Blog · Board and management reporting · Education
How an education provider measures what happened to its renewal price increases from the renewal proposals and the signed orders: uplift proposed per institution, uplift realized, the gap by account manager and by institution type, the institutions that renewed at a discount to last year, the correlation with utilization from the provider's own data, and why the average uplift reported to the board is made of a few full increases and many that were given back.
An education provider proposes a five percent renewal uplift across the base and reports four percent realized. The renewal proposals against the signed orders show it was seven percent at a third of institutions and nothing at another third, that two account managers gave most of it back, and that the institutions that negotiated hardest were the ones using the program least. This guide sets out uplift realized against proposed, the splits, and the utilization link.
Per institution, per renewal:
Proposed uplift = proposed price ÷ expiring price − 1 Realized uplift = signed price ÷ expiring price − 1 Realization of uplift = realized ÷ proposed Below last year: signed price < expiring price
Per account manager, per institution type: median realization; share below last year.
Institution identifiers only.
every renewal in the period has a proposal and an outcome, or is listed unproposed or unresolved
Unproposed renewals are the process gap: institutions that renewed at last year's price because nobody proposed otherwise.
| Account manager | Renewals | Median proposed | Median realized | Realization | Below last year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AM-04 | 62 | 5% | 4.8% | 96% | 1 |
| AM-11 | 58 | 5% | 1.1% | 22% | 9 |
| AM-17 | 44 | 5% | 3.9% | 78% | 2 |
Manager AM-11 gives four fifths of every increase back, and nine institutions renewed for less than last year. Similar books; a different conversation at renewal.
| Utilization band | Renewals | Median realization of uplift | Below last year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Over 80% | 71 | 97% | 0 |
| 50 to 80% | 58 | 71% | 3 |
| Under 50% | 35 | 18% | 9 |
Institutions using what they bought pay the increase. Those that do not negotiate it away, and the pricing conversation is really the utilization conversation a term earlier.
Average uplift reported. Four percent, made of seven and nothing.
Proposals unrecorded. Only the realized change exists; who gave what back is unknown.
Manager split skipped. The board's four percent and one manager's one.
Utilization not joined. The discount is blamed on the negotiation, not the adoption.
Mapped once, the proposals, the signed orders, the institution master and the utilization produce realization of uplift by manager, type and utilization band, and the below-last-year list every season. Covirage builds this from the exports as they are. The education page describes the setup, and the license utilization guide covers the measure that decides the price a term early.
The renewal proposal or quote, recorded per institution with the proposed price against the expiring one. Where the provider applies a standard uplift, that is the proposed figure. Without a record of what was proposed, only the realized change can be measured, and that is the first gap to close.
Because the board's average uplift of four percent is one manager at seven and another at one, on similar books. The manager who gives the increase back is a coaching finding, or a book that has a reason, and the institution-type split says which.
As the argument for managing utilization ahead of the renewal. If institutions above a utilization threshold realize most of the proposed uplift and those below realize little, the provider's pricing power is its onboarding and adoption, and the success team owns the price increase a term early.