Question Bank › Winning more per swing than they used to — and t

Winning more per swing than they used to — and the change is recent, real, and still playing out

Calls Tested
482
Answered YES
6
Hit Rate
1.2%
rare by design

Digital Turbine, Inc. (APPS) — this company's answers

NO on the Q1 2024 call 2023-08-08 D
The model's full reasoning — Q1 2024 call → NOWe need to determine if management conveys a recent improvement in converting opportunities into actual won business at a higher rate/scale than its own recent past, with real events and still in force. Let's examine the transcript. The CEO Bill Stone discusses various aspects. He mentions "we were pleased that we beat the top end of our guidance range" but that's not about conversion. He talks about sequential improvements in financial metrics. He mentions RPD growth, but that's revenue per device, not conversion of opportunities. He discusses SingleTap: "we have now generated our first revenues with TikTok, who is running SingleTap campaigns for their advertisers... We are also launching this quarter with LinkedIn... And finally, we expect to begin a revenue generating pilot with another large social media company across their entire user base here in the U.S. later this calendar year." This indicates some wins, but is it a comparison to past conversion? He says "first revenues" and "launching" and "expect to begin" - so some are actual, some are future. But does he contrast with past? He doesn't say "we used to lose these deals" or "our win rate has improved." He just lists new customers. That might be evidence of wins, but not a self-comparison of improved conversion. He talks about DT Hub: "We've launched our first alternative app distribution products, which we brand as DT Hub with four operators here in the United States... and are generating revenue today." Again, that's a launch, but no comparison to past conversion. He mentions "we are seeing sequential improved ECPM rates" and "brand business show double-digit sequential growth" - that's growth, not conversion. He says "we have a strong global pipeline of expanding telcos and OEM relationships" - that's pipeline, not won business. He says "we are making progress against our longer term vision" but no explicit statement about conversion rate improvement. The question asks: Does management convey that the company has RECENTLY BEGUN CONVERTING ITS OPPORTUNITIES INTO ACTUAL WON BUSINESS AT A CLEARLY HIGHER RATE OR SCALE THAN ITS OWN RECENT PAST? That requires a self-comparison. I don't see any statement like "we are now winning more deals than before" or "our close rate has improved." The CEO mentions specific wins (TikTok, LinkedIn, etc.) but doesn't compare to past performance.

← Back to the full APPS analysis

Show the exact prompt the model was given
Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management convey that the company has RECENTLY BEGUN CONVERTING ITS OPPORTUNITIES INTO ACTUAL WON BUSINESS AT A CLEARLY HIGHER RATE OR SCALE THAN ITS OWN RECENT PAST — that when the company goes after orders, customers, contracts, projects, approvals, placements, or engagements, it is now landing them more often, faster, or bigger than it was landing them several quarters ago — AND does management ground this improvement in real events that already happened while indicating that the same improved conversion is still continuing right now? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent phenomenon with all three parts present: (1) A SELF-COMPARISON SHOWING IMPROVED CONVERSION. Management contrasts how the company is currently converting opportunities into won business against how it converted them before — for example: win rates, success rates, close rates, or hit rates described as visibly higher than the company's own recent norm; a much larger share of pursuits, bids, evaluations, trials, or discussions now ending in the company's favor; wins now arriving at a frequency, pace, or size the company was not achieving several quarters ago; business the company used to lose, miss, or fail to land now being captured; or management plainly saying that its efforts are producing more than the same efforts used to produce. The comparison must be against the company's OWN prior experience — not against competitors, the industry, or last year's market conditions. (2) THE EVIDENCE IS REAL AND ALREADY BANKED. The improved conversion must be demonstrated by things that actually happened in the recent period — actual wins, signings, orders, awards, placements, openings, or customers landed and identifiable in management's account — not by pipeline, interest, proposals outstanding, or management's confidence about future closings. (3) THE IMPROVEMENT IS PRESENTED AS STILL IN FORCE. Management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that this improved conversion is not a finished episode: further wins of the same kind are continuing to arrive, are in late stages, or are expected from the same drivers already at work — so the recent wins read as the early stretch of a changed trajectory rather than a completed burst, with reasons for the improvement attached to the company itself (its offering, capability, reputation, positioning, or execution) rather than to a one-time external event. Answer NO if management reports strong demand, growth, or good results without contrasting current conversion against the company's own prior rate of converting. NO if the claimed improvement rests on pipeline, quotes, proposals, or hoped-for closings rather than on business actually landed. NO if the improvement is attributed mainly to a one-time event, a single unusual deal, an easy comparison, seasonality, or a temporary condition management expects to fade. NO if management describes the run of wins as concluded, slowing, or unlikely to continue. NO if winning at this rate is simply normal for this company and nothing about its conversion has recently changed. NO if the idea appears only in an analyst's question or characterization that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.

Companies that answered YES

TickerCompanyCallDateCall grade
NICE NICE Ltd. Q4 2023 2024-02-22 B+
IMAX IMAX Corporation Q2 2023 2023-07-26 B+
GVP GSE Systems, Inc. Q1 2023 2023-05-15 D
FAT FAT Brands Inc. Q4 2021 2022-03-21 F
TENB Tenable Holdings, Inc. Q2 2021 2021-07-27 A
LBTYK Liberty Global's Q1 2016 2016-05-10 C+

How the model reasoned

FAT · Q4 2021 → YESThe question is about whether management conveys that the company has recently begun converting its opportunities into actual won business at a clearly higher rate or scale than its own recent past. ...**YES** Management conveys an improved conversion rate through the statement that new construction and franchise sales are "stronger than we've seen in many years, if not ever," directly contrasting current performance against their own historical experience.
IMAX · Q2 2023 → YESThe question is about whether management conveys that the company has recently begun converting its opportunities into actual won business at a clearly higher rate or scale than its own recent past. ...YES Management explicitly contrasts current signings performance against its own recent past (84 YTD vs. 47 in all of 2022; 46 in Q2 vs. 13 in Q2 2022; 68 new systems vs.
LBTYK · Q1 2016 → YESThe question is about whether management conveys that the company has recently begun converting its opportunities into actual won business at a clearly higher rate or scale than its own recent past. ...**YES** Management conveys exactly this three-part phenomenon. (1) Self-comparison: They repeatedly contrast current conversion against their own recent past.

More from the question bank

This quarter could not have been described lBetting on a customer they cannot yet nameConversion calendar in handSecond wave already orderingGround-level proof points accumulatingInsiders still discovering the upsideAll questions →
Not investment advice. Artul.ai publishes AI-generated earnings-call quality grades and expected-volatility estimates — never buy or sell recommendations. We tested over 1,600 predictive hypotheses against 165,000 transcripts; the honest result, including what failed, is documented in our methodology.