Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 538–551 | Cite as

Including the effects of prior and recent contact effort in a customer scoring model for database marketing

  • Subom RheeEmail author
  • Shelby McIntyre
Original Empirical Research


Database marketers often use a scoring model to predict the likely value of contacting customers based on their purchase histories and demographics. However, when purchase history has been a partial result of the firm’s own contacting efforts, these contacts should also be accounted for in the scoring model. The current work extends the existing literature to account for the firm’s contacts by focusing on each customer’s most recent purchase. Contacts prior to that purchase are designated “prior contacts” and those after that purchase “recent contacts.” A new latent variables formulation of the customer’s propensity to respond is used to predict the likelihood and time of response as well as the relationship to the independent variables. The methodology also addresses the statistical problems of “selection bias” and “endogeneity,” which have been largely ignored in most customer scoring models. An application to the database of a charitable organization confirms that, in this case: (1) the effect of the firm’s customer contact efforts is associated with a stronger propensity to respond than is the case for the included demographics; (2) the firm’s “recent contact” efforts are associated with larger returns in customers’ propensity to respond than the “prior contact” efforts; and (3) the “recent contact” efforts are associated with an at-first increasing but then diminishing propensity to respond up to a point beyond which actual decreasing returns are observed with further contacts. Clearly, too much contacting can alienate would-be donors. The proposed model is general enough to calibrate such impacts in other database marketing applications where the relative effects might be different.


Database marketing Customer contact Customer scoring Selection bias Endogeneity 



We wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of four anonymous reviewers and the Direct Marketing Association for donating the dataset for our research.


  1. Allenby, M. G., Leone, R. P., & Jen, L. (1999). A dynamic model of purchase timing with application to direct marketing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu, A. K., Basu, A., & Batra, R. (1995). Modeling the response pattern to direct marketing campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bitran, G. R., & Mondschein, S. V. (1996). Mailing decisions in the catalog sales industry. Management Science, 42(9), 1364–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair, M. H., Rabuck, M. (1998). Advertising wearin and wearout: Ten years later-more empirical evidence and successful practice. Journal of Advertising Research, Sep/Oct, 7–18.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1993). Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Elsner, R., Krafft, M., & Huchzermeier, A. (2004). Optimizing Rhenania’s direct marketing business through Dynamic Multilevel Modeling (DMLM) in a multicatalog-brand environment. Marketing Science, 23(2), 192–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardyn, R. (2003). Not giving up. American Demographics, 25, 14–15.Google Scholar
  8. Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., & Rubin, D. (1996). Bayesian data analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Giving USA (2007). The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2006. Retrieved Jan 12, 2008 from
  10. Gönül, F., & Ter Hofstede, F. (2006). How to compute optimal catalog mailing decisions. Marketing Science, 25(1), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gönül, F., & Shi, M. Z. (1998). Optimal mailing of catalogs: A new methodology using estimable structural dynamic programming models. Management Science, 44(9), 1249–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumar, V., & Petersen, J. A. (2005). Using a customer-level marketing strategy to enhance firm performance: a review of theoretical and empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4), 504–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu, Q., Otter, T., & Allenby, G. M. (2007). Investigating endogeneity bias in marketing. Marketing Science, 26(5), 642–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Malthouse, E. C. (2002). Performance-based variable selection for scoring models. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(4), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (2003). On the profitability of long-life customers in a noncontractual setting: An empirical investigation and implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 64, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rhee, S., & Russell, G. (2006). Measuring household response in database marketing: A latent trait approach,” working paper.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simon, H. (1982). ADPULS: An advertising model with wearout and pulsation. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 352–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. The Direct Marketing Association, Inc. (2004). The DMA 2004 response rate report. New York: The Direct Marketing Association, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Venkatesan, R., & Kumar, V. (2004). A customer lifetime value framework for customer selection and resource allocation strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68, 106–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V., & Bohling, T. R. (2007). Optimal customer relationship management using bayesian decision theory: An application for customer selection. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 579–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing, Leavey School of BusinessSanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations