MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760694027 · doi:10.1287/msom.2017.0635

Customer Acquisition, Retention, and Service Access Quality: Optimal Advertising, Capacity Level, and Capacity Allocation

2017· article· en· W2760694027 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing & Service Operations Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationingComputer scienceCustomer retentionService (business)Service qualityProfit (economics)Service level objectiveQuality of serviceBusinessMarketingOperations researchService providerMicroeconomicsService designEconomicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem definition We provide guidelines on three fundamental decisions of customer relationship management (CRM) and capacity management for profit-maximizing service firms that serve heterogeneous repeat customers, whose acquisition, retention, and behavior depend on their service access quality to bottleneck capacity: how much to spend on customer acquisition, how much capacity to deploy, and how to allocate capacity and tailor service access quality levels to different customer types. Academic/ practical relevance These decisions require a clear understanding of the connections between customers’ behavior and value, their service access quality, and the capacity allocation. However, existing models ignore these connections. Methodology We develop and analyze a novel fluid model that accounts for these connections. Simulation results suggest that the fluid-optimal policy also yields nearly optimal performance for large stochastic queueing systems with abandonment. Results First, we derive new customer value metrics that extend the standard ones by accounting for the effects of the capacity allocation, the resulting service access qualities, and customer behavior: a customer’s lifetime value; her Vμ index, where V is her one-time service value and μ her service rate; and her policy-dependent value, which reflects the Vμ indices of other served types. Second, we link these metrics to the profit-maximizing policy and to new capacity management prescriptions, notably, optimality conditions for rationing capacity and for identifying which customers to deny service. Further, unlike standard index policies, the optimal policy prioritizes customers based not on their Vμ indices, but on policy- and type-dependent functions of these indices. Managerial implications First, our study highlights the importance of basing decisions on more complete metrics that link customer value to the service access quality; marketing-focused policies that ignore these links may reduce profits significantly. Second, the proposed metrics provide guidelines for valuing customers in practice. Third, our decision guidelines help managers design more profitable policies that effectively integrate CRM and capacity management considerations. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2017.0635 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it