Talk:Churn rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


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. Ensa 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is unreadable to the lay person, especially the P2P section. Help! 04:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)rkaufman

Database of churn rates[edit]

Would the following link be useful to add to this article?

It contains a reference guide, so the data is comparatively reliable. -- Thekohser 11:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-notable blog written by a nn author that doesn't meet WP:EL, so I removed the link. Flowanda | Talk 20:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Note to others reading this thread: It seems that the removed link to the reference guide has been cited (see Note #2) in a serious publication by Dewitt Latimer, Deputy CIO and Chief Technology Officer at the University of Notre Dame. I would like to know if Flowanda speaks for the Wikipedia "community", that Wikipedia should have more rigorous sourcing standards than the Educause Review journal? -- Thekohser 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Adding the link back to your blog was inappropriate, and you know this as well as You know I am not We and We are not all Together (Goo goo g'joob). Unsourced original research on a personal blog is not a reliable source, just because if it's quoted by an .edu web page, and you are not a recognized expert in this field. If you have issues with my editing or the lack of response on your question, then you should take them up on related talk pages or noticeboards that will garner more editor input and feedback. Flowanda | Talk 02:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Cute, and I appreciate that. Thing is, though, it actually is sourced, no matter how fervently you believe it is "unsourced". And for you to trivialize its mention by Educause as an ".edu web page", when EDUCAUSE Review is a published print journal (ISSN: 1527-6619), shows me that you may have an underlying agenda here. Who, in your opinion, are the recognized experts in this field of churn rates? I am currently employed by a Fortune 100 firm, in part to advise on its churn rates. What credentials do you cite for your ability to judge expertise here, Flowanda?
Here may be a useful learning opportunity for you.
Observe these external links.
Note that one goes to this page.
That page was authored almost entirely by "Darthtyler" whose expertise on interstellar space transmissions includes personal testimonials as: "I have believed in aliens all my life as Sunder king has. One of my hobbies is to go to observatories and look up through the telescopes, wondering what exactly is out there."
That page is riddled with advertising, while my blog has one small contextual ad at the top.
That page has never been cited in a scholarly journal, while mine has.
I am thinking your response is going to be something along the lines of "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" or some such. However, I am here to point out that it's more like "WP:TONSOFOTHERHYPOCRITICALSHITEXISTS", currently to the tune of 20,286 pieces of shit.
Will you be spending any effort working on cleaning away those bits of feces, or are you really, really focused just on Churn rate, or are you really, really, really focused on following me around Wikipedia? Be honest. (Goo goo g'joob). -- Thekohser 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That's not a valid external link, per WP: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)

And the Darthtyler link? -- Thekohser 15:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'll go deal with that one for you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support link - I read the blog post to which you link. It is very informative and thorough and unbiased - exactly the sort of site that I, as a reader of Wikipedia, expect that some kind soul will direct me to learn. Requirements for quality of sourcing must be tempered by common sense and availability. If the best available source on a subject is a blog post, you link to the blog post, provided that the author is competent to be relied upon (which appears to hold true here). (on behalf of Shalom) -- Thekohser 16:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

fallacious meaning[edit]

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. (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Churn means turn over. Like how butter is turned over milk or how employees turn over, hence the usage here. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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'. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"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%, see — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Bulk contract usage (B2B)[edit]

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)