The provided data listed the following types of client accounts. These same categories are used throughout this dashboard and are abbreviated as follows:
- AFD: Active Free Direct
- AFFP: Active Free from Paid
- AFFT: Active Free from Trial
- ARD: Active Reoccurring Direct
- ARFF: Active Reoccurring from Free
- ARFT: Active Reoccurring from Trial
- ARFU: Active Reoccurring from Upgrade
- TNC: Trialing with No Credit Card
This dashboard is a work in progress exploration of data provided by Arel Moodie.
At our initial meeting, Arel Moodie expressed an interest in gaining a better understanding of the Talkadot.com client base with respect to the following questions.
What do the top users of the active (paid) option have in common?
The goal is to get better understanding of their ‘ideal customer profile’ by investigating these questions.
How much do ‘top users’ speak?
How much do ‘top users’ get paid?
What are the total number of submissions of ‘top users’?
Is it possible to determine the precipitating event that motivates someone to transition from the free to the active (paid) option?
How long do top users use the service for free before opting to become paid subscribers?
Note that the provided data indicate when someone first created their account, and when they last signed in, but there is no date information for account
| Plan | 1-10 | 11-30 | 31-50 | 51+ | Don't know yet! | NA | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lite | 1606 | 927 | 200 | 132 | 605 | 3617 | 7087 |
| Pro | 207 | 281 | 87 | 53 | 85 | 768 | 1481 |
| Plan | 1-10 | 11-30 | 31-50 | 51+ | Don't know yet! | NA | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lite | 22.7 | 13.1 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 8.5 | 51.0 | 100 |
| Pro | 14.0 | 19.0 | 5.9 | 3.6 | 5.7 | 51.9 | 100 |
These tables shows the distribution of responses for the question asking how many talks are planned for year.
The data are broken down by ‘Pro’ and ‘Lite’ respondents and the ‘Pro’ group includes the Charter, and NSA Pro classifications. Elite users were not included in these tables because there are only 24 Elite users.
Although these data are somewhat informative, over half of the respondents did not answer the question in each of the groups, Pro and Lite.
Among the Pro respondents,
- 42.5% have specified they have one or more talks planned.
- 28.5% have specified they have eleven or more talks planned.
- 9.5% have specified they have thirty-one or more talks planned.
- 3.6% have specified they have fifty-one or more talks planned.
| Pro | Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Min. | -25 | -3 |
| 1st Qu. | 500 | 0 |
| Median | 4500 | 245 |
| Mean | 70867 | 32470 |
| 3rd Qu. | 10000 | 2500 |
| Max. | 45003600 | 50000000 |
| NA's | 604 | 5453 |
This summary shows the distribution of the highest compensation by category and provides some insight that may help guide potential clients.
Although there are a substantial number of non-responses, the responses are helpful.
For example, among your ‘Pro’ clients,
- 75% report a highest compensation of $500 or more.
- 50% report a highest compensation of $4500 or more.
- 25% report a highest compensation of $10000 or more.
NOTE: The average (mean) highest compensation is not a measure of the average person in the ‘Pro’ group because it is affected by the very high outliers.
- Among the Pro clients, there are 227 clients who report their highest compensation as $10,000 or higher.
- The top five clients in this group appear to be different from the rest of these top clients because their top compensation is extremely high.
| Name | Highest Talk Compensation (US $) | Avg. Audience Size | Total Submissions | Total Events |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tish Norman | 45003600 | 110 | 2091 | 29 |
| Dr. Jamal Früster | 10000000 | 151 | 353 | 8 |
| Jess Riddell | 1000000 | 28 | 25 | 2 |
| Kalilah Reynolds | 300000 | 66 | 306 | 5 |
| Nikki Stone | 125000 | 244 | 759 | 11 |
Excluding these top 5 clients, here is a summary of the other 222 Pro clients who report their highest compensation as $10,000 or higher.
- 27% (61 of the 222) report that their highest compensation is $10,000.
- 37% (83 of the 222) report that their highest compensation is between $10,001 and $15,000.
- 29% (64 of the 222) report that their highest compensation is between $15,001 and $30,000.
- 5% (11 of the 222) report that their highest compensation is between $30,001 and $50,000.
- 1% (3 of the 222) report that their highest compensation is between $50,001 and $100,000.
| Pro | Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Min. | 0 | 0 |
| 1st Qu. | 1 | 0 |
| Median | 5 | 0 |
| Mean | 11 | 1 |
| 3rd Qu. | 14 | 1 |
| Max. | 191 | 93 |
This summary shows the distribution of the total number of events by Plan category, Pro and Lite. These data appear to be somewhat helpful in guiding new clients because the number events is fairly low for almost all of the respondents, but there is some differentiation.
For example, among your ‘Pro’ clients,
- 75% have one or more total events.
- 50% have five or more total events.
- 25% have fourteen or more total events.
NOTE: The average (mean) number of events is not a reliable measure of the average person in the ‘Pro’ group because it is affected by the very high outliers.
- Among the Pro clients, there are 374 clients who are in the top 25% and report 14 or more total events.
- The top six clients in this group appear to be different from the rest of these top clients with total events over 120.
- One of these top performers have missing data (NA) for the other pertinent variables.
| Name | Highest Talk Compensation (US $) | Avg. Audience Size | Total Submissions | Total Events |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| James Robilotta | 20000 | 214 | 12566 | 191 |
| Genius Potential NA | 37000 | 245 | 8274 | 142 |
| Rockell Bartoli | 3500 | -2 | 3884 | 132 |
| Jarrod Benjamin, Ph.D. | 18000 | 85 | 11823 | 131 |
| Brema Solutions LLC | NA | NA | 4796 | 127 |
| Dr. Joshua Fredenburg | 5700 | 152 | 6150 | 120 |
Excluding these top 6 clients, here is a summary of the other 368 Pro clients in the top 25% who report 14 total events or more.
- 41% (151 of the 368) report total events between 14 and 20.
- 18% (65 of the 368) report total events between 21 and 25.
- 18% (68 of the 368) report total events between 26 and 35
- 15% (56 of the 368) report total events between 36 and 50.
- 8% (28 of the 368) report total events between 51 and 102.
| Pro | Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Min. | 0 | 0 |
| 1st Qu. | 38 | 0 |
| Median | 222 | 0 |
| Mean | 649 | 33 |
| 3rd Qu. | 685 | 22 |
| Max. | 14679 | 5381 |
This summary shows the distribution of the total number of submissions by Plan category, Pro and Lite. These data appear to be more helpful in guiding new clients because many pro clients report having a substantial number of total submissions.
For example, among your ‘Pro’ clients,
- 75% have thirty-eight or more total submissions.
- 50% have 222 or more total submissions.
- 25% have 685 or more total submissions
NOTE: The average (mean) number of submissions is not a reliable measure of the average person in the ‘Pro’ group because it is affected by the very high outliers.
- Among the Pro clients, there are 371 clients who are in the top 25% and report 685 or more total submissions
- The top seven clients in this group appear to be different from the rest of these top clients with total submissions over 10000.
- Some of these very top performers have missing data (NA) for the other pertinent variables.
| Name | Highest Talk Compensation (US $) | Avg. Audience Size | Total Submissions | Total Events |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magie Cook | NA | NA | 14679 | 23 |
| Hoan Do | NA | 633 | 14610 | 84 |
| Steven Bollar | 20000 | 484 | 13896 | 73 |
| James Robilotta | 20000 | 214 | 12566 | 191 |
| Bonny Shade | NA | NA | 11857 | 45 |
| Jarrod Benjamin, Ph.D. | 18000 | 85 | 11823 | 131 |
| John Register | 22500 | 246 | 10655 | 83 |
Excluding these top 7 clients, here is a summary of the other 364 Pro clients in the top 25% who report 685 total submissions or more.
- 30% (110 of the 364) report total submissions between 685 and 1000.
- 55% (199 of the 364) report total submissions between 1001 and 3000.
- 12% (42 of the 364) report total submissions between 3001 and 5000.
- 4% (13 of the 364) report total submissions between 5001 and 9000.
| Pro | Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Min. | 0 | 0 |
| 1st Qu. | 1 | 0 |
| Median | 3 | 1 |
| Mean | 5 | 1 |
| 3rd Qu. | 6 | 1 |
| Max. | 134 | 29 |
This summary shows the distribution of the total number of offers by Plan category, Pro and Lite. These data appear to be less helpful in guiding new clients because the number offers is very low for almost all of the respondents.
For example, among your ‘Pro’ clients,
- 75% have one or more total offers.
- 50% have three or more total offers.
- 25% have six or more total offers.
NOTE: The average (mean) number of offers is not a reliable measure of the average person in the ‘Pro’ group because it is affected by the very high outliers.
| Pro | Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Min. | 0 | 0 |
| 1st Qu. | 19 | 0 |
| Median | 139 | 0 |
| Mean | 453 | 20 |
| 3rd Qu. | 469 | 11 |
| Max. | 10469 | 2043 |
This summary shows the distribution of the total number of leads by Plan category, Pro and Lite. These data appear to be more helpful in guiding new clients because many pro clients report having a substantial number of leads.
For example, among your ‘Pro’ clients,
- 75% have nineteen or more total leads.
- 50% have 139 or more total leads.
- 25% have 469 or more total leads.
NOTE: The average (mean) number of leads is not a reliable measure of the average person in the ‘Pro’ group because it is affected by the very high outliers.
This plot examines the number of clients with each account type with respect to their planned next talk.
Account holders in the ‘Active Free from Trial’ category show substantially more activity than other client categories.
Clients in the ‘Active Free Direct’ category also show activity that can be built upon.
This plot examines the number of clients with each account type with respect to their stated number of talks per year.
Account holders in the ‘Active Free from Trial’ category show substantially more activity than other client categories.
These data also include a lot of missing values due to non-response.
Note that ‘DNY’ is the abbreviation for “Don’t know yet, I’m just getting started!”
These two plots examine the distribution of the length of time clients in each category have had an account with Talkadot.com and the distribution of dormancy times.
These variables are created using today’s date and will be updated each time this dashboard is rendered.
Note that for ‘Dormancy’ lower is better. The two categories with the most substantial levels of dormancy are ‘Active Free Direct’ and ‘Active Free from Trial’ followed closely by ‘Active Free from Paid.’
This dashboard was created by Penelope Pooler Eisenbies using Quarto in RStudio, and the R Language and Environment.
The data used to create this dashboard were provided by Arel Moodie from
Arnold J (2024). ggthemes: Extra Themes, Scales and Geoms for ‘ggplot2’. R package version 5.1.0, https://github.com/jrnold/ggthemes, https://jrnold.github.io/ggthemes/.
Bache S, Wickham H (2022). magrittr: A Forward-Pipe Operator for R. R package version 2.0.3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=magrittr.
Neuwirth E (2022). RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer Palettes. R package version 1.1-3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RColorBrewer.
Posit team (2024). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA. URL http://www.posit.co/.
R Core Team (2024). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rinker, T. W. & Kurkiewicz, D. (2017). pacman: Package Management for R. version 0.5.0. Buffalo, New York. http://github.com/trinker/pacman
Vanderkam D, Allaire J, Owen J, Gromer D, Thieurmel B (2018). dygraphs: Interface to ‘Dygraphs’ Interactive Time Series Charting Library. R package version 1.1.1.6, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dygraphs.
Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, Grolemund G, Hayes A, Henry L, Hester J, Kuhn M, Pedersen TL, Miller E, Bache SM, Müller K, Ooms J, Robinson D, Seidel DP, Spinu V, Takahashi K, Vaughan D, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H (2019). “Welcome to the tidyverse.” Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. doi:10.21105/joss.01686 https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686.
Xie Y (2024). knitr: A General-Purpose Package for Dynamic Report Generation in R. R package version 1.48, https://yihui.org/knitr/.
Yihui Xie (2015) Dynamic Documents with R and knitr. 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC. ISBN 978-1498716963
Yihui Xie (2014) knitr: A Comprehensive Tool for Reproducible Research in R. In Victoria Stodden, Friedrich Leisch and Roger D. Peng, editors, Implementing Reproducible Computational Research. Chapman and Hall/CRC. ISBN 978-1466561595