July 18, 2017

Recency, Frequency, Monetary

I was recently asked to evaluate how a catalog selects names for upcoming mailings. The Executive told me that her vendor asked her company to switch from model-based selections to ... are you ready for this ... to RFM ... prompting me to offer a predictable response.

And I laughed and laughed. What idiots! My goodness. The vendor community is really failing my client base ... again.

One problem.

In my arrogance, I forgot the original request - to evaluate how this company should select names for catalog mailings.

So I evaluated models against the RFM strategy.

The RFM strategy performed to within 0.3% of the prior modeling strategy - a modeling strategy that while not outstanding was at least credible.

Why would a 40 year old methodology perform almost as well as a credible regression-based modeling strategy? Several reasons.
  1. The annual repurchase rate of reactivation candidates at the margin is only about 7% in this example. When repurchase rates are low, RFM is competitive.
  2. The organic percentage is about 40%. So if the annual repurchase rate is just 7% at the margin, and 40% of the 7% will happen with/without aid of catalogs, then the effective annual repurchase rate is actually (1 - 0.40)*0.07 = 4.2%. A lower effective annual repurchase rate makes RFM more competitive.
Instead of judging a vendor for using a 40 year old methodology, I should have judged my pre-conceived notion that I am right and a vendor is wrong. I should have let the data make the case for using the methodology.

Memorial Day Weekend

There's the obvious reason why we "celebrate" Memorial Day. And then there's the secondary outcome ... an unofficial ...