Customer Lifetime Value: Marketing Models and Applications
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CUSTOMER LIFETIME VALUE: MARKETING MODELS AND APPLICATIONS Paul D. Berger Nada I. Nasr ABSTRACT PAUL D. BERGER is Professor and Customer lifetime value has been a mainstay concept in direct response Chairman of the Marketing Department at the School of marketing for many years, and has been increasingly considered in the Management, Boston University. field of general marketing. However, the vast majority of literature on the topic (a) has been dedicated to extolling its use as a decision- making criterion; (b) has presented isolated numerical examples of its calculation/determination; and (c) has considered it as part of the general discussions of profitability and discussed its role in customer acquisition decisions and customer acquisition/retention trade-offs. There has been a dearth of general modeling of the topic. This paper presents a series of mathematical models for determination of customer lifetime value. The choice of the models is based on a systematic theoretical taxonomy and on assumptions grounded in customer behavior. In NADA I. NASR is a doctoral addition, selected managerial applications of these general models of student in Marketing at the School customer lifetime value are offered. of Management, Boston University. ᭧ 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. CCC 1094-9968/98/010017-14 ■ JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING VOLUME 12 / NUMBER 1 / WINTER 1998 17 / 8S0F$$0258 12-24-97 10:12:38 dira W: Dir Mktg JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING INTRODUCTION Second, changes in technology make it feasible to understand and track customer behaviors in Since the early eighties, the field of marketing ways that were impractical, or even impossible, has undergone a major directional change in in the past (Jackson, 1995). both its theory and practice: a turn toward rela- Previous research in CLV has extolled the vir- tionship marketing (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). At tue of its use in a variety of marketing decision the core of relationship marketing is the devel- problems, primarily focusing on acquisition de- opment and maintenance of long-term relation- cisions or the acquisition/retention cost trade- ships with customers, rather than simply a series off (Blattberg & Deighton, 1996; Wang & of discrete transactions, achieved by creating su- Splegel, 1994). Determining or calculating CLV perior customer value and satisfaction. Ideally, was done solely by considering specific numeri- a loyalty that benefits both parties is fostered. cal cases. Researchers considered a particular One pitfall of this growing concern to maintain setting, with specific input parameters, and com- strong and long-lasting relationships, however, puted CLV to use it in the decision-making is to do it at the expense of profitability. Overly problem prompting the CLV determination. enthusiastic with the concept, many prac- In this paper, a systematic general approach titioners have gotten involved in losing relation- to the computation of CLV is offered. General ships. Relationship marketing is costly. It might mathematical models are provided to calculate not pay to maintain long-term relationships, at CLV in a variety of typical cases. The major con- least not all the time and not with all customers. tribution of this paper is that it is less context- Customers with low switching costs and short specific than previous discussions of CLV, and time-horizons might not be financially attractive that it provides general mathematical formula- to the firm (Jackson, 1985). tions of CLV, while additionally tying together Ultimately, marketing is the art of attracting the specific assumptions underlying a formula- and keeping profitable customers (Kotler & tion and, indeed, the formulation. Though not Armstrong, 1996). A company should not try to exhaustive, the cases treated deal with the large pursue and satisfy every customer. What makes majority of typical practices. The choice of cases a customer profitable? Kotler and Armstrong is based on both a systematic theoretical taxon- (1996) define a profitable customer as ‘‘a per- omy and on assumptions grounded in customer son, household, or company whose revenues behavior. over time exceed, by an acceptable amount, the In addition to the introduction, this paper company costs of attracting, selling, and servic- has four sections. First, we introduce a general ing that customer.’’ This excess is called cus- way to determine CLV. Second, we treat five tomer lifetime value (CLV). general cases, offering a mathematical model to Customer lifetime value should be an im- compute CLV in each case. Each general case portant construct in designing and budgeting a is followed by a numerical example. Third, we number of marketing decisions such as cus- discuss some managerial applications of the use tomer acquisition programs (Dwyer, 1989). Rec- of a general model of CLV. As an illustration, ognizing its importance, many researchers in we consider an example in which a general direct marketing have studied CLV and its man- model of CLV is used to optimize the allocation agerial applications (Dwyer, 1989; Hughes & of a promotional budget between Acquisition Wang, 1995; Keane & Wang, 1995; Wang & and Retention. Finally, we offer conclusions and Splegel, 1994). A growing interest in CLV is ex- suggest areas for future research. pected in other marketing areas for two reasons. First, at a time when marketing methods are becoming more interactive, from frequent-user- DETERMINATION OF CLV club services to web pages, it is not surprising Determining the CLV, or economic worth of that marketing talk begins to sound like direct- a customer, is, in principle, a straightforward marketing talk (Blattberg & Deighton, 1996). exercise. To calculate CLV, project the net cash JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING j VOLUME 12 / NUMBER 1 / WINTER 1998 18 / 8S0F$$0258 12-24-97 10:12:38 dira W: Dir Mktg CUSTOMER LIFETIME VALUE flows that the firm expects to receive from the plausible. DuWors and Haines (1990) use event customer over time. Next, calculate the present history analysis to measure brand loyalty. In the value of that stream of cash flows. In practice, customer retention model, a customer who however, estimating the net cash flows to be stops dealing with a company is considered as received from that customer can be a very chal- lost-for-good. Returning customers are there- lenging task. The questions to be answered be- fore treated as new ones. While this model fore making the necessary computations are not might be more applicable in cases where switch- always easy to handle. Carpenter (1995) calls for ing costs are higher and customer commitment taking a holistic view of what may come of the is a long-term one, other cases, where customers relationship with the customer while addressing may discontinue their purchase of a particular this issue. Answers to questions such as, How product or brand only temporarily, also exist. A many customers you can attract given specific migration model is likely more applicable in acquisition spending? How large will the initial such cases. sale to a customer be? What is the probability The CLV models in this paper include typical that a customer will buy additional products or cases of customer behavior. The two models of- services from the company over time? How does fered by Dwyer (1989) are considered. Cases 1, this probability change with the amount spent 2a and 2b, 3, and 4 below address customer on promotion? When will a customer stop buy- retention situations. Case 5 deals with a cus- ing from the company for good? are used as tomer migration model. Case 1 is the simplest inputs in the computation of CLV. and assumes yearly cycles of purchase. In many industries, the relevant purchase cycle is not one TYPES OF CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR year (Reichheld, 1996). Cases 2a and 2b are a direct extension of case 1, in which the cycle is Jackson (1985) groups industrial buyers into assumed to be shorter 2a or longer 2b than one two major categories: lost-for-good, and always-a- year. share. Her lost-for-good model assumes that a Profits per customer are not necessarily con- customer is either totally committed to the ven- stant per cycle. A major advantage in retaining dor or totally lost and committed to some other your customers is that the profits generated by vendor. In the second model, always-a-share, the them tend to accelerate over time. Reichheld customer can easily experiment with new ven- dors. Switching costs constitute a major factor and Sasser (1990) report examples of accelerat- in implying one behavior or the other. Dwyer ing profits in credit card, industrial distribution (1989) applied Jackson’s taxonomy in direct and auto servicing. Reichheld (1996, p. 39) at- marketing and showed its implications for life- tributed the acceleration in customers’ profits time valuation. A customer retention model is to four reasons. First, revenues from customers used to model lost-for-good situations. In this typically grow over time. For example, custom- model, a retention rate (or retention probabil- ers who newly acquire a credit card use it slowly ity) is estimated, traditionally based on historical at the beginning; in the second year, and subse- data. The retention rate is ‘‘the chance that the quently, if they stay with the company/card, account will remain with the vendor for the next they become more accustomed to using the purchase, provided that the customer has credit card and balances grow. Second, old (i.e., bought from that vendor on each previous pur- existing) customers are more efficient to serve chase’’ (Jackson, 1985, p. 18). and this usually results in costs savings. They do A customer migration model characterizes not request services the company does not have. the always-a-share case. In it, the recency of last Their familiarity with the company’s products purchase is used to predict the possibility of re- makes them less dependent on its employees peat purchase in a period.