Predicting Near-Future Churners and Win-Backs in the
Telecommunications Industry
Clifton Phua, Hong Cao, João Bártolo Gomes, Minh Nhut Nguyen
Data Analytics Department, Institute for Infocomm Research
1 Fusionopolis Way, Connexis,
Singapore 138632

{cwcphua, hcao, bartologjp, mnnguyen}@i2r.a-star.edu.sg

1. Introduction
The telecommunications (telco) industry is vibrant and dynamic
with a large base of customers. A crucial factor for the survival
and good profitability of any telco company is to develop
effective strategies to win more customers and to retain the
existing customers (e.g. through reducing the percentage of
churn). These strategies can help a telco company grow and
maintain a large customer base to harvest good profits through
economically providing telco services (e.g. voice data
transmission and broadband) in a mass scale. However, such
strategies cannot be developed without the proper understanding
about the reasons why an existing consumer or a Small and
Medium Enterprise (SME) chooses to discontinue its telco service
plan, i.e. churning. Such timely understanding is particularly
important for a company to stay competitive in today’s dynamic
world with the fast advances of telco technologies, products and
services.
Several previous works [1-4] have researched on the prediction of
churn through using machine learning and analytical tools. The
work in [1] focused on various aspects in developing customer
retention strategies. The work in [2] is a recent work and it
describes a decision tree classifier when applied to the
geographical region of the customer (e.g. rural, sub-urban and
urban), plays an important role is the churn prediction. The work
in [3] proposed dual-step model building approach, which first
clusters different types of customers and then learns the
classification models for each cluster separately. It also evaluated
cost-sensitive learning technology for churn prediction. The work
in [4] differs from the first three works in the following aspects: it
not only predicts the churner but also estimates how soon a
customer would churn through survival analysis.
The data analytics work presented in this write-up predicts the
churners and win-backs in the near future based on recent and
large-scale telco data in 2011. Similar to [4], our churn prediction
problem becomes more challenging as our technique not only
needs to identify the likely churners with good accuracy; our
technique also needs to identify these churners within a tight time
frame of the subsequent three months. Based on this requirement
and considering there could likely be fixed patterns that signal a
customer would churn soon in his/her current telco service
records, we develop suitable feature computation strategy to
extract the relevant features from customer data for predicting the
near-future churners and possible win-backs. In building our
predictive models, we also perform imbalance correction through
sampling techniques with an aim to improve the precision of
prediction for the important minority-class. Through comparing

different learning algorithms, our method achieves reasonably
good prediction performance through cross-validation for the
entire customer population. For instance, we achieve good
accuracy of 81.8% for SME churn prediction.

2. Data Processing and Feature Extraction
We use a telco company’s customer data, with both consumers
and SMEs, in the full year of 2011. For confidentiality and
competitive reasons, the identity of this telco company cannot be
revealed. The data was first loaded into two MySQL databases,
one for consumers and another for SMEs. Then we created
indexes for the key and data fields in order to improve query
response time and preprocessing/generation of the training/test
sets for the two databases (consumer and SME).

2.1 Data Schema
The consumer database (1.3M customers) is significantly larger
than the SME one, with close to 15 times more customers. At the
heart of both databases are the subscriber tables, which connect to
all the other tables with the customer, billing, and service IDs
(with the exception of service request tables which connects to
customer tables directly through customer ID).
Essentially, each customer (consumer or SME) can have
multiple billing accounts, and each billing account can have
multiple services. To create flat files for data mining that is
reasonably accurate and fast, we opted to have billing ID, instead
of customer ID (faster with fewer records) or service ID (more
accurate since churn is defined as a single service termination), as
the common key to link multiple tables.
Within both consumer and SME databases, the billing tables
have the most number of records (15M and 3M), followed by
voice usage, service request, subscriber, download and upload
usage, and subscriber tables. The class labels for churn and winback are obtained from the TERMINATION_DATE and
COMEBACK_DATE fields in the subscriber table respectively.

2.2 Feature Computation Strategy
Given data for the entire 2011 plus class labels from 2011 to
January 2012 (churn) and mid-February 2012 (win-back), we
divided the data and class labels accordingly:
•

To predict churners (‘1’ as label) and stayers, our strategy
involves creating more recent training features from August
to October 2011 (3 months). Training class labels are from
November 2011 to January 2012 (3 months) to create the
model.

1

•

•

To predict win-back (‘1’ as label) from churners, our strategy
involves creating features for a longer time span (7 months
instead of 3) due to the time lag after service termination and
because most telco companies run their win-back marketing
programs six months after termination date. We determine if
the service termination occurs within April and October 2011
(7 months). If so, we create training features for the 3 months
preceding the termination month. For example, if a churner
terminates a service in June 2011, we extract features for
March to May 2011. Training class labels are also from
November 2011 to January 2012 (3 months) to learn the
churn and comeback prediction models.
The churn and stay models are subsequently applied on test
features created from October to December 2011. The winback models are subsequently applied on 3-month test
features created from service termination within June and
December 2011. These models are directly applied to
existing customers or churners to predict label-of-interest
(churn or win-back) from January to March 2012.

2.3 Feature Extraction
This is the most time-consuming part of the data mining process,
especially to carefully craft, test, and tune the database queries
frequently. We spent the most effort on the service request tables
because common sense tells us that number of recent complaints
by a subscriber is directly correlated to churn and the database
codes in this table changed from May 2011. Surprisingly, the
service request features turned out to be the weakest features. On
the other hand, the least effort was spent on download usage,
upload usage, and billing tables and it turned out that they had the
strongest features.
Using shell scripts to collate the final database queries and
merge the query output, the original features and class labels are
automatically extracted from each table in the two MySQL
databases and stitched together using billing ID as common key
into flat files. Eventually, there are train and test files to predict
consumer churners and stayers, consumer win-back, as well as
two types of SME churners and stayers.
In addition to original features, we created some derived
features to capture dependencies for the stronger original features.
We extracted the differences between original monetary features
(for example, CURRENT_BILL_AMT and LAST_BILL_AMT)
and
between
date-time
features
(for
example,
ACTIVATION_DATE and CUSTOMER_SINCE), and others.

3. Imbalance Correction and Learning
After extracting the features for each customer, we readily form
the training and testing datasets based on our earlier mentioned
computational strategy. One critical yet common problem we
encountered is that our learning set is largely imbalanced and
undesirably favors the majority class, which is relatively less
important in this study. For instance, the important class of
churners always represents a very small percentage, as its size can
be hardly comparable to the large population of non-churners. But
learning why the existing churners have churned and predicting
who will be churners in the near future is the theme of this study.
Also in predicting the win-backs, we find that the win-backs in a
fixed period of only a few months often represent a relatively
insignificant portion as compared with the entire set of churners.
As standard learning algorithms often assume balanced datasets
and are designed to optimize the overall accuracy, their learned
model inevitably favors the majority class. To correct such

behavior, we perform imbalance correction through simple
sampling strategies and compare the predictive performance of the
standard learning techniques implemented in Weka.

3.1 Imbalance Correction
A large body of imbalanced learning algorithms have been
reviewed in a recent survey [5]. In general, one can categorize the
mechanisms of imbalance correction into two levels, i.e.
algorithm-level and data-level methods. As the former would be
tied to specific learning algorithms, we choose the fundamental
yet efficient data-level methods for imbalance correction, which
can be used together with vast existing learning algorithms.
Specifically, we choose both the random under-sampling and
repeating oversampling strategies for imbalance correction.
With random under-sampling, we randomly select a subset of
the majority-class learning data and use the entire set of minorityclass learning samples to form a new balanced learning dataset.
Here, balanced learning dataset in our context refers to a two-class
learning dataset comprising of equal number of instances from
each class. With repeating oversampling, we simply repeat the
learning dataset from the minority class multiple times so that the
minority class is augmented to a balanced population level of the
majority class. Note that many oversampling techniques were
proposed in the past [5, 6]. We choose the simple repeating
oversampling because our previous imbalanced learning
experience [6] finds that it is one of the best techniques to
optimize the precision score, which is required learning goal for
this challenge.
The under-sampling and oversampling strategies have their
respective pros and cons. That is, under-sampling requires
discarding the existing instances and this potentially removes
informative majority-class instances that are critical to define a
good decision boundary between the two classes. On the other
hand, though the over-sampling keeps all instances, it would have
to increase the size of learning dataset and is therefore less
efficient. In this work, we use the under-sampled balanced
learning set to perform classification model comparison and best
parameter searching. With the best model and parameters found,
we retrain our classification model using the oversampled dataset
for predicting the most likely set of churners or win-backs in the
near future, i.e. for preparation of the required submission files.

3.2 The Learning Techniques
There are a large number of standard classification tools we can
tap into for making predictions in about six groups, neural
networks, Bayesian networks, decision trees, Support vector
machines, instanced based and ensemble learning techniques.
Especially, previous churn prediction works [1-4] have used the
following tools including multi-layer perception neural network,
logistic regression, decision tree and survival analysis. In this
work, we are particularly interested in the tree-based classifiers
for the good interpretability of the learned models. We compare
an array of state-of-the-art tree-based classifiers implemented in
Weka, a popular data mining and machine learning platform.
Namely, these tree classifiers include ADTree, Decision Stump,
J48, J48graft, TreeLMT, RandomForest, RandomTree, RepTree,
SimpleCart, etc. For the promising tree-based classifiers we
found, we also use them in conjunction with ensemble learning
techniques such as bagging, ClassificationViaRegression and
Adaboost. These ensemble-learning frameworks are known to
reinforce the learning performance by reducing the performance
variations and enhancing the generalization performance.

2

Table I Comparison of Different Learning Techniques for Consumer Churn Prediction
ADTree

Decision
Stump

RepTree

J48

NaiveBa
yes

TreeLM
T

Random
Forest

Bagging
+Decisio
n Stump

Prec_1.

75.8

86.6

75.8

69.2

74.0

77.7

75.7

86.6

Bagging
+Simple
Cart
74.5

77.4

Clas.Via
.Regres
sion
78.6

Prec_0

70.8

59.7

71.4

70.0

69.1

71.9

69.7

59.7

72.7

72.2

71.0

Accu.

73.0

65.3

73.4

69.6

71.3

74.5

72.3

65.4

73.6

74.5

74.2

SimpleC
art

Prec_1: Precision for churner prediction; Prec_0: Precision for non-churner prediction
Accu.: Accuracy rate for classification of churners and non-churners

Table II Comparison of Different Learning Techniques for Consumer Win-Back Prediction
ADTree

Decision
Stump

RepTree

J48

NaiveBa
yes

TreeLM
T

Random
Forest

Bagging
+BF
Tree

Prec_1.

67.7

59.8

66.0

63.2

64.6

68.1

67.3

65.3

Bagging
+LadTre
e
67.1

Prec_0

66.0

64.7

65.5

62.7

63.9

67.7

63.2

66.8

Accu.

66.8

60.7

65.8

63.0

64.2

67.9

65.0

66.0

67.8

Clas.Via
.Regres
sion
68.8

67.2

69.6

67.7

67.2

67.2

68.2

SimpleC
art

Prec_1: Precision for win-back prediction; Prec_0: Precision for churner prediction
Accu.: Accuracy rate for classification of win-backs and churners

Table III Comparison of Different Learning Techniques for SME Churn Prediction for Voice Services Only
ADTr
ee

Decisio
n Stump

FT

J48

J48graft

LADTre
e

NBTre
e

Rando
mForest

Rando
mTree

RepTre
e

Simple
Cart

Prec_1.

80.3

93.4

80.3

78.1

78.3

79.5

74.3

83.9

76.3

78.7

77.0

Clas.Via.
Regressi
on
81.8

Prec_0

71.0

63.9

71

76.5

76.6

72.4

73.0

79.9

73.7

73.1

75.5

75.3

Accu.

74.8

71.1

74.8

77.3

77.4

75.5

73.6

81.8

74.8

75.6

76.2

77.1

Prec_1: Precision for churner prediction; Prec_0: Precision for non-churner prediction
Accu.: Accuracy rate for classification of churners and non-churners

Table IV Comparison of Different Learning Techniques for SME Churn Prediction for Voice & Broadband Services
ADTr
ee

Decisio
n Stump

FT

J48

J48graft

LADTre
e

NBTre
e

Rando
mForest

Bagging
Simple
Cart

Prec_1.

73.5

74

67.5

70.6

71.1

77.4

68.8

75.3

74.2

Bagging
+RepTr
ee
71.9

Prec_0

67.2

62.7

67.9

70.5

70.8

65.6

68.8

71.0

72.7

Accu.

69.8

66.6

67.7

70.5

70.9

69.8

68.8

73.0

73.4

72.4

Clas.Via.
Regressi
on
70.2

70.6

70.1

71.4

71.2

71.2

70.8

Simple
Cart

Prec_1: Precision for churner prediction; Prec_0: Precision for non-churner prediction
Accu.: Accuracy rate for classification of churners and non-churners

4. Problem definition
Here is a list of prediction problems we have considered.
1. Predict potential consumer churners.
2. Predict most loyal consumers – those who are least
likely to churn.
3. Predict consumer win-backs - ex-consumers who are
likely to come back as customers.
4. Predict potential SME churners for voice services only.
5. Predict most loyal SME customers for voice services
only.
6. Predict potential SME churners subscribing both voice
and broadband services.
7. Predict most loyal SME customers subscribing both
voice and broadband services.

5. Experimental Results
We use the under-sampled data obtained from Month 8 to Month
10 as our training data. We perform 10-fold experiments on a list
of classifiers to find the best classier which achieves the highest
precision result. The list of classifiers includes: LADTree,
Decision Stump, RepTree, J48, NaiveBayes, TreeLMT,
RandomForest,
Bagging+BF
Tree,
Bagging+LADTree,
SimpleCart, ClassificationViaRegression. Based on the
comparison results in Table I to IV, we select and apply the best
learning algorithm for each problem, as shown in Table V.
Besides the comparison results, we have also tabulated the top-15
features in Table VI that best predict the near-future churners. It
shows the utilization and payment patterns in the most recent
months that are highly indicative of whether a consumer would
churn soon. As an example, we have also illustrated an Alternate
Decision Tree (ADTree) model in Fig. 1 that we have learned
from the consumer churn prediction with several other influential
features used.

3

Table V Best Algorithm and Its Result for Each Problem
Problem
(see Section 4)

Classification Algorithm

Precision (%)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

SimpleCart
SimpleCart
LADTree
Decision Stump
RandomForest
LADTree
ClassificationViaRegression

77.4
72.2
67.7
93.4
79.9
77.4
71.4

Table VI Ranking of Top-15 Features that Best Predicts Consumer
Churn
Feature

Description

DL1110
UL1110

Download volume in Oct (in MB)
Upload volume in Oct (in MB)
Average download volume for 3 months
(Aug, Sep, Oct)
Average upload volume for 3 months
(Aug, Sep, Oct)
Download volume in Sep (in MB)
Upload volume in Sep (in MB)
Average amount to pay
(Aug, Sep, Oct)
Average outstanding amount
(Aug, Sep, Oct)
Average payment made
(Aug, Sep, Oct)
Difference between AMT_2PAY_avg
and Price_Start
Difference between
CURRENT_BILL_AMT_avg
and LAST_BILL_AMT_avg
Average last month bill amount
(Aug, Sep, Oct)
Download volume in Aug (in MB)
Upload volume in Aug (in MB)
Download volume in Jul (in MB)

3M_DL_avg
3M_UL_avg
DL1109
UL1109
AMT_2PAY_avg
OUTSTANDING_avg
PAYMENT_avg
DIFF_AMT_2PAY
_PRICE_START
DIFF_CURRENT_LAST
_BILL_AMT_avg
LAST_BILL_AMT_avg
DL1108
UL1108
DL1107

6. Discussion
In this work, we presented the strategies and techniques that we
have developed for predicting the near-future churners and winbacks for a telecom company. On a large-scale and real-world
database containing customer profiles and some transaction data
from a telecom company, we first analyzed the data schema,
developed feature computation strategies and then extracted a
large set of relevant features that can be associated with the
customer churning and returning behaviors. Our features include
both the original driver factors as well as some derived features.
We evaluated our features on the imbalance corrected dataset, i.e.
under-sampled dataset and compare a large number of existing
machine learning tools, especially decision tree-based classifiers,
for predicting the churners and win-backs. In general, we find
RandomForest and SimpleCart learning algorithms generally
perform well and tend to provide us with highly competitive
prediction performance. Among the top-15 driver factors that
signal the churn behavior, we find that the service utilization, e.g.
last two months’ download and upload volume, last three months’
average upload and download, and the payment related factors are
the most indicative features for predicting if churn will happen
soon. Such features can collectively tell discrepancies between the
service plans, payments and the dynamically changing utilization
needs of the customers. Our proposed features and their
computational strategy exhibit reasonable precision performance
to predict churn behavior in near future.

7. References
[1] E. Xevelonakis, “Developing retention strategies based on
customer profitability in telecommunications: An empirical
study,” Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy
Management, 12, 226-242, 2005.
[2] K.B. Oseman, S.B.M. Shukor, et al., “Data mining in churn
analysis model for telecommunication industry,” Proc. the
Regional Conference on Statistical Sciences (RCSS’10), 215-223,
2010.
[3]
A.T.
Jahromi,
“Predicting
customer
churn
in
telecommunications service providers,” Master’s thesis, 2009.
[4] J. Lu, “Predicting customer churn in the telecommunications
industry – an application of survival analysis modeling using
SAS®,” SAS User Group International (SUGI27) Online
Proceedings, pp. 114-127.
[5] H. He and E.A. Garcia, “Learning from imbalanced data,”
IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 21-9,
Sept. 2009, pp. 1263-1284.
[6] H. Cao, X.-L. Li, Y.-K. Woon and S.-K. Ng, “SPO: Structure
preserving oversampling for imbalanced time series
classification,” Proc. Int. Conf. on Data Mining (ICDM’11), pp.
1008-1013.

Fig. 1 Alternate Decision Tree (ADTree) Model for Consumer
Churn Prediction
4

