Category Archives: Analytical Culture

Discovering Customer LifeCycles

Jim answers questions from fellow Drillers
(More questions with answers here, Work Overview here, Index of concepts here)

Topic Overview

Hi again folks, Jim Novo here.

Today, we’re asked for a simple definition of retention. Problem is, the data / biz model really creates the definition. Meaning, you gotta match the creation of metrics with the actual actions.  So I call for segmentation first so we can put some “actionable” stuff in the mix.

Make sense? Let’s do the “simple” (easy? maybe not) Drillin’ …


Q:  For an online retailer, what is the best way to gauge retention in its most basic and simplest form?  % of orders that are from repeat buyers?  % of orders in month 2 who are repeaters that first bought in month 1?

A: I would take direction on this from the actual results of campaigns.  Basically, at the point a customer no longer responds, they have defected.  Perhaps this averages 3 months or 6 months after 1st purchase, and there will be category or price segments within these “time” segments.  Retention is really measured by the defection.

Now, that’s not to say that % orders from repeats or the other one you mentioned are not valid, but I suggest you think about the specific  question you want answered by the metric you choose.  % orders from repeats, for example, is a common metric in mail order but is often biased by campaigns, e.g. if you ratchet up customer acquisition during a single month you poison your own metrics.

Continue reading Discovering Customer LifeCycles

Difference between RF(M) Scores & LifeCycle Grids?

Jim answers questions from fellow Drillers
(More questions with answers here, Work Overview here, Index of concepts here)

Topic Overview

Hi again folks, Jim Novo here.

Both RF(M) scoring and Lifecycle Grids use the same key predictive metrics – Recency and Frequency. So what’s the difference? RFM is a predictive “snapshot” at a specific point in time; LifeCycle Grids are more like a “movie” designed to be predictive over different periods of time. Another way to think of this: RFM is tactical, LifeCycle Grids are strategic.

You dig? Let’s Drill …


Q:  We’re a telecom company trying to get a handle on customer churn and defection, so we can come up with some programs that will hopefully extend customer participation.  We live in the no contract space, offering a service that’s an add on to wireless phone service, so we don’t have a good indicator as to when the customer relationship might end.

A:  Ah, yes.  Your business model is “built for churn”, as I said on my blog the other day.  The behavior then is more like retail, where independent decisions are made in an ongoing way, deciding again and again to purchase.

Q:  I think your LifeCycle Grids method will show best what is happening to our customers.  If using this method, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to do the RF scoring as customers are just going into cells based on where they fall in the Recency and Frequency spectrum.  Is that correct?  Is there any real  difference between RF scoring and the LifeCycle Grids approach?

A:  You are partially correct, they are two versions of the same idea – both are scoring using Recency and Frequency. The traditional RF(M) scoring where customers are ranked against each other is a “relative” scoring method used primarily for campaigns – it is tactical, an allocation of resources model. 

Continue reading Difference between RF(M) Scores & LifeCycle Grids?

Behavioral versus Demographic Data

Jim answers questions from fellow Drillers
(More questions with answers here, Work Overview here, Index of concepts here)

Topic Overview

Hi again folks, Jim Novo here.

Most businesses want their visitors or customers to “do something” – to take an action of some kind. Trying to drive action, businesses engage in marketing / advertising to reach “audiences” with their message.

These audiences can be quantified in a number of ways using Demographics, Sociographics, and Psychographics for the purpose of “targeting” the campaign. The idea is to make the campaigns more efficient by focusing resources on the types of people thought to be more interested in the product or service.

This is fine. But from psychology and actual practice, we know behavior predicts behavior and demographics do not. So given you want people to engage in a behavior, why would you not use behavior to target campaigns? OK? Let’s do some Drillin’!


Q:  Just finished my print out version of the latest Drilling Down newsletter, and came across what is probably your best quote ever: “You should be really most interested in what people do and why, rather than who they are, because behavior predicts behavior, demographics do not”.

A:  “Print out” version?  Are you implying my newsletter is too long?  You’re not alone… :0

Q:  Man !… I’m having the design department make a big banner and hang it next to the web analytics team cubicles…

A:  My favorite story on this issue: for years we thought the “best buyer demo” at Home Shopping Network was affluent women 50+.  I mean, you hear their voices on TV, you see their letters, you just know, right?  Then we did an enhancement of the database with what was then the most comprehensive and powerful demo package available.  And it didn’t look right, there were “too many young people”.  So we rejected it.

Continue reading Behavioral versus Demographic Data