Skip to main content
Log in

Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The tailoring of a firm’s marketing mix to the individual customer is the essence of one-to-one marketing. In this paper, we distinguish between two forms of one-to-one marketing: personalization and customization. Personalization occurs when the firm decides what marketing mix is suitable for the individual. It is usually based on previously collected customer data. Customization occurs when the customer proactively specifies one or more elements of his or her marketing mix. We summarize key challenges and knowledge gaps in understanding both firm and customer choices in one-to-one markets. We conclude with a summary of research opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While our terminology is consistent with that of others (e.g., Murthi and Sakar 2003; Syam et al. 2005), these terms are often used interchangeably in the literature.

  2. Sprint Nextel, http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ueContent.jsp?scTopic=personalized, Retrieved on Aug 10, 2007.

  3. “Personalized Marketing Software Overcomes Demand Generation Challenges in the Business-to-Consumer Marketplace,” http://www.l2soft.com/Case_Portola.pdf, Retrieved on Aug 09, 2007.

  4. Infoworld—December 13, 1999, Retrieved on Aug 9, 2007.

  5. E-week Business magazine—November 27, 2000, Retrieved on Aug 9, 2007.

  6. Mass-customization in clothing, http://www.mass-customization.de/case.htm, retrieved on August 10, 2007.

  7. Mass-customization and open innovation news, March 2006, http://mass-customization.blogs.com/mass_customization_open_i/furniture_home/index.html, retrieved on August 09, 2007.

  8. Service customization—February 28, 2007, http://mass-customization.blogs.com/mass_customization_open_i/service_customization/index.html, retrieved on August 9, 2007.

  9. Collaborative filtering uses transaction data of related previous purchases as input and, all else equal, more transaction records render more relevant recommendations.

References

  • Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. The Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454 March. doi:10.1086/209080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Pricing of conspicuous goods: A competitive analysis of social effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., & Simester, D. (2007). Does demand fall when customers perceive that prices are unfair: The case of premium pricing for large sizes. Marketing Science, 27, 492–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, A., & Mela, C. F. (2003). E-customization. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 131–145. doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.2.131.19224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, N., & Henderson, T. (2007). Embedded premium promotion: Why it works and how to make it more effective. Marketing Science, 26, 514–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, C., & Piller, F. (2003). Customers as co-designers. Manufacturing Engineer, 82, 42–45 (August–September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bester, H., & Petrakis, E. (1996). Coupons and oligopolistic price discrimination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 14, 227–242. doi:10.1016/0167-7187(94)00469-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. The Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217. doi:10.1086/209535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. J., & Thomas, J. S. (2004). Customer intelligence is the catalyst for competitive differentiation. white paper, www.csc.com/solutions/customerrelationshipmanagement/.

  • Blattberg, R. C., Kim, B.-D., & Neslin, S. A. (2008). Database marketing: Analyzing and managing customers. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Iyer, G. (2002). Consumer addressability and customized pricing. Marketing Science, 21(2), 197–208. doi:10.1287/mksc.21.2.197.153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Narasimhan, C., & Zhang, J. (2001). Individual marketing with imperfect targetability. Marketing Science, 20(1), 23–41. doi:10.1287/mksc.20.1.23.10201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Zhang, J. Z. (2007). Dynamic targeted pricing with strategic consumers. Working paper. Philadelphia: Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhary, V., Ghose, A., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Rajan, U. (2005). Personalized pricing and quality differentiation. Management Science, 51(7), 1120–1130. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coussement, K., & Van den Poel, D. (2007). Improving customer churn prediction using emotionality indicators in emails as additional features. Working Paper. Ghent: Faculty of Economics and Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert, B. G. C., & Stremersch, S. (2005). Marketing mass-customized products: Striking a balance between utility and complexity. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 219–227. doi:10.1509/jmkr.42.2.219.62293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, P. S., & Purohit, D. (2002). Let me talk to my manager: The costs and benefits of haggling. Marketing Science, 23(2), 219–233. doi:10.1287/mksc.1040.0045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewan, R., Jing, B., & Seidmann, A. (1999) One-to-one marketing on the internet. In Proceedings 20th International Conference on Information Systems (pp 93–102).

  • Dewan, R., Jing, B., & Seidmann, A. (2003). Product customization and price competition on the internet. Management Science, 49(8), 1055–1070. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.8.1055.16401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23, 82–94. doi:10.1287/mksc.1030.0033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2006). Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of social information in electronic markets. Working Paper #06-09. New York: NYU CeDER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, G., & Tirole, J. (2000). Customer poaching and brand switching. The Rand Journal of Economics, 31, 634–657. doi:10.2307/2696352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghose, A., & Huang, K.-W. (2006). Personalized pricing and quality design, working paper. New York: New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häubl, G., Dellaert, B. G. C., Murray, K. B., & Trifts, V. (2004). Buyer behavior in personalized shopping environments. In C.-M. Karat, J. O. Blom, & J. Karat (Eds.), Human–computer interaction series: Designing personalized user experiences in ecommerce, vol. 5 (pp. 207–229). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Häubl, G., & Murray, K. B. (2003). Preference construction and persistence in digital marketplaces: The role of electronic recommendation agents. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1), 75–91. doi:10.1207/153276603768344807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. The Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 304–311 December doi:10.1086/508435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffler, S., & Ariely, D. (1999). Constructing stable preferences: A look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(2), 113–139. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0802_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Leclerc, F. (1998). Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together? The Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 175–186. doi:10.1086/209534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion? Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 491–513. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80105-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, G., & Pazgal, A. (2003). Internet shopping agents: Virtual co-location and competition. Marketing Science, 22(1), 85–106. doi:10.1287/mksc.22.1.85.12842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1989). The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies. Management Science, 35(3), 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S., & Lohse, G. L. (2002). Defaults, framing and privacy: Why opting in–opting out. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 5–15. doi:10.1023/A:1015044207315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives. Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339. doi:10.1126/science.1091721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity. Marketing Management, 10(2), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, T. (2007). The effect of measurement task transparency on preference construction and evaluations of personalized recommendations. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 224–233 May doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, T., Spolter-Weisfeld, S., & Thakkar, M. (2007). The effect of cultural orientation on consumer responses to personalization. Marketing Science, 26(2), 246–258. doi:10.1287/mksc.1060.0223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, P., & Hurter, A. P., Jr. (1986). Competition of firms: Discriminatory pricing and location. Econometrica, 54(3), 623–640. doi:10.2307/1911311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liechty, J., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (2001). Choice menus for mass customization: An experimental approach for analyzing customer demand with an application to a web-based information service. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 183–196. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.183.18849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linden, G., Smith, B., & York, J. (2003). Amazon.com recommendation: Item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Computing, 7(1), 76–80. doi:10.1109/MIC.2003.1167344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Q., & Serfes, K. (2004). Quality of information and oligopolistic price discrimination. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 13, 671–702. doi:10.1111/j.1430-9134.2004.00028.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurie, N. (2004). Decision making in information-rich environments: The role of information structure. The Journal of Consumer Research, 30(March), 473–486. doi:10.1086/380283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurie, N. H., & Mason, C. H. (2007). Visual representation: Implications for decision making. Journal of Marketing, 71, 160–177 January doi:10.1509/jmkg.71.1.160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J. G., & Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: Search costs affect competition on price, quality, and distribution. Marketing Science, 19, 83–103 Winter doi:10.1287/mksc.19.1.83.15183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malthouse, E. C., & Elsner, R. (2006). Customisation with cross-basis sub-segmentation. Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 14(1), 40–50. doi:10.1057/palgrave.dbm.3250035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morneau, J. (2000). Dynamic pricing: who really wins? TechWeb, September 29.

  • Murthi, B. P. S., & Sarkar, S. (2003). The role of the management sciences in research on personalization. Management Science, 49(10), 1344–1362. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1344.17313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neslin, S. A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M. L., Thomas, J. S., et al. (2006). Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 95–112. doi:10.1177/1094670506293559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, P. F., & Kambil, A. (2001). Personalization? No thanks. Harvard Business Review, 79(4), 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87–131. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1997). The one to one future. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppers, D., Rogers, M., & Dorf, B. (1999). Is your company ready for one to one marketing? Harvard Business Review, 77(1), 151–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, T., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2007). User design of customized products. Marketing Science, 26(2), 268–280. doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. E., McCulloch, R. E., & Allenby, G. M. (1996). The value of purchase history data in target marketing. Marketing Science, 15(4), 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W., & Richard, Z. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. doi:10.1007/BF00055564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, G., & Zhang, Z. J. (1995). Competitive coupon targeting. Marketing Science, 14, 395–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, G., & Zhang, Z. J. (2000). Pay to switch or pay to stay: Preference based price discrimination in markets with switching costs. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 9, 397–424. doi:10.1162/105864000567918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, G., & Zhang, Z. J. (2002). Competitive one-to-one promotions. Management Science, 48(9), 1143–1160. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1143.172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (2005). Determinants of customers’ responses to customized offers: Conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 32–45. doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.1.32.55512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295 August doi:10.2307/3172740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preferences. The American Psychologist, 50, 364–371. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. The Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 31–46 June. doi:10.1086/209033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syam, N., Krishnamurthy, P., & Hess, J. D. (2007). That’s what I thought I wanted? Miswanting and regret for a standard good in a mass customized world. Marketing Science, 27, 379–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syam, N., & Kumar, N. (2006). On customized goods, standard goods and competition. Marketing Science, 25(5), 525–537. doi:10.1287/mksc.1060.0199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syam, N. B., Ruan, R., & Hess, J. D. (2005). Customized products: A competitive analysis. Marketing Science, 24(4), 569–584. doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tezinde, T., Smith, B., & Murphy, J. (2002). Getting permission: Exploring factors affecting permission marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(4), 28–36. doi:10.1002/dir.10041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. The Journal of Political Economy, 112(1), S164–S187. doi:10.1086/380085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thisse, J.-F., & Vives, X. (1988). On the strategic choice of spatial price policy. American Economic Review, 78(1), 122–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulph, D., & Vulkan, N. (2001) Electronic commerce and competitive first-degree price discrimination. Technical report, University College London. http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/www.ecnv/welcome.htm.

  • Villas-Boas, M. (2006). Dynamic competition with experience goods. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 15, 37–66. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2006.00091.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, H. J., & Volomino, L. (2001). Harrah’s high payoff from customer information. http://text.usg.edu:8080/tt/www.terry.uga.edu/∼hwatson/ (Harrah’s.doc). Accessed 7 August 2007.

  • Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.4.1.42733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zauberman, G. (2003). The intertemporal dynamics of consumer lock-in. The Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 405–419 December doi:10.1086/378617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Wedel, M. (2007). The effectiveness of customized promotions in online and offline stores. Working paper. Baltimore: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niladri Syam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arora, N., Dreze, X., Ghose, A. et al. Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice. Mark Lett 19, 305–321 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9056-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9056-z

Keywords

Navigation