Abstract
In managing today’s customer base, firms need to consider not only interactions with customers but also interactions among customers. Much like the interactions between customers and firms, the interactions among customers are dynamic in nature and thus create a dynamic structure of preference interdependencies between customers. This research proposes a Bayesian spatio-temporal model that simultaneously captures the effects of the interactions between customers and the firm, the static interdependence due to customers’ inherent similarities, and the dynamic interdependence arising from observed interactions among customers. The model is applied to a rich dataset of university alumni donation and event attendance spanning 27 years. The results yield significant static and dynamic interdependence among the group as well as synergistic effects between static and dynamic structures. This research demonstrates that not accounting for such interdependence, when such interdependence exists, would provide a biased view of firms' marketing effectiveness, yield inferior prediction of customer behaviors in group settings, and miss opportunities to develop group marketing strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For robustness check of sampling sensitivity, I selected 10 random batches of 500 alumni from the 658 and re-estimated the full model for each batch. Demographic information among the batches is similar and the substantive results hold.
To assess alternative approach to segment customers, I have also estimated 2, 3, 4, and 5-segment latent class models. The model fit and prediction of those models are all inferior to that of the continuous heterogeneity hierarchical Bayesian approach.
In the interest of brevity, this comparison table has eliminated the “Static Model” and the “Contemporaneous Spatial Lag Model” as they have previously been shown to have inferior performance.
I do find that alumni who hold membership to the alumni association (and especially those whose spouses are also alumni) tend of be more active, which offers face validity as they have stronger revealed preference toward the group.
References
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19–34.
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.
Andreoni, J., & Scholz, J. K. (1998). An econometric analysis of charitable giving with interdependent preferences. Economic Inquiry, 36(3), 410–428.
Anselin, L. (2002). Under the hood issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agricultural Economics, 27(3), 247–267.
Arnett, D. B., German, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The Case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 89–105.
Arora, N., & Allenby, G. M. (1999). Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 476–487.
Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). What determines alumni generosity? Economics of Education Review, 15(1), 75–81.
Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093.
Bell, D. R., & Song, S. (2007). Neighborhood effects and trial on the internet: Evidence from online grocery retailing. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5(4), 361–400.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 206–215.
Case, A. C. (1991). Spatial patterns in household demand. Econometrica, 59(4), 953–965.
Chib, S. (1992). Bayesian inference in the Tobit censoredregression model. Journal of Econometrics, 51, 79–90.
Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 198–211.
CMO Survey (2018), “Highlights and Insights”, www.cmosurvey.org/results/august-2018.
CNN (2018), “Why Dolce and Gabbana’s China blunder could be such a disaster”, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/24/business/dolce-gabbana-china/index.html.
Cressie, N. (2015). Statistics for spatial data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dolbec, P. Y., & Fischer, E. (2015). Refashioning a field? Connected consumers and institutional dynamics in markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1447–1468.
Epp, A. M., & Price, L. L. (2011). Designing solutions around customer network identity goals. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 36–54.
Feldstein, M., & Clotfelter, C. (1976). Tax incentives and charitable contributions in the United States: A microeconometric analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 5(1–2), 1–26.
Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7, 457–511.
Godes, D., et al. (2005). The Firm's Management of Social Interactions. Marketing Letters, 16(3/4), 415–428.
Harmeling, C. M., Palmatier, R. W., Fang, E., & Wang, D. (2017). Group marketing: Theory, mechanisms, and dynamics. Journal of Marketing, 81, 1–24.
Harrison, W. B., Mitchell, S. K., & Peterson, S. P. (1995). Alumni donations and Colleges' development expenditures: Does spending matter? The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54(October), 397–413.
Hartmann, W. R., Manchanda, P., Nair, H., Bothner, M., Dodds, P., Godes, D., Hosanaga, K., & Tucker, C. (2008). Modeling social interactions: Identification, empirical methods and policy implications. Marketing Letters, 19(3–4), 287–304.
Inside Higher Ed – “College and University Giving Rises 1.7%” (2017) https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/07/growth-charitable-contributions-colleges-slows-2016.
Kozinets, R. V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 71–89.
Krebs, D. L. (1970). Altruism: An examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 73(4), 258–302.
Kurt, D., Inman, J. J., & Argo, J. J. (2011). The influence of friends on consumer spending: The role of agency–communion orientation and self-monitoring. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 741–754.
LeSage, J. P. (2000). Bayesian estimation of limited dependent variable spatial autoregressive models. Geographical Analysis, 32(1), 19–35.
Li, X., & Zhang, M. (2014). The effects of heightened physiological needs on perception of psychological connectedness. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1078–1088.
Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–542.
Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115–136.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.
Muniz, A. M., & O'guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432.
Netzer, O., Lattin, J. M., & Srinivasan, V. (2008). A hidden Markov model of customer relationship dynamics. Marketing Science, 27, 185–204.
Newton, M. A., & Raftery, A. E. (1994). Approximate Bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Methodological, 56, 3–48.
Okunade, A., & Berl, R. L. (1997). Determinants of charitable giving of business school alumni. Research in Higher Education, 38(April), 201–214.
Pollak, R. A. (1976). Interdependent preferences. The American Economic Review, 66(3), 309–320.
Risselada, H., Verhoef, P. C., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2014). Dynamic effects of social influence and direct marketing on the adoption of high-technology products. Journal of Marketing, 78, 52–68.
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.
Schouten, J. W., McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2007). Transcendent customer experience and brand community. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(3), 357–368.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.
Smith, T. E., & LeSage, J. P. (2004). A Bayesian probit model with spatial dependencies. In J. P. LeSage & R. K. Pace (Eds.), Spatial and spatiotemporal econometrics. Advances in econometrics, Vol. 18 (pp. 127–160). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010). Brand community: Drivers and outcomes. Psychology and Marketing, 27(4), 347–368.
Taylor, A. L., & Martin, J. C., Jr. (1995). Characteristics of alumni donors at a research I Public University. Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 283–302.
Thomas, T. C., Price, L. L., & Schau, H. J. (2013). When differences unite: Resource dependence in heterogeneous consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 1010–1033.
Winer, R. S. (2001). A framework for customer relationship management. California management review, 43(4), 89–105.
Willemain, T. R., Goyal, A., Van Deven, M., & Thukral, I. S. (1994). Alumni giving: The influences of Reunion, class and year. Research in Higher Education, 35(2), 201–214.
Yang, S., & Allenby, G. M. (2003). Modeling interdependent consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 282–294.
Yang, S., Narayan, V., & Assael, H. (2006). Estimating the interdependence of television program viewership between spouses: A Bayesian simultaneous equation model. Marketing Science, 25(4), 336–349.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Rajkumar Venkatesan served as Area Editor for this article.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, J.Z. Dynamic customer interdependence. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 47, 723–746 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00627-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00627-z