| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Variables: | Improvement: | Revenue: | ||||||||||||||
2 | Number of customers: | 500,000 | Without campaign | $0.00 | $35,000,000 | retained X LTV | |||||||||||
3 | Average remaining LTV: | $350 | |||||||||||||||
4 | Defection rate: | 80% | |||||||||||||||
5 | |||||||||||||||||
6 | Campaign cost / user: | $175 | With untargeted campaign | ($3,500,000) | $31,500,000 | retained X (LTV - cost) + respondents X responserevenue | |||||||||||
7 | Revenue per response: | $350 | $17,500,000 | ||||||||||||||
8 | Campaign hitrate: | 20% | $14,000,000 | ||||||||||||||
9 | |||||||||||||||||
10 | Defection segment percent: | 40% | With targeted campaign | $3,640,000 | $38,640,000 | nonsegretained X LTV + segretained X (LTV - cost) + segrespondents X responserevenue: | |||||||||||
11 | Segment lift: | 1.15 | $29,400,000 | ||||||||||||||
12 | $2,800,000 | ||||||||||||||||
13 | $6,440,000 | ||||||||||||||||
14 | Segment defection rate: | 92.0% | |||||||||||||||
15 | Nonsegment defection rate: | 72.0% | |||||||||||||||
16 | |||||||||||||||||
17 | |||||||||||||||||
18 | |||||||||||||||||
19 | Key: | ||||||||||||||||
20 | empirical inputs | ||||||||||||||||
21 | assumptions | ||||||||||||||||
22 | derived values | ||||||||||||||||
23 | |||||||||||||||||
24 | |||||||||||||||||
25 | Scenario: Aggressive retention offer to one-time customers. | ||||||||||||||||
26 | |||||||||||||||||
27 | Note: This is a forecast model that assumes predictive | ||||||||||||||||
28 | analytics is in play, but this isn't predictive analytics itself. | ||||||||||||||||
29 | |||||||||||||||||
30 | Copyright © 2007 Prediction Impact -- www.PredictionImpact.com | Assumption: Campaigning a customer who would have stayed anyway lowers remaining LTV for that customer. | |||||||||||||||
31 | |||||||||||||||||
32 | |||||||||||||||||