Assumed VIP customers would drive most of our revenue — the data said otherwise
Working through a series of applied analytics projects on real transactional-style datasets, and this finding didn't match my assumption going in.
The setup: 700 customers, 1,826 orders, ₹4.93 Cr total revenue. Customers are segmented into VIP and Regular tiers.
I expected VIP to clearly outperform on revenue — that's usually the point of having a tier system. Instead:
- VIP customers: 48.8% of revenue
- Regular customers: 48.6% of revenue
Essentially a dead heat. The VIP tier isn't actually the revenue driver the segmentation implies.
A few other patterns that came out of the analysis:
- Jaipur and Chennai post the highest cancellation rates (18.5% and 18.3%) despite only mid-tier revenue — worth digging into whether it's a logistics/fulfillment issue in those cities specifically
- Home & Kitchen and Electronics lead category revenue
- Revenue spiked sharply in the final month of the dataset — still working out if that's seasonality or a one-off event
Built the analysis and dashboard end-to-end (data prep, DAX measures, visuals) — happy to share more on the methodology if useful.
Dashboard here if you want to explore the underlying data yourself: https://app.powerbi.com/links/MV5f1O4X6V?ctid=f1e56b10-5f67-4e70-bd40-8c6948bde6cf&pbi\_source=linkShare
Has anyone else run into this kind of tier-parity result? Curious whether it's common enough that VIP segmentation criteria usually needs revisiting, or if this dataset is just an outlier.