The family called in March and moved in the following February.

An adult daughter calls, tours three communities, talks to her brother, and a parent moves in eleven months later.

That means the contact detail on the enquiry and the contact detail on the resident record are frequently different people, and a naive match loses most of the file.

Exporting the enquirer's details onto the resident record — or keeping the family contact on both — is what makes this measurable at all.

Where both are present the report matches on either, and reports which key joined, so a low match rate is visible as a data problem rather than as a channel producing nothing.

This is the single most common reason senior living attribution fails, and it is a field on a form rather than a technology problem.

A move-in is not a sale of a fixed amount: it is a monthly fee for a stay that may run months or years, at a care level that usually rises.

Ranking sources on the first month understates every one of them equally and tells you nothing about which produced residents who stayed.

Summing by resident across the window gives the honest figure, and keeping the care level lets a rise in acuity be read as revenue rather than as noise.

It also makes length of stay comparable by source, which is a real and uncomfortable finding: sources that fill beds fastest do not always fill them longest.

Nothing here predicts a stay. It reports what residents from each source actually billed.

Referral and placement services produce a substantial share of move-ins and charge a fee that is often a month's rent or more.

Because that fee is deducted rather than invoiced by a marketing platform, it sits outside the marketing budget and is rarely compared with what a paid campaign costs per move-in.

Putting it beside revenue per move-in makes the comparison real, and the answer depends entirely on length of stay: a large fee on a three-year resident is cheap and on a four-month one is not.

That calculation is the whole placement-agency decision and almost nobody runs it, because the two numbers live in different systems.

The report puts them in one place and leaves the conclusion to the operator.

Tours booked is available weekly, so it is what gets reported, and it correlates with move-ins far more weakly than anyone expects.

A source producing willing tourers and few move-ins scores well on it indefinitely, and nothing inside the funnel contradicts that.

Revenue per enquiry over eighteen months reorders the list, usually vindicating a slower source that the tour metric had buried.

Both numbers are shown side by side, because the gap between them is itself the finding and is often about the community rather than the channel.