The Effect of Customer Prioritization Strategy on Customer Entitlement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a widely held notion that customer prioritization strategies (focusing efforts on the most valuable customers) are profitable for firms. However, such increased focus consequently results in some customers receiving comparatively disadvantaged treatment. This paper performs three experimental studies involving 516 Canadian participants in 2018 to investigate how preferential treatment resulting from customer prioritization (CP) strategies relates to customer entitlement and subsequent customer retaliatory intentions. Results show that customers with strong brand relationships feel entitled if they have received disadvantaged treatment under a customer prioritization strategy. Such feelings translate into increased demands on the firm, culminating in an increased likelihood of retaliatory actions. Moreover, feelings of entitlement are exacerbated if these customers were invited to provide feedback in the creation of the CP strategy. For managers, findings indicate that customer entitlement increases for non-prioritized customers, and customer voice positively exacerbates the link between the strength of the customer brand relationship and customer entitlement. Thus, the reaction of nonvaluable customers must be measured in the development of CP strategies while encouraging customer participation in CP development may be inadvisable.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".