Tell me more ×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A non-profit has donors with monthly commitments, which you can think of as subscriptions. What is the best way to show for each month new acquisitions, cancels, and net growth? The relationship is

 net growth = new acquisitions - cancels

The same time of chart could be appropriate for net profit (business) or net income (personal finances).

The first (and more important) problem is the design: it must be attractive and easily understood by non-technical people. The design is really the answer to this question.

The second problem, which is not required in the answer, is the implementation: I prefer to implement this in SAS, Excel, SharePoint, or some JavaScript library--- or maybe R.

One story behind the chart is new acquisitions have a high cancel rate, so they both help and hurt net growth. (However, the cancels do not distinguish whether the commitment was new or old.)

My boss drew this example chart: Example chart

Here is a new design with an idea from xan's post. In this design, cancels are implicit, so I was able to simplify by eliminating one chart element. design 2

This chart from an EU report is similar: it shows imports, exports, and the trade balance.

EU chart

Here is what may be my final version: Net growth version 2

share|improve this question
Also please don't simultaneously cross post at other forums, forums.flowingdata.com/topic/… – Andy W May 8 '12 at 19:11
@Andy Why not? That's not an SE site. Cross-posting across SE sites is discouraged because we have a controlled mechanism for migration. We can't migrate to or from other sites. – whuber May 8 '12 at 19:20
@whuber, IMO whether it is on the Stack exchange sites is immaterial. The reason for discouraging cross posting is not because a question can be migrated, it is because it is a waste of people's time to answer questions that have already been answered. – Andy W May 8 '12 at 19:35
That's a suitable topic for a meta discussion, @Andy. A quick search on Meta indicates cross-posting policy always refers to SE sites only. Also, virtually every question here has already been asked and answered somewhere else, so the implication of your argument is that we're mostly wasting our time here... – whuber May 8 '12 at 19:41
A quick search on meta stack overflow suggests the same "netiquette" for cross-posting to other forums/list-serves applies in general as it does to sister stack sites (see one example here, you can look through the cross-posting tag for other related discussion). To be explicit, one should absolutely link between both questions (and update each site if an answer occurs at the other site). Also preferably it should only be done when a suitable answer has not been obtained at one site after some time cont. – Andy W May 8 '12 at 20:01
show 4 more comments

1 Answer

Your mock-up looks pretty good, though I prefer not to mix scales on the same graph. You asked for gains, losses and net growth, but with your black line it looks like you're showing cumulative balance instead of net growth = gains - losses. You can infer net growth by comparing bars heights or translating the cumulative slope into the local scale, but it might be useful to have a direct representation.

Here's an derivative idea that adds a separate element for net gain or loss. The gain and loss are light colored while the net gain or loss is darker. And the cumulative balance gets a separate frame.

Net Growth

share|improve this answer
I like the use of shading to show the net. I've incorporated this into a new design which I will post. My boss actually drew the photo I posted and designed that chart, and I agree the black line looks wrong. He meant for the black to mean net, but he didn't position it correctly. I don't want to do cumulative because where would I start? We have a long history, and our cumulative values are much higher than our monthly changes. – Andrew May 9 '12 at 6:56
Thanks for clarifying. RE: "cumulative values are much higher than our monthly changes" -- that's why they're on different scales. – xan May 9 '12 at 11:38
Ahh I didn't notice they were on different scales initially either! Perhaps further visually distinguishing between the panels would be useful, such as a space in between the top panel and the bottom panel (and enclosing each panel in a box). Very cool idea though (+1), I like the use of the super-imposed "net" categories, although I think the line as suggested by the initial OP could be useful as well. – Andy W May 9 '12 at 12:00
Good point about the separation @AndyW. The cumulative line is mainly there because I misunderstood the original mock-up, though I can see it might be useful to see a "net-net" -- the net effect of all the net changes -- the nets are varied. – xan May 9 '12 at 22:26

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.