An Empirical Assessment of Customer Lifetime Value Models within Data Mining

Abstract

Customer lifetime value has been of significant importance to marketing researchers and practitioners in specifying the importance level of each customer. By means of segmentation which could be carried out using value-based characteristics it is indeed possible to develop tailored strategies for customers. In fact, approaches like data mining can facilitate extraction of critical customer knowledge for enhanced decision making. Although the literature has several analytical lifetime value models, comparative assessment of the existing models especially within the context of data mining seems a missing component. The aim of this paper is to compare two different customer lifetime value models within data mining. The evaluation was carried out within the context of customer segmentation using a database of a company operating in retail sector. The results indicated that two models yield the same segmentation structure and no statistical differences detected on the select control variables. However, the remaining model produced rather different segmentation results than their peers and it was possible to identify the most lucrative model according to the statistical analyses that were carried out on the select control variables.

A review on customer segmentation methods for personalized customer targeting in e-commerce use cases

“…By testing, if the variance of a variable is larger or smaller between the groups than within the groups, a statement about the meaningfulness of the group can be determined. ANOVA tests are used by Li et al (2009), Hong and Kim (2012), Hjort et al (2013), Hiziroglu et al (2018).…”

“…Segmentation and used feature selection methods with corresponding references of the survey literature (2009),Hjort et al (2013). RFM-analysis 7Jonker et al (2004),Chang and Tsai (2011),Hiziroglu et al (2018),Wong and Wei (2018), Stormi et al (2020), Hsu and Huang (2020), Sokol and Holy (2021) K-means None 16 Zhang et al (2014), Abdolvand et al (2015), Brito et al (2015), Liu et al (2015), Hafshejani et al (2018), Bai et al (2019), Deng and Gao (2020), Griva et al (2021), Zhang et al (2020), Alghamdi (2022b), Araujo et al (2022), Chalupa and Petricek (2022), Zhang and Huang (2022), Gautam and Kumar (2022), Griva (2022), Tabianan et al (2022) RFM-analysis 21 Chan et al (2011), Peker et al (2017), Akhondzadeh-Noughabi and Albadvi (2015), Ravasan and Mansouri (2015), Sarvari et al (2016), Dogan et al (2018), Alberto Carrasco et al (2019), Christy et al (2018), Guney et al (2020), Lam et al (2021); Pratama et al (2020), Sivaguru and Punniyamoorthy (2021), Rahim et al (2021), Wu et al (2020), Wu et al (2021), Zhao et al (2021), Bellini et al (2022), Mensouri et al (2022), Mosa et al (2022), Wu et al (2022), Kanchanapoom and Chongwatpol (2022) PCA 3 Nie et al (2021), Tsai et al (2015), Umuhoza et al . (2009), Hsu et al (2012), Wang and Zhang (.…”