Does (customer data) size matter? Generating valuable customer insights with less customer relationship risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Customer surveillance is a pervasive marketing practice that involves the collection, usage, and storage of customers' data from transactions, loyalty programs, and social media. Customer data are valuable to firms in gaining or maintaining an edge over competitors by developing superior customer insights that may assist product or service innovations. However, customer surveillance practices also risk customer relationships by potentially activating privacy and data security concerns. This article explores customer insight strategies that focus customer surveillance by assessing the insight value of data sources to avoid unnecessary data collection and capture. Three prediction experiments show that three distinct data source attributes, namely data quantity , data detail , and data content , are diagnostic of the prediction accuracy of customer psychographic characteristics and behavioral intentions. By demonstrating that customer insights are more (or less) valuable when derived from different data sources, this article shows that “more” data is not necessarily better. We advocate a smarter approach to customer surveillance practices that are selective in choosing to capture customer data that can yield more accurate customer insights while reducing the risk of jeopardizing customer relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".