Archive | Web Analytics Articles

Tags: , , , ,

Dynamic Customer Management and the Value of One-to-One Marketing


Khan, Romana, Lewis, Michael, Singh, Vishal (2008). Dynamic Customer Management and the Value of One-to-One Marketing. Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 6. 17 pages, pp 1063-1079.

Reviewed by Jim Novo, 2010

Executive Summary:

The concept of one-to-one marketing is intuitively appealing, but there is little research that investigates the value of individual-level marketing relative to segment-level or mass marketing. In this paper, the authors investigate the financial benefits of and computational challenges involved in one-to-one marketing. They investigate the impact of customizing promotions on the two most important consumer decisions: the decision to buy from the store and expenditure level. The modeling approach accounts for two sources of consumers’ responsiveness to various marketing mix elements: cross-sectional differences across consumers and temporal differences within consumers based on the purchase cycle.

A series of policy simulations show that for an online retail business, customizing promotions leads to a significant increase in profits relative to current practice of uniform promotions to all customers.

Specifically, they find for this online retail business:

  1. Customizing offers based on purchase cycle (Recency or weeks since last purchase) contributes more to profitability than exploiting variations across consumers using previous transactional content (segmenting by purchase category, basket size, demographics, etc.). This is important because the computational burden of implementing the dynamic optimization to account for variations across consumers is far greater than accounting for purchase cycle.
  2. A substantial number of customers purchase without a promotion of any kind. Offering any promotion to these customers substantially reduces the profitability of a campaign, and targeting by purchase cycle is key to avoiding this problem.
  3. Free shipping tends to be the most profitable promotion for re-acquiring lapsed customers, whereas discounts are the most effective tool for managing active customers. Offering the “wrong” promotion (e.g. free shipping to active customers) substantially reduces the profitability of a campaign.
  4. Customizing offers by previous transactional content in addition to purchase cycle increases profitability further, with customizing at the individual level outperforming customizing at the segment. However, gains in profit using individual level targeting when accounting for costs might not exceed the gains relative to cost by segment targeting; outcomes need to be tested.

Review:

This is an incredibly rich study and I highly recommend a personal review for WAA members involved with online commerce. There is a ton of detail on how the different promotions affect response and order size, in addition to how these parameters interact with purchase cycle to variously contribute to profit.

For those not used to discussing purchase cycle as a segmentation variable, I offer this chart on purchase rate (not response rate) from the paper:

What you are looking at is a model constructed from actual test results. The model maps probability of purchase by 4 groups of online customers, by weeks since last purchase. Three of these groups are being offered promotions – Coupons, Free Shipping, and a Reward program. The Baseline group is offered no promotions.

Example: Looking at the Baseline (lowest) curve, with week = 0 being the last purchase date, and remembering these customers receive no promotions: about 3.3% of customers will make their next purchase 1 week later; about 5% of customers will make their next purchase 2 weeks later; about 5.5% of customers will make their next purchase 3 weeks later, and so on.

Please recognize that there is a “Natural” purchase rate, as represented by this “Baseline” group – those offered no promotion. This natural purchase rate peaks at about 4 weeks, and after 4 weeks of no purchases, the likelihood to purchase again begins to fall each week that no purchase is made.

Your business model has a chart that looks similar to this one. The peak may be different, the slope may be different, but the general characteristics will be the same. The Baseline group is often called the “control” group, and is simply a sample of the population that receives no promotion, which allows you to measure the natural purchase rate and revenue generated from these buyers.

The chart above shows what Marketers mean when they talk about “Lift”, as opposed to response. Let’s say the response to a campaign may be 8% from buyers 4 weeks into the cycle. If the natural purchase rate for people receiving a campaign is 4% at that same 4 week point in the purchase cycle, then the campaign is only responsible for generating 4% of behavior – literally 50% of the “response” to the campaign. The Baseline or control group tells you the natural buying rate and revenue generated from natural buyers in each point of the purchase cycle, which starts at last purchase date (week = 0 in chart).

This also means that when you do a financial analysis of your campaigns, you should only be taking credit for the Lift caused by the campaign. Said another way, the full cost of the campaign should be applied against only those sales the campaign is responsible for generating, in the above example, the 4% rather than the 8%. As you might expect, this cost allocation against the true performance of the campaign can dramatically affect profitability.

And this is why segmenting customers by purchase cycle contributes more profitability to a campaign than segmenting by transactional content like category, basket size, demographics, and so forth. The timing of the offer is a more powerful determinant of profitability than the content of the offer.

Why is this important to you?

Because if you believe in the power of interactive to “pull” customers in, if you believe that usability and customer centricity really matter, then it follows you should be thrilled to have a high natural purchase rate. In fact, increases in natural purchase rate can be used to prove that customer centricity drives increased profitability.

Logically, if you accept the above premise, “push” campaigns will encounter higher levels of natural demand as a business becomes more customer-centric. Which means that as your business becomes more customer-centric, you should rely on more and more on purchase cycle targeting to drive higher profitability.

Impact of Different Promotions

An example of how to take action on purchase cycles is represented in the study, where free shipping tends to be the most profitable approach for re-acquiring lapsed customers, and discounts are the most effective tool for managing active customers. Look at the graph above to see how this works.

On the left side of the graph, when weeks since last purchase are low, you can see purchase incidence is higher in the “Coupon” group than the “Freeship” group; the Coupon line is higher than the Freeship group so the delta versus the Natural buying rate is greater for Coupons than for Free Shipping.

If you follow the Coupon line down to the right, you can see it drops below the Freeship line at 6 weeks with no purchase and in the out weeks, closely approaches the purchase incidence of Natural buyers. This is happening while the Freeship group maintains a significant delta to the purchase incidence of Natural buyers. If the purchase cycle analysis for your business looked exactly like this one, what should this data mean to you? Primarily two things:

  1. In order to maximize purchase rate, customers who are offered Coupons and are non-responsive after 6 weeks should then be offered Free Shipping.
  2. Offering a Coupon after 20 weeks of non-response generates very little lift in purchase rate; virtually all the responders are Natural buyers who would have purchased anyway. This means you are probably generating negative profit after campaign and discount cost on these efforts.

I think it’s worth repeating again that purchase cycle (or more broadly, LifeCycle, to include analysis of any action including visits, log-ins, downloads, etc.) curves will not look exactly like this one for your business, and the optimal timing of switching offers by purchase cycle likely won;t be the same.

However, having seen these same types of curves many times over my 15+ years working with online businesses, I can tell you this kind of work is worthy of your attention and effort – and especially so if your company is actively working on becoming more customer-centric. The more successful you are in pulling customers back to you, the more attention you should pay to purchase cycle segmentation to drive company profitability.

If you believe a fundamental part of your business model is to be “interactive”, time since last interaction – perhaps you’d prefer the term “dis-engagement” – is one of those most powerful segmentation approaches you can use.

Related Readings

Measuring Engagement Series/ contains examples of measuring and acting on days since last action as a segmentation tool for Campaigns, Visitors, and Customers.

A single copy of the full journal reviewed above is available to members of the Web Analytics Association. To request a copy, email
.

14-Jan-10 8:00 AM
More: 
Dynamic Customer Management and the Value of One-to-One Marketing

Popularity: 22% [?]

Posted in Web Analytics ArticlesComments (0)

Tags: , , ,

Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test


Godes, David, Mayzlin, Dina., (2009). Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test. Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 4. 19 pages.

Reviewed by Jim Novo, 2009

Executive Summary:

The authors investigate the effectiveness of a firm proactively managing customer-to-customer communication. In particular, they are interested in proving how, if at all, a firm should go about effecting a meaningful word-of-mouth (WOM) communications program. This is done through two different data collection schemes: a large scale, 15 market test through BzzAgent with a client restaurant chain, and also through a controlled online experiment. The results are somewhat counterintuitive and may change the way web analysts and Marketers should be thinking about WOM and social analysis, particularly if there is a hard monetary investment in the WOM program.

Specially, the researchers are trying to answer 2 questions:

  1. What kind of WOM maximizes incremental Sales?

The answer: WOM created by less loyal (not highly loyal) customers, and occurring between acquaintances (not friends). Though perhaps surprising, this result is often found in Marketing program measurement; Sales would occur anyway without the program, especially among best customers. Said another way, the results demonstrate the pitfalls of not using control groups (people not exposed to the campaign) to accurately measure Marketing effectiveness.

  1. Which kinds of people are most effective at creating the WOM above?

The answer: “Opinion Leaders” or “Fans” are not as effective in spreading WOM that drives incremental Sales because these efforts are “preaching to the choir”, per #1 above. The networks that opinion leaders or fans have are likely to already know about the Product from pre-existing conversations, and spending money on creating a campaign to reach these people is ineffective because the social communication has already taken place.

In sum, if you want to invest in a WOM program that will drive Sales you would not have received anyway, you want the WOM conversations happening, as the authors say, “where none would have naturally occurred otherwise”.

As is typical of academic research and testing, there is an extensive review of the results of other WOM Marketing studies all the way back to the 1970s upon which the hypothesis for this test was formulated.

Review:

This is a classic piece of research that is not only helpful for the evidence and results produced, but also demonstrates a great many ideas and techniques that should be employed in Marketing analysis. Some of the concepts could very well be used to bring more precise definitions and measurement practices for WOM and the social construct in general to the web analytics community.

The discussion of the difference between the need for a persuasive argument versus building awareness is something web analysts should keep in mind so they can make sure they understand the real needs of the Marketer or Product Manager. For products with high awareness already, what is really needed to increase Sales in persuasion of the people already aware, not more awareness. New products with zero awareness obviously need increased awareness.

Per this study, this persuasion versus awareness question affects the choice of who to recruit for WOM campaigns. Loyal customers are the best persuaders and are best used when the product already has high awareness. If you want to drive sales through increased awareness – the goal of many WOM campaigns online – you should be recruiting less loyal customers and encouraging them to talk not to their friends, but to their acquaintances. This approach appears to be contrary to the “opinion leader” or “fan” approach now thought of as best practices. Because of this, a lot of books on social marketing may need to be rewritten, at least as they pertain to generating incremental Sales…

At the very least, some of the discussions around tracking or proving the value of social media need to change given the results of these tests. Seems to me a test like this that is carefully executed using the scientific method is what social advocates have been dreaming of, yet the results don’t lean in the direction these folks generally support. It will be interesting to read their reactions, if any. After all, many online Marketers really don’t care if programs generate profit and are more comfortable following the ancient offline mantra of “any exposure is good”.

As a practical implementation matter, the above suggests changes to the design of many WOM programs and any incentives provided, depending on the goal of the WOM program. The most common program structure – to look for opinion leaders that have lots of “followers” - generates more sales when the product already has high awareness, a situation that requires persuasion. Yet online, this program structure is often used to introduce brand new products. The implication is perhaps this: when launching a new product, the Social programs focused on Opinion Leaders or Fans should be implemented after Advertising has created awareness to maximize their effectiveness.

The more difficult question to answer from an implementation perspective is this: if you want to generate awareness, how do you recruit less loyal customers (not fans) and have them spread the word not to their friends, but acquaintances?

One answer to this question is forced by one of the brilliant ideas in the test design. The authors used BzzAgent in perhaps an unexpected way – not as the hip, cool people who are thought leaders with lots of followers, but as a group of people who were not customers of the product at all and are simply paid to spread the word. It is this group that generated the highest incremental sales.

The opposing group – best customers in the restaurant loyalty program – did not generate as much incremental Sales activity as the BzzAgent crew. This makes sense because among the loyalty program customers, most of their good friends probably were already aware of the restaurant through casual conversation. In other words, the available audience “to be made aware for the first time” was much smaller with loyal customers.

There were some non-controllable issues in the field test that may have affected the outcome, such as different demographics between the BzzAgent people and loyal customers of the restaurant chain. This is common in field tests, but contrary to what we usually see with success stories outlined in by vendors in the online marketing space, these issues were actively researched by the authors and completely disclosed, leaving it up to the reader to decide if these issues nullified the results in any way. Extensive mathematical simulations were run and the potential for any of these issues to significantly affect results discarded.

Personally, I would have preferred to see split market testing, where not all 15 markets in the chain were involved in the test and results compared to this not-involved control group. I’d guess the nature of the work done by BzzAgent and the operating methodology of the restaurant precluded this structure for the test.

Plus, the authors counter these challenges with a very clever solution - creating an online test where they completely controlled all variables. The design of this test was ingenious, but more importantly, the results confirmed those of the field test – the effectiveness of WOM programs depend a lot on whether a product needs awareness or persuasion to drive incremental Sales, who exactly is doing the buzzing, and to whom. Once again, generating conversations where they did not already exist is the key to driving incremental Sales, and this is most likely to occur when less loyal customers spread WOM to acquaintances.

At the risk of repeating myself but understanding the results of this study will be met with a lot of skepticism, this kind of effect is seen in Marketing measurement all the time, and especially so when Marketing to best customers. So the results are not really surprising in any way; it is often difficult to drive incremental Sales when Marketing to best customers because they are highly likely to buy anyway without any Marketing effort, and interactivity simply amplifies this phenomenon. The results of this study fit right into the existing model hand and glove.

The good news for online social buzz advocates is this: online WOM can drive incremental Sales – which is no surprise, given the decades of data from offline studies – and a scientifically designed and executed study proves that. The not so good news is WOM drives incremental Sales when implemented very differently than the way most people currently approach the challenge. The question, as always with Marketing programs like this, is did you make more money that you spent? I’d venture a guess there are a lot of “preaching to the choir” programs going on in social right now that are not profitable.

As a Marketing person, this is what the research means to me. WOM will spread all by itself among Opinion Leaders and Fans, so one should be careful with investing in this area and be clear that persuasion is the result, not awareness. On the other hand, WOM for awareness can be invested in when it’s somewhat intrusive, passed by less loyal customers to acquaintances. In other words, WOM drives awareness when the execution is similar to Advertising, creating conversations where they did not already exist. But this notion of “Intrusive Social” creates somewhat of a Paradox for many of the Social advocates who view intrusive practices to be “anti-Social”. One has to wonder if when it comes to generating awareness, Advertising might be the better way to go.

This research is a great piece of work from a couple of very creative analysts, and well worth your time to review. Also, a hat tip to BzzAgent for being so open with their practices and sharing the data for this very important study.

If you are primarily a Marketing person and more interested in the end Behavior than the Analytics, just skip over the Math sections, as these submissions are peer-reviewed and would not be published if the Math (or test design, for that matter) were faulty. As such, in your pile of research on Social, this piece should be given a lot of weight. Junk science doesn’t make it to publication in the academic journal world – as opposed to many of those blogs you probably read!

A single copy of the full journal reviewed above is available to members of the Web Analytics Association. To request a copy, email

.

21-Sep-09 10:00 AM
Read more: 
Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test

Popularity: 14% [?]

Posted in Web Analytics ArticlesComments (0)

Tags: , , ,

Conversion tracking with Google Analytics


There had been lot of requests from the people who attended the seminar of Google Analytics Conversion University to share the presentation. The presentation was done by Ravi from Tatvic and we are truly indebted to Neha Jain and Dinesh Jain for making this conference possible.

There had been lot of requests from the people who attended the seminar of Google Analytics Conversion University to share the presentation. The presentation was done by Ravi from Tatvic and we are truly indebted to Neha Jain and Dinesh Jain for making this conference possible. There was a great learning for everyone who attended there.

The presentation here is available for your review and you are welcome to share your questions, comments, thoughts on it.You can also click thru to slideshare and download a copy of the presentation.

Web Analytics India

Conversion tracking with Google Analytics

Similar Posts:



See the original post here: 
Conversion tracking with Google Analytics

Popularity: 18% [?]

Posted in Web Analytics ArticlesComments (0)

Tags: , , , ,

Xchange Web Analytics Conference 2009


In the past five years there has been enourmous growth in web analytics related events, starting with web anlaytics wednesdays, Vendor events like Omniture summit, WebTrends Engage, Emetrics and few more.

In the past five years there has been enourmous growth in web analytics related events, starting with web anlaytics wednesdays, Vendor events like Omniture summit, WebTrends Engage, Emetrics and few more.

I have been fortunate enough to attend few of these event travlleing all the way from India, However here’s a conference which is dedicated to Web Anlaytics Industry, and if you are a part of web analytics industry and want to a peak on what’s coming next, this event is certainly  a must attend!

Here’s the icing on the cake, for all our readers here’s a discount coupon “XCTATVIC”  which gives you 20% off on your registration, Get Started here

xchangeconference2009

The X Change conference is the web analytics industry’s premier gathering, specifically targeting experts and those practitioners who are serious about digital measurement. Past participants include Best Buy, Schwab, AOL, PayPal, Turner, Intuit, Yahoo!, Avaya, The Gap, and many more.

It was initiated in year 2008 with joint effort of Semphonic and Web Analytics Demystified with the aim of bringing together a selective group of the best minds in web measurement for in-depth conversation in a unique peer to peer format.

Three Reason to attend the Xchange Conference 2009

Founding Father’s Keynote Speech

This time X Change Conference Announces  its first ever gathering of the Web Analytics’s industry trailblazers Brett Crosby (Google), Matt Cutler (Visible Measures), Bob Page (Yahoo!), and John Pestana (ObservePoint) also known as “Founding Fathers of digital measurement” at X Change 2009.

Collectively, these four have had a hand in the vast majority of web and video measurement on the Internet. These “Founding Fathers Keynote Panel” members would talk about what they hoped to accomplish years ago, how they see the industry today, and where they think the digital measurement industry is heading.

Discussions in Huddles

X CHANGE is made up of small group conversations or “huddles” where participants join 12 to 15 fellow professionals and a facilitator who is considered as an expert in his/her field. Together they explore common problems and possible solutions. Choosing Huddle you want to be in is absolutely flexible.

It’s a fantastic opportunity to TALK and WORK in-depth with the best practitioners in areas they are most expert. Panel includes some of the renowned  web analytics professionals from AOL, Barclays, Best Buy, Charles Schwab, Discovery, Forrester, HP, Intuit, Kohler, Nokia, Turner Broadcasting and The New York Times.

Think Tank Training

It is a unique opportunity to leapfrog countless hours of training with our 1 day Advance web analytics training and definitely an unmatched opportunity unavailable anywhere else.
The aim of this conference is to provide a unique experience tailored to web analytics Professionals and  it would create unusual, personal, more reflective session for X Change’s deep, conversation-based explorations of the key issues in web analytics says “Eric Peterson co-sponsor of X Change Conference and CEO of “Web Analytics Demystified”

More information including registration and session details can be found online at xchangeconference or by calling SEMphonic at 800 763-2821

Web Analytics India

Xchange Web Analytics Conference 2009

Similar Posts:



See the rest here: 
Xchange Web Analytics Conference 2009

Popularity: 21% [?]

Posted in Web Analytics ArticlesComments (0)

Tags: , ,

Google Analytics Conversion University in India


GOOGLE ANALYTICS CONVERSION UNIVERSITY After a successful Search masters event early this year, For the first time in India, Google is organizing Google Analytics conversion university event at its office in Gurgaon India. Why and who should attend Do you have anything to do with digital media or online marketing?

GOOGLE ANALYTICS CONVERSION UNIVERSITY ga-conversion-university-web-analytics-india

After a successful Search masters event early this year, For the first time in India, Google is organizing Google Analytics conversion university event at its office in Gurgaon India.

Why and who should attend

Do you have anything to do with digital media or online marketing? Are you spending online? Are you responsible for Online Marketing ROI.  If yes then here’s a great event to understand how Google Analytics can help you with all your digital marketing needs.

The Agenda

The Agenda consists of presentations and insights from Google Analytics in house experts, In addition the first three Google Analytics Authorized Consultants in India would be presenting on various topic.

Jesse Nichols - Google, Mountain View - Guest Speaker
Jesse Nichols works on the AdWords Agency Team and is a “Guru” in both Google Analytics & Google Website Optimizer. He has been involved in various forms of Direct Marketing (online and off) for the past 6 years, and for the past 2 years has been working to increase adoption and an in-depth understanding of Google Analytics among online marketers.
His current role is split between managing relationships with prominent Online Marketing Agencies (Search & Digital) and connecting Agencies and Google Analytics through partner program. Jesse has a degree in Philosophy from the University of Michigan, and dabbles in photography and stand-up comedy.
Here’s an overview of the Sessions Agenda

  • Introduction to Google Analytics
  • Introduction to Partner Program and Google Analytics IQ
  • Guest Speakers
    • Vivek Bhargava - Communicate2 -  Google Analytics Enterprise Ready
    • Carl D’Souza - Interactive Avenues -  Integrating with Google Analytics
    • Ravi Pathak - Tatvic - Conversion with Google Analytics
  • Connecting the Dots: How Web Analytics Allows for smarter Business Decision
  • Google Website Optimizer
  • Webmaster Tools
  • Panel Discussion

How to Register:

You can register HERE

Note: The Registration is limited, the registration will be confirmed by Google a week before the event.

Where

Google India Pvt Ltd
8th and 9th Floors
Tower C Building No.8
DLF Cyber City
Gurgaon India
122002

This is indeed a great step for web analytics enthusiast and web analytics in general in India. So will you be there ? Drop in a comment.

Web Analytics India

Google Analytics Conversion University in India

Similar Posts:



Original post: 
Google Analytics Conversion University in India

Popularity: 30% [?]

Posted in Web Analytics ArticlesComments (0)

Advertise Here