What 95%+ Client Renewal Rates Tell You About MLS

The Renewal Question Most Buyers Fail to Ask

When reviewing MLS providers, procurement departments typically look into the following areas: contracts, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), pricing structures, and references. Renewal rates never make it onto this list, which means they do not deserve sufficient consideration.

This is due to the following reasons: in the classical model of MLS, changing suppliers may not be easy, but it is definitely not expensive. A new supplier takes control of operations, duplicates what was done before, and settles in for a few months. All business continues to run seamlessly, except that, perhaps, for some time, functional knowledge may be lost.

Low switching costs mean that a high renewal rate implies only that the provider offers stable operations. That’s great, but it’s just a baseline performance level, not an added value.

On the other hand, when switching costs become structural, and this does not necessarily come from the concept of vendor lock-in, meaning that it took many years of cooperation to build certain capabilities, then a high renewal rate means something completely different.

This is precisely what a 95%+ renewal rate signifies when the average client relationship extends between eight and twelve years.

CLO’s Guide to Managed Learning Services For First-Time Buyers

Download Now

Why Eight to Twelve Years Is Unusual in MLS

Most MLS contracts operate on three- to five-year cycles. Renewing at the conclusion of Year 3 generally indicates that the provider fulfilled its contractual obligations. It does not necessarily demonstrate that the value of the relationship increased over time. Many organizations renew MLS agreements in much the same way they renew office leases: because the disruption of switching outweighs the inconvenience of staying.

Such relationships point towards a completely different client-provider relationship. Rather than merely renewing contracts, clients deepen the partnership over time by expanding into strategic collaboration. What begins as operational outsourcing gradually evolves into integrated organizational alignment.

Let us examine the underlying logic behind such relationships. In a global partnership within a pharmaceutical company, formed 18 years ago with only 20,000 employees in five countries, the current numbers stand at 120,000 employees in 140 countries, with $15 million saved annually and a 61% reduction in cost per learner. This evolution involved moving from the traditional model to process redesign and intelligence-driven operations, all of which created value for further expansion.

In another example, an oil and gas company initially partnered with the provider for content development and later expanded to include other service lines in learning and development. As a result, they saved $8.7 million in a single year. In yet another instance, a life sciences company developed a 12-year partnership that achieved 30% cost optimization across hundreds of thousands of service requests. On the other hand, a technology infrastructure organization running 260 data centers reduced costs by 25%.

These renewals are not driven by inertia. Rather, they are sustained by compounding returns. As the engagement matures, the underlying operational architecture becomes increasingly intelligent and strategically valuable.

The Compound Value Curve

This is where the mechanics behind the number matter.

In an intelligence-enabled MLS system, patterns are detected continuously whenever the organization conducts an operation. It can recognize which types of content work best for certain audiences, which vendor-audience partnerships yield better results, which scheduling approaches improve attendance rates, and which skill development programs enhance performance levels. Every new piece of information will help build the intelligence layer and enable better predictions with each operation performed by the organization.

The path is predictable. Within the first six months, 20-35% efficiency improvements will be achieved through integration and the formation of operational patterns. From months seven through twelve, efficiency gains will amount to 40-60% due to the development of the intelligence layer and improved predictions. Following months between thirteen through twenty-four, the percentage will be within 80-90%.

In about 18 to 24 months, an intelligence layer will be established based on the company’s operations, established patterns, and acquired knowledge. Competitors would need many years of operation and comparable data to reach the same level.

And here we have the answer to why companies stay with these providers for so long: not because of any contracts that restrict leaving, but because the alliance itself becomes an asset that grows over time. Moving to another provider would mean starting the learning curve from scratch.

This is why the “How to Evaluate Your MLS Vendor” guide emphasizes that the accumulation of value makes leaving a choice but not a necessity.

Implications for Evaluators

Organizations assessing MLS vendors will be justified in their skepticism regarding renewal rates. Such skepticism is assured. Nevertheless, several questions can be asked to distinguish between operational satisfaction and true compound value creation.

First, an organization should investigate longevity in terms of the relationship, not the contract. Vendors who speak about a period of three to five years are talking about contract length. Vendors who report a period of eight to twelve years have had a much more successful strategic relationship. This difference is important.

Secondly, the organizations must be aware of how year 5 differed from year 1. When considering conventional MLS implementations, the vendor’s efficiencies are often highlighted; in projects that use intelligence, references to expanded intelligence, additional data resources, and improved predictive capabilities are essential. If the vendor fails to do so, it means that the impressive renewal rates are due to satisfaction levels, not compounded gains.

Lastly, here is the question that evaluators ought to ask: “At eighteen months after implementation, what kind of organizational capability will be there, which cannot be replicated easily by any competitor?” If the answer includes only operational efficiency, lower costs, and learner satisfaction, then similar results could have been achieved by competitors in a fairly short time.

But when the answer centers on organizational intelligence that constantly improves through interactions, the vendor operates on an entirely different plane. Finally, organizations should clarify issues surrounding data ownership.

Compound value benefits the client only when the client retains ownership of the resulting intelligence and operational insights. If the provider controls the underlying data models, the competitive advantage primarily protects the vendor rather than the organization itself. In an effective model, the organization retains ownership of its operational intelligence, while the enabling architecture may even be licensed independently if desired.

Industry Context

This 95%+ renewal rate reflects a broader pattern of sustained performance and long-term client value. It has 29 years of operations, over 300 Fortune 500 change engagements, and support services for over 2 million people. These achievements have been confirmed by industry recognitions from Brandon Hall, Training Industry, Fosway Group, and the Learning Performance Institute (LPI).

Even though such achievements have been validated through industry awards, what sustains clients over eight to twelve years is much more than that. Industry recognitions verify operational expertise. Compound intelligence breeds dependency—the kind of organization that chooses to remain engaged because quitting the partnership means foregoing years of operations learning.

The Central Strategic Question

In the end, a decision must be made between the two approaches. One of those approaches delivers operational efficiency. This means reliability, meeting of SLAs, and lower cost structures. The transition to another service provider would lead to disruption when the contract ends. In this approach, renewal will mean more convenience for the organization.

The other approach delivers incremental strategic value. It involves integrating the system, understanding operations, validating results, and continuous improvement through interaction. Regarding renewal, the organization must decide whether it is worth discontinuing a strategically valuable intelligence capability.

A 95%+ renewal rate reveals which model is under consideration. The more important question is whether organizations are evaluating MLS providers solely for operational reliability or for the strategic value the partnership may compound over the next five years.

About the Author

Ravi Dhaka is Director of Marketing at Infopro Learning. Infopro Learning is a global learning solutions partner that helps organizations transform their workforce development from strategy to scale. For 30 years, they have partnered with the world’s largest and most reputable companies, delivering Managed Learning Services, Leadership Development, Strategic Advisory, and Content Development solutions. Leveraging AI-driven innovation, they help organizations deliver greater impact while optimizing costs. With offices around the world, Infopro Learning is widely recognized as an industry thought leader, earning accolades from Brandon Hall Group, Nelson Hall, Training Industry, The Fosway Group, and the Learning Performance Institute.