The almost customer: a missed opportunity to enhance corporate success
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little attention has been paid to prospective customers who defect before buying. This paper examines the almost customer phenomenon. It reviews literature on service quality, customer satisfaction, retention, relationships, loyalty and defection. It also categorizes the causes of almost customer experiences into a series of themes. The almost customer phenomenon and its effects are presented in the context of implications for managers and for future research. The almost customer phenomenon may appear to be a study of early customer defection, but the almost customer defects before buying. The customer defection literature assumes that a firm has attracted customers. But, not every attempted transaction leads to a purchase. Sometimes, elements of the interaction have an impact on whether or not the individual buys. This paper examines defection before a customer becomes a customer. Reducing the incidence of almost customer episodes represents an opportunity for firms to optimize growth and profitability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it