DailyInquiries_Last12Mo + 
##     Students:DailyInquiries_Last12Mo, family = "binomial", data = dat_he)
## 
## Deviance Residuals: 
##     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max  
## -2.6526   0.3989   0.4664   0.5069   0.7825  
## 
## Coefficients:
##                                    Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
## (Intercept)                       1.835e+00  1.964e-01   9.343   <2e-16 ***
## Students                          1.077e-05  1.133e-05   0.950   0.3420    
## DailyInquiries_Last12Mo           1.456e-04  7.059e-05   2.062   0.0392 *  
## Students:DailyInquiries_Last12Mo -3.284e-09  1.594e-09  -2.061   0.0393 *  
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## (Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)
## 
##     Null deviance: 425.69  on 643  degrees of freedom
## Residual deviance: 419.74  on 640  degrees of freedom
##   (2 observations deleted due to missingness)
## AIC: 427.74
## 
## Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 5

Collection Area

Time On Tour Volume YoY Change

1. Many of the partners are seeing smaller increases for time on tour.

2. When you hit 100%+, you are seeing nearly no drops!