1、 外文翻译 原文 Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing Strategy Material Source: Journal of Marketing Author: Roland T. Rust The authors present a unified strategic framework that enables competing marketing strategy options to be traded off on the basis of projected financial return
2、, which is operationalized as the change in a firms customer equity relative to the incremental expenditure necessary to produce the change. The change in the firms customer equity is the change in its current and future customers lifetime values, summed across all customers in the industry. Each cu
3、stomers lifetime value results from the frequency of category purchases, average quantity of purchase, and brand-switching patterns combined with the firms contribution margin. The brand-switching matrix can be estimated from either longitudinal panel data or cross-sectional survey data, using a log
4、it choice model. Firms can analyze drivers that have the greatest impact, compare the drivers performance with that of competitors drivers, and project return on investment from improvements in the drivers. To demonstrate how the approach can be implemented in a specific corporate setting and to sho
5、w the methods used to test and validate the model, the authors illustrate a detailed application of the approach by using data from the airline industry. Their framework enables what-if evaluation of marketing return on investment, which can include such criteria as return on quality, return on adve
6、rtising, return on loyalty programs, and even return on corporate citizenship, given a particular shift in customer perceptions. This enables the firm to focus marketing efforts on strategic initiatives that generate the greatest return. The Marketing Strategy Problem Top managers are constantly fac
7、ed with the problem of how to trade off competing strategic marketing initiatives. For example, should the firm increase advertising, invest in a loyalty program, improve service quality, or none of the above? Such high-level decisions are typically left to the judgment of the chief marketing or chi
8、ef executive officers, but these executives frequently have little to base their decisions on other than their own experience and intuition. A unified, data-driven basis for making broad, strategic marketing trade-offs has not been available. In this article, we propose that trade-offs be made on th
9、e basis of projected financial impact, and we provide a framework that top managers can use to do this. Financial Accountability Although techniques exist for evaluating the financial return from particular marketing expenditures (e.g., advertising, direct mailings, sales promotion) given a longitud
10、inal history of expenditures (for a review, see Berger et al. 2002), the approaches have not produced a practical, high-level model that can be used to trade off marketing strategies in general. Furthermore, the requirement of a lengthy history of longitudinal data has made the application of return
11、 on investment (ROI) models fairly rare in marketing. As a result, top management has too often viewed marketing expenditures as short-term costs rather than long-term investments and as financially unaccountable (Schultz and Gronstedt 1997). Leading marketing companies consider this problem so impo
12、rtant that the Marketing Science Institute has established its highest priority for 20022004 as “Assessing Marketing Productivity (Return on Marketing) and Marketing Metrics.” We propose that firms achieve this financial accountability by considering the effect of strategic marketing expenditures on
13、 their customer equity and by relating the improvement in customer equity to the expenditure required to achieve it. Customer Equity Although the marketing concept has reflected a customer-centered viewpoint since the 1960s (e.g., Kotler 1967), marketing theory and practice have become increasingly
14、customer-centered during the past 40 years (Vavra 1997, pp.68). For example, marketing has decreased its emphasis on short-term transactions and has increased its focus on long-term customer relationships (e.g., Hkansson 1982; Stor-backa 1994). The customer-centered viewpoint is reflected in the con
15、cepts and metrics that drive marketing management, including such metrics as customer satisfaction (Oliver 1980), market orientation (Narver and Slater 1990), and customer value (Bolton and Drew 1991). In recent years, customer lifetime value (CLV) and its implications have received increasing atten
16、tion (Berger and Nasr 1998; Mulhern 1999; Reinartz and Kumar 2000). For example, brand equity, a fundamentally product-centered concept, has been challenged by the customer-centered concept of customer equity (Blattberg and Deighton 1996; Blattberg, Getz and Thomas 2001; Rust, Zeithaml, and Lemon 20
17、00). For the purposes of this article, and largely consistent with Blat-tberg and Deighton (1996) but also given the possibility of new customers (Hogan, Lemon, and Libai 2002), we define customer equity as the total of the discounted lifetime values summed over all of the firms current and potentia
18、l customers. Our definition suggests that customers and customer equity are more central to many firms than brands and brand equity are, though current management practices and metrics do not yet fully reflect this shift. The shift from product-centered thinking to customer-centered thinking implies
19、 the need for an accompanying shift from product-based strategy to customer-based strategy (Gale 1994; Kordupleski, Rust, and Zahorik 1993). In other words, a firms strategic opportunities might be best viewed in terms of the firms opportunity to improve the drivers of its customer equity. Linking M
20、arketing Actions to Financial Return Conceptual Model Figure 1 shows a broad overview of the conceptual model that we used to evaluate return on marketing. Marketing is viewed as an investment (Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1998) that produces an improvement in a driver of customer equity (for sim
21、plicity of exposition, we refer to an improvement in only one driver, but our model also accommodates simultaneous improvement in multiple drivers). This leads to improved customer perceptions (Simester et al. 2000), which result in increased customer attraction and retention (Danaher and Rust 1996)
22、. Better attraction and retention lead to increased CLV (Berger and Nasr 1998) and customer equity (Blattberg and Deighton 1996). The increase in customer equity, when considered in relation to the cost of marketing investment, results in a return on marketing investment. Central to our model is a n
23、ew CLV model that incorporates brand switching. Implementation Issues Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Data Our approach requires the collection of cross-sectional survey data; the approach is similar in style and length to that of a customer satisfaction survey. The survey collects customer rati
24、ngs of each competing brand on each driver. Other necessary customer information can be obtained either from the same survey or from longitudinal panel data, if it is available. The additional information collected about each customer includes the brand purchased most recently, aver-age purchase fre
25、quency, and average volume per purchase. The logit model can be calibrated in two ways: (1) by observing the next purchase (from either the panel data or a follow-up survey) or (2) by using purchase intent as a proxy for the probability of each brand being chosen in the next purchase. Contributions
26、to Theory and Practice We make several contributions to marketing theory and practice. First, we identify the important problem of making all of marketing financially accountable, and we build the first broad framework that attempts to address the problem. We provide a unified framework for analyzin
27、g the impact of competing marketing expenditures and for projecting the ROI that will result from the expenditures. This big-picture contribution extends the scope of ROI models in marketing, which to date have focused on the financial impact of particular classes of expenditure and have not address
28、ed the general problem of comparing the impact of any set of competing marketing expenditures. Our work is the first serious attempt to address this issue in its broadest form: the trading off of any strategic marketing alternatives on the basis of customer equity. Marketing Science Institute member
29、 companies have identified this research area as the most important problem they face today. 译文 市场的回报：利用客户权益为焦点的营销战略 资料来源： 营销月刊 作者： 罗兰 提出了一个统一的战略架构，竞争营销战略的选择是根据交易时基础经济回报的预计，这就是首先要改变在公司客户股本相对而言需产出支出的变化，改变公司客户的公平是根据农村变化的当前和未来的客户终身价值和总结所有的行业客户。每个客户终身价值范畴是用户购买品牌的平均数量和频率 ，并结合公司的边际贡献转换成采购模式。利用 logit 抉择模式，
30、可以预计品牌转换矩阵是从纵向面板数据或横断面调查数据。公司能够分析驱动程序的最大影响是比较管理者的实效和竞争对手的管理方式，和项目的投资回报率管理的不断改进。说明该方法能够实施在一个具体的，并表明公司环境的方法进行测试和验证了的模型中，作者揭示了一个应用在数据航空工业详细的方法。他们评价的框架是投资营销回报率 , 给定一个企业公民并且在客户的看法的理转变中包括标准质量回报，广告，忠诚度项目，甚至回报。这使得该公司努力集中营销战略举措，能够产生最大的 回报。 营销 战 略问题 高层管理者不断面临着一个问题，就是如何平衡竞争营销战略计划。例如，公司应该增加广告、投资一个忠诚卡，提高服务质量，这样的
31、高水平的决定都是简单的留给首席营销的判断或首席执行官，但这些高管往往很少有给以决定除了自己的经验和直觉。一个统一的、数据驱动的依据，宽泛的市场战略权衡没有可以得到。在这篇文章中，我们建议权衡的是，在此基础上提出了经济影响的预计，我们提供了一个框架，使高层管理者可以用它来做这件事。 财务责任 尽管技术评价存在经济回报从特殊营销支出 (例如，广告，直接邮寄、促销所支出的纵向 的历史回顾 )，看到的方法也没有产生任何一种实用的、高水平的模型，可以用一般的平衡营销策略。此外，冗长的纵向的历史数据已经使得应用投资回报成为相当罕见的投资回报率市场模型。因此，高层管理人员经常认为营销支出作为短期成本，而不是
32、长期无数财政投资 (舒尔茨， 1997)。带领管理公司在考虑这个很重要的问题是营销科学研究建立了其最高优先权，评估营销生产力的行销回报，以及营销绩效指标。我们提议公司实现这一金融责任是考虑市场战略的影响之客户公平，并由有关提高支出的股权客户来达到它。 客户权益 凝练了顾客观点。自 20 世纪 60 年代以来 , Vavra 1997 年提出在过去的 40年中营销理论和实践变得越来越以顾客为中心的。 Hakansson 1982 年和Stor-backa1994 年分别提出市场减少了短期交易并强调重点是提高了长期客户关系 (例如， 1980 年奥立弗提出以顾客为中心的观点是体现在概念和度量，推动
33、市场营销的管理，包括客户满意度度量。市场定位 (斯莱特 1990 年 )，与顾客价值 (博尔顿， 1991)。近年来 ,客户终身价值 (CLV)和它的含意收到关注 (柏格与纳赛尔 1998)， Blattberg 和 Deighton（ 1999）年提出品牌资产，一个全新的概念、产品受到了挑战的以顾客为中心的概念和客户股权，为实行本条的目的起见，赋予了新老客户的可能性，侯根 2002 年提到我们和李白定义客户股权对公司的现有的和潜在的客户作为一生的总额为贴现值。 定义表明 , 和品牌资产比客户和客户公平是许多公司的核心品牌，尽管现有的管理实践和标准还不充分体现了这一转变。产品想左右以顾客为中心
34、的思想意味着需要一个相应的改变，从战略到产品的生产依据， 1994 年成立，以顾客为根据策略。换句话说，一个公司的战略机遇从公司的机会来提高客户的驱动 因素权益看作是最好的方法。 营销活动将金融回报 概念模型 显示的更广泛的信息的概念模型，即我们用来评估市场回报。市场被看作是一个投资产生改进车手的股权，我们将一种改进只有一个管理者，但我们的模型可同时改进多重驱动程序 )。这导致顾客感知和导致客户增加吸引和保留。更好的吸引和保留导致增加的 CLV(柏格与纳赛尔 1998)和客户 Blattberg 和Deighton 股权 (1996)。增加客户的股权，在考虑到费用而言，市场投资回报，结果导致市
35、场投资。中央的模型计算模型是一种新的 CLV 品牌转换了。 实务上的横向与纵向数 据 我们的方法需要收集横断面调查数据，方法和长度，的风格相似的客户满意度调查等。每位管理者调查收集客户品牌和每个竞争的评分。在此调查中可以获得其他必要的客户信息，无论是从横向或从纵向面板数据，只要它是可用的。都要额外地收集每一位客户的信息，包括最近的品牌购买 ,平均购物频率，用 Logit 模型可校准的两种方法：在通过观察下次购买时特点或面板数据或跟踪调查；采用购买意向作为代理的各品牌在接下来的购买被选对的几率。 理论和实践的贡献 我们做出一些营销理论和实践的贡献，我们识别的重要问题是使市场经济有责任和我们建立第 一个广泛的架构，试图解决这个问题。我们提供一个投资回报统一的框架，用于影响的实证分析营销支出和基于竞争，这将导致从财政开支。这主要贡献范围扩展到市场何种模式到目前为止。它们都是集中在特定类别的支出和还没有考虑总的问题财务的影响比较任何竞争性的营销支出。我们的工作是在市场战略的基础上第一个认真的广泛形式尝试折衷的解决这一问题的，选择客户权益。营销管理科学学会会员公司已经鉴定出相关研究领域是最重要的问题。
