Advertisement

Dynamic customer interdependence

  • Jonathan Z. ZhangEmail author
Original Empirical Research
First Online:

Abstract

In managing today’s customer base, firms need to consider not only interactions with customers but also interactions among customers. Much like the interactions between customers and firms, the interactions among customers are dynamic in nature and thus create a dynamic structure of preference interdependencies between customers. This research proposes a Bayesian spatio-temporal model that simultaneously captures the effects of the interactions between customers and the firm, the static interdependence due to customers’ inherent similarities, and the dynamic interdependence arising from observed interactions among customers. The model is applied to a rich dataset of university alumni donation and event attendance spanning 27 years. The results yield significant static and dynamic interdependence among the group as well as synergistic effects between static and dynamic structures. This research demonstrates that not accounting for such interdependence, when such interdependence exists, would provide a biased view of firms' marketing effectiveness, yield inferior prediction of customer behaviors in group settings, and miss opportunities to develop group marketing strategies.

Keywords

CRM models Bayesian models Econometric models Group marketing Charitable giving Customer dynamic behaviors 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Supplementary material

11747_2019_627_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (236 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 235 kb)

References

  1. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19–34.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.Google Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.Google Scholar
  4. Andreoni, J., & Scholz, J. K. (1998). An econometric analysis of charitable giving with interdependent preferences. Economic Inquiry, 36(3), 410–428.Google Scholar
  5. Anselin, L. (2002). Under the hood issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agricultural Economics, 27(3), 247–267.Google Scholar
  6. Arnett, D. B., German, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The Case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 89–105.Google Scholar
  7. Arora, N., & Allenby, G. M. (1999). Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 476–487.Google Scholar
  8. Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). What determines alumni generosity? Economics of Education Review, 15(1), 75–81.Google Scholar
  9. Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, D. R., & Song, S. (2007). Neighborhood effects and trial on the internet: Evidence from online grocery retailing. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5(4), 361–400.Google Scholar
  11. Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 206–215.Google Scholar
  12. Case, A. C. (1991). Spatial patterns in household demand. Econometrica, 59(4), 953–965.Google Scholar
  13. Chib, S. (1992). Bayesian inference in the Tobit censoredregression model. Journal of Econometrics, 51, 79–90.Google Scholar
  14. Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 198–211.Google Scholar
  15. CMO Survey (2018), “Highlights and Insights”, www.cmosurvey.org/results/august-2018.
  16. CNN (2018), “Why Dolce and Gabbana’s China blunder could be such a disaster”, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/24/business/dolce-gabbana-china/index.html.
  17. Cressie, N. (2015). Statistics for spatial data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Dolbec, P. Y., & Fischer, E. (2015). Refashioning a field? Connected consumers and institutional dynamics in markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1447–1468.Google Scholar
  19. Epp, A. M., & Price, L. L. (2011). Designing solutions around customer network identity goals. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 36–54.Google Scholar
  20. Feldstein, M., & Clotfelter, C. (1976). Tax incentives and charitable contributions in the United States: A microeconometric analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 5(1–2), 1–26.Google Scholar
  21. Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7, 457–511.Google Scholar
  22. Godes, D., et al. (2005). The Firm's Management of Social Interactions. Marketing Letters, 16(3/4), 415–428.Google Scholar
  23. Harmeling, C. M., Palmatier, R. W., Fang, E., & Wang, D. (2017). Group marketing: Theory, mechanisms, and dynamics. Journal of Marketing, 81, 1–24.Google Scholar
  24. Harrison, W. B., Mitchell, S. K., & Peterson, S. P. (1995). Alumni donations and Colleges' development expenditures: Does spending matter? The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54(October), 397–413.Google Scholar
  25. Hartmann, W. R., Manchanda, P., Nair, H., Bothner, M., Dodds, P., Godes, D., Hosanaga, K., & Tucker, C. (2008). Modeling social interactions: Identification, empirical methods and policy implications. Marketing Letters, 19(3–4), 287–304.Google Scholar
  26. Inside Higher Ed – “College and University Giving Rises 1.7%” (2017) https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/07/growth-charitable-contributions-colleges-slows-2016.
  27. Kozinets, R. V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 71–89.Google Scholar
  28. Krebs, D. L. (1970). Altruism: An examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 73(4), 258–302.Google Scholar
  29. Kurt, D., Inman, J. J., & Argo, J. J. (2011). The influence of friends on consumer spending: The role of agency–communion orientation and self-monitoring. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 741–754.Google Scholar
  30. LeSage, J. P. (2000). Bayesian estimation of limited dependent variable spatial autoregressive models. Geographical Analysis, 32(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  31. Li, X., & Zhang, M. (2014). The effects of heightened physiological needs on perception of psychological connectedness. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1078–1088.Google Scholar
  32. Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–542.Google Scholar
  33. Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115–136.Google Scholar
  34. McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.Google Scholar
  35. Muniz, A. M., & O'guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432.Google Scholar
  36. Netzer, O., Lattin, J. M., & Srinivasan, V. (2008). A hidden Markov model of customer relationship dynamics. Marketing Science, 27, 185–204.Google Scholar
  37. Newton, M. A., & Raftery, A. E. (1994). Approximate Bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Methodological, 56, 3–48.Google Scholar
  38. Okunade, A., & Berl, R. L. (1997). Determinants of charitable giving of business school alumni. Research in Higher Education, 38(April), 201–214.Google Scholar
  39. Pollak, R. A. (1976). Interdependent preferences. The American Economic Review, 66(3), 309–320.Google Scholar
  40. Risselada, H., Verhoef, P. C., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2014). Dynamic effects of social influence and direct marketing on the adoption of high-technology products. Journal of Marketing, 78, 52–68.Google Scholar
  41. Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.Google Scholar
  42. Schouten, J. W., McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2007). Transcendent customer experience and brand community. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(3), 357–368.Google Scholar
  43. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, T. E., & LeSage, J. P. (2004). A Bayesian probit model with spatial dependencies. In J. P. LeSage & R. K. Pace (Eds.), Spatial and spatiotemporal econometrics. Advances in econometrics, Vol. 18 (pp. 127–160). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  45. Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010). Brand community: Drivers and outcomes. Psychology and Marketing, 27(4), 347–368.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, A. L., & Martin, J. C., Jr. (1995). Characteristics of alumni donors at a research I Public University. Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 283–302.Google Scholar
  47. Thomas, T. C., Price, L. L., & Schau, H. J. (2013). When differences unite: Resource dependence in heterogeneous consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 1010–1033.Google Scholar
  48. Winer, R. S. (2001). A framework for customer relationship management. California management review, 43(4), 89–105.Google Scholar
  49. Willemain, T. R., Goyal, A., Van Deven, M., & Thukral, I. S. (1994). Alumni giving: The influences of Reunion, class and year. Research in Higher Education, 35(2), 201–214.Google Scholar
  50. Yang, S., & Allenby, G. M. (2003). Modeling interdependent consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 282–294.Google Scholar
  51. Yang, S., Narayan, V., & Assael, H. (2006). Estimating the interdependence of television program viewership between spouses: A Bayesian simultaneous equation model. Marketing Science, 25(4), 336–349.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of BusinessColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options