RFM was initially utilized by marketers in the B-2-C space - specifically in industries like Cataloging, Insurance, Retail Banking, Telecommunications and others. There are a number of scoring approaches that can be used with RFM. We'll take a look at three:
RFM - Basic Ranking
RFM - Within Parent Cell Ranking
RFM - Weighted Cell Ranking
Each approach has experienced proponents that argue one over the other. The point is to start somewhere and experiment to find the one that works best for your company and your customer base. Let's look at a few examples.
RFM - Basic Ranking
This approach involves scoring customers based on each RFM factor separately. It begins with sorting your customers based on Recency, i.e., the number of days or months since their last purchase. Once sorted in ascending order (most recent purchasers at the top), the customers are then split into quintiles, or five equal groups. The customers in the top quintile represent the 20% of your customers that most recently purchased from you.
This process is then undertaken for Frequency and Monetary as well. Each customer is in one of the five cells for R, F, and M
Experience tells us that the best prospects for an upcoming campaign are those customers that are in Quintile 5 for each factor - those customers that have purchased most recently, most frequently and have spent the most money. In fact, a common approach to creating an aggregated score is to concatenate the individual RFM scores together resulting in 125 cells (5x5x5).
A customer's score can range from 555 being the highest, to 111 being the lowest.
RFM - Within Parent Cell Ranking
This approach is advocated by Arthur Middleton Hughes - one of the biggest proponents of RFM analysis. It begins like the one above, i.e., all customer are initially grouped into 5 cells based on Recency. The next step takes customers in a given Recency cell - say cell number 5, and then ranks those customers based on Frequency. Then customers in the 55 (RF) cell are ranked by monetary value.
RFM - Weighted Ranking
Weightings used by RFM practitioners vary. For example some advocate adding the RFM score together - thus giving equal weight to each factor. Consequently, scores can range from 15 (5+5+5) to 3 (1+1+1). Another weighting arrangement often used is, 3xR + 2xF + 1xM. In this case, scores can range from 30 to 3.
So which to use? In reality, there are many other permutations of approaches that are being used today. Best-practice marketing analytics requires a fine mix of mathematical and statistical science, creativity and experimentation. Bottom line, test multiple scoring methods to see which works best for your unique customer base.
Establishing a Score Threshold
After a test or production campaign, you will find that some of the cells were profitable while some were not. Let's turn to a case study to see how you can establish a threshold that will help maximize your profitability. This study comes from Professor Charlotte Mason of the Kenan-Flagler Business School and utilizes a real-life marketing study performed by The BookBinders Book Club (Source:Recency, Frequency and Monetary (RFM) Analysis, Professor Charlotte Mason, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, 2003).
BookBinders is a specialty book seller that utilizes multiple marketing channels. BookBinders traditionally did mass marketing and wanted to test the power of RFM. To do so, they initially did a random mailing to 50,000 customers. The customers were mailed an offer to purchase The Art History of Florence. Response data was captured and a "post-RFM" analysis was completed. This "post analysis" was done by freezing the files of the 50,000 test customers prior to the actual test offer. Thus, the impact of this test campaign did not effect the analysis by coding many (the actual buyers) of the 50,000 test subjects as the most recent purchasers. The results firmly support the use of RFM as a highly effective segmentation approach.
Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?RFM---A-Precursor-to-Data-Mining&id=1962283
RFM - Basic Ranking
RFM - Within Parent Cell Ranking
RFM - Weighted Cell Ranking
Each approach has experienced proponents that argue one over the other. The point is to start somewhere and experiment to find the one that works best for your company and your customer base. Let's look at a few examples.
RFM - Basic Ranking
This approach involves scoring customers based on each RFM factor separately. It begins with sorting your customers based on Recency, i.e., the number of days or months since their last purchase. Once sorted in ascending order (most recent purchasers at the top), the customers are then split into quintiles, or five equal groups. The customers in the top quintile represent the 20% of your customers that most recently purchased from you.
This process is then undertaken for Frequency and Monetary as well. Each customer is in one of the five cells for R, F, and M
Experience tells us that the best prospects for an upcoming campaign are those customers that are in Quintile 5 for each factor - those customers that have purchased most recently, most frequently and have spent the most money. In fact, a common approach to creating an aggregated score is to concatenate the individual RFM scores together resulting in 125 cells (5x5x5).
A customer's score can range from 555 being the highest, to 111 being the lowest.
RFM - Within Parent Cell Ranking
This approach is advocated by Arthur Middleton Hughes - one of the biggest proponents of RFM analysis. It begins like the one above, i.e., all customer are initially grouped into 5 cells based on Recency. The next step takes customers in a given Recency cell - say cell number 5, and then ranks those customers based on Frequency. Then customers in the 55 (RF) cell are ranked by monetary value.
RFM - Weighted Ranking
Weightings used by RFM practitioners vary. For example some advocate adding the RFM score together - thus giving equal weight to each factor. Consequently, scores can range from 15 (5+5+5) to 3 (1+1+1). Another weighting arrangement often used is, 3xR + 2xF + 1xM. In this case, scores can range from 30 to 3.
So which to use? In reality, there are many other permutations of approaches that are being used today. Best-practice marketing analytics requires a fine mix of mathematical and statistical science, creativity and experimentation. Bottom line, test multiple scoring methods to see which works best for your unique customer base.
Establishing a Score Threshold
After a test or production campaign, you will find that some of the cells were profitable while some were not. Let's turn to a case study to see how you can establish a threshold that will help maximize your profitability. This study comes from Professor Charlotte Mason of the Kenan-Flagler Business School and utilizes a real-life marketing study performed by The BookBinders Book Club (Source:Recency, Frequency and Monetary (RFM) Analysis, Professor Charlotte Mason, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, 2003).
BookBinders is a specialty book seller that utilizes multiple marketing channels. BookBinders traditionally did mass marketing and wanted to test the power of RFM. To do so, they initially did a random mailing to 50,000 customers. The customers were mailed an offer to purchase The Art History of Florence. Response data was captured and a "post-RFM" analysis was completed. This "post analysis" was done by freezing the files of the 50,000 test customers prior to the actual test offer. Thus, the impact of this test campaign did not effect the analysis by coding many (the actual buyers) of the 50,000 test subjects as the most recent purchasers. The results firmly support the use of RFM as a highly effective segmentation approach.
Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?RFM---A-Precursor-to-Data-Mining&id=1962283
No comments:
Post a Comment