Talk:Churn rate
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStub-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between30 October 2018 and11 December 2018. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Rachelma114.
Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the article has been vandalized. "Churn bait", "chicken" etc. in opening. It basically needs a complete review and probably a complete rewrite.— Precedingunsigned comment added by92.227.230.13 (talk)11:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made some minor edits, and generalised the opening paragraph. Churn is important in any subscriber based business, not just mobile phones or P2P.
I removed External Links that were pointing to German-language pages. Simultaneously, I posted those links on the Deutsch version of the article. Thekohser 13:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Made some minor edits throughout: spelling and punctuation. Introduced line breaks for:"Gross churn = 10%New adds = 4%Net churn = 6% "as it appeared that every equation ran together.Bolded formula elements and put in line breaks for clarity.Ensa18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unreadable to the lay person, especially the P2P section. Help!192.160.131.2104:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)rkaufman[reply]
Would the following link be useful to add to this article?
http://insidemr.blogspot.com/2006/06/comparison-of-churn-rates.html
It contains areference guide, so the data is comparatively reliable. --Thekohser11:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That's not a valid external link, perWP:EL - "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Mr. Kohs is not a recognized authority.Hipocrite (talk)14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the current text "churn" as a common word does not imply violent motion. Classic 100% diametrically wrong thing here. Rather, churn as in a butter churn, refers to a consistent, rythmic and regular folding motion in some medium with a medium viscosity.76.180.168.166 (talk)17:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Churn means turn over. Like how butter is turned over milk or how employees turn over, hence the usage here. Hope that helps.— Precedingunsigned comment added by64.61.71.210 (talk)18:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consultation with an older edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1927) shows that historically "churn", the action of agitating milk to make butter, while not violent as such, was definitely associated in its secondary meanings as something vigorous and stressful. I assume that this is a) because the action of making butter from a large volume of milk in a hand-churn, as normally carried out on smallholdings and farms was particularly vigorous work (as occasionally demonstrated today). Although as it happens the secondary meanings - churning seas, churning blood (fear, anxiety) were historically in male contexts whereas most dairy workers were women, hence the term dairymaid.
I will show relevance. Back in the 1980s, in marketing and customer relations, "churn" had a very specific meaning, which was to manipulate your subscriber into cancelling their present contract and take out a "better", more expensive contract (thus generating extra commission for the sales person and revenue for the company). This was particularly popular with sales people in the insurance industries, who would go round clients within a year or two of taking out a policy and persuade them to take out a much better policy with many more features, for a higher premium, and, guess what, a new "initial charge", which usually wasn't mentioned outside the small print. "Churning" therefore, at that time, did indeed mean milking the customer like a cow and turning them around into a more productive product. At their expense. I will never forget a company I won't name trying this on with us in around 1989. The presentation was that we would pay a bit more, and we would "never have to worry about the cost of our funerals". (The customer thinks this is an upgrade, whereas in fact it is a new policy. We were in our 30s at the time. This is the kind of policy that is now known to cost far more than it ever pays out.) I realised what he was up to, simply because it had been in the newspapers, and said, "I think you are trying to churn us, aren't you?", and he went as red as a beet and started reciting some more spiel in a stutter. That's the last time I allowed any insurance or similar sales agent into the house.
This useful buzzword with a very negative connotation has clearly migrated into the more anodyne meaning of "the customer is moving on somewhere else", allowing marketeers to continue to bark it without giving away the tricks of the sales force. It's a good idea not to use it in front of older customers, as least in the UK, I can't speak for other territories. The longer-lived term for costumers cancelling and moving on is "customer turnover", entirely accurate, but it doesn't sound so 'neat'.212.159.59.41 (talk)—Precedingundated comment added11:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone check the way this is phrased? "Churn is closely related to the concept of average customer life time. For example, a churn rate of 25% implies an average customer life of 4 years." If 25% of the customers are leaving each year, it would seem that the longest life would be four years, but the average life would be more on the order of two years. Perhaps what the meaning of "average customer life" is should be defined? Apologies if I've provided feedback in an incorrect manner.
Creges (talk)22:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you do the calculation, you will find that the average lifetime is 4 years. 75% of the people are left after one year, but it's 25% of that remaining 75% that leave after an additional year, etc. Since everyone leaves at the end of a given year, you can sum up all those parts, and the average age is 4. That granted, the inverse relationship between survival and decrement does seem to be worded awkwardly in this case.— Precedingunsigned comment added by64.61.71.210 (talk)18:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"10,000 employees, a natural attrition rate could be between 1% and 5% depending on the size and industry of the company." - what a nonsense. 1% churn would mean that employees in average stay 99 years in a company. Usual employee churn rates are between 12% and 15%, seehttp://www.compensationforce.com/2014/02/2013-turnover-rates-by-industry.html— Precedingunsigned comment added by165.222.185.145 (talk)15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see listing, but am colloquially aware, of usage in a business context where a large number of similar, on-going products (e.g. SIM contracts for bulk buyers / operators) has a continual "churn" that will cap the number of connection / disconnection requests at an agreed amount, above which additional costs are incurred - this is to prevent sudden, unexpected volumes of administration, and to keep revenue from unit-costed items to a predictable level. I've not easily been able to find any attestation of this usage, but I have encountered it several businesses, and seems mutually understood whenever used. Does anyone have references that can properly define this usage? —Sasuke Sarutobi (talk)11:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
