And no, we are referring not essential that this transmutation is at the heart of Marxist thought, the transition from use value to market value, even if it remains in the program. We remain more modest in our interest that the idea of how each client is an asset of the company, it is conceivable that the value of the business is that of all clients. What will constitute the customer capital (Customer equity)? By asking the client is an asset, we go to the heart of the problem. If the enterprise value is the sum of future cash flows that its current policy will generate, it is evident that this value is equivalent to that of its entire customer portfolio will generate in terms of the policy which it leads. To say this, we must share the idea that in an indefinite time, the value of the firm depends on the income it generates from its investments, and costs of grants for them. So that whatever business models, the value of the firm resolves itself in its ability to obtain revenue streams cons of spending resources. This is an extremely controversial, partly because the income can come from another source that motivates expenditure, the model of multi-sided markets, but also the fact that income can come because of the expectation of future income, discounted at the financial market, the venture business model.
Therefore remain within the traditional framework, as this term is the income produced by those who purchase the product or service, of the firm. In an effort to asset valuation, it is clear that we must compare what you invest, what they spend, what you hope to win. The investment is the current expenditure which can generate immediate income and future spending is what we should devote to serve the achievement of immediate income. The balance is done by comparing the accumulation of which is invested, more than that spent in the cumulative flow of income received. The difference is exactly what is called customer equity. Customer equity.
A first line is as we have analyzed, to define as the sum of the Customer Life Time values. But if the customer capital was limited to this single sum we would not set a new concept. We must go further. Life Time Value and customer equity are the same to the customer base closely.
But before going further settle the fate of other forms of capital. The first of these is the brand equity, another more fundamental is the principal product, I dare not yet speak of relational capital, or worst of social capital. We abuse of capital, capital does not multiply, but in time, it only added. The principal product is the quantity that the income of the offer on the market minus expenses necessary for the design and production, generate long-term accumulation of positive benefit. The brand equity is in the same spirit, this difference is added because the brand can charge prices higher or attention of a greater number of consumers. The principal innovation is similar. Each other and not added to the principal customer, they simply dial. We could simply concede that the very nature of the relationship with customers, there is a source of value that exceeds that produced by the function that produces more than a symbol, representing the excess particular quality of relationship that the firm establishes with its customers. By imagining that provides the same functionality as the competitors, imagining that they bring the same reputation, the fact of being worth more than others, can only come from what we have established a better relationship than other .
In this view the customer value is the value of the firm, although it can be decomposed into the value of the offer, brand value and worth of the relationship.
Customer equity is clearly equal to the value of the firm, in that it represents the sum of discounted cash flows. The difference is not likely, but depends on the method of calculation. The value of the firm is assessed from a synthetic indicator accountant, the client from an aggregate indicator. On one side we aggregate profit per unit of time, another unit of productive assets. So much for a general definition. We must now look to the decomposition of the customer capital, generally designated by the terms of customer equity.
The essential part of course consists of the sum of future cash flows generated by customers today, given the current policy. But the current policy not only to maintain existing customers. The aggregate value of their course needs to take into account phenomena cohort, successive waves of new customers. It is a technicality. The main point is that the current policy induces the recruitment of new customers, something that models CLTV does not take into account. The customer-equity is therefore defined in the amounts of future cash flows generated by the current client base, plus those of future clients, in the current political marketing. This includes policy acquisition, retention, development, but also a fundamental policy of creating value for consumers.
In distinguishing these categories we focus on the fact that marketing expenses are related to one part in a basic package, which may generate more or less potential demand, and other actions to stimulate which can speed up or slow down access to the potential. The costs of acquiring or holding do that eventually determine the speed at which the firm reached its market potential in the limit of what these costs may also affect the potential.
But do not refine too much reasoning, customer capital is the stream of cash flow up by existing customers and future customers that the current marketing policy lets hope. It would simply add that these customers current and future customers are going through their behavior, opinions, recommendations add to the population that we currently manage. In a previous analysis we declined to add their contribution to the CLTV. We can explain now. In principle it was reasonable enough to add this contribution to those who are the drivers, but it would in our decomposition to recognize this contribution in the value created by the current users. And therefore underestimate the efficiency of investment and expenditure.
By separating this contribution we give a face more realistic as to what the customer capital: the sum of future earnings generated directly by customers acquired today, the more customers that our policy will allow acquisition today of meet tomorrow, and finally those that offer basic, brand and relationship quality, will generate without having made any effort to direct them.
Thus we can argue that customer equity is not identical with that of the sum of CLTV but overflowing. And the passage of such a ratio CE / n * CLTV would be a good indicator of the ability to generate spillovers customers.
By extending this idea, we could even understand the business models less traditional. Ie those where the customer value is almost zero, but its side effects, generates income from very high as is the case in markets with many faces. If the life time value for users of Google is clearly negative, the customer equity to reading the results is largely positive.
But stay on our main line of the traditional business model in which a value is the difference between the investments made to serve customers and the revenue it generates directly. The key parameter here is the acquisition policy, and in the same way we have defined a maximum CLTV, we can define an optimal EC value, which will be determined by the best combination of investments for the renewal of the customer base and maintaining the old.
But there is no isomorphism. It is thus reasonable to think that if customer by customer, we should think it is better to invest in retention, across the portfolio acquisition, which is becoming the priority. To spend much more than renew the customer base could be compatible with the idea of spending little to acquire each customer, purchasing budget is compatible with high expenditure per customer asset is low. Such a situation is understandable insofar as spending little on average to acquire a new customer, lets hope it has a high value, total spending would mean a lot just to broaden considerably the potential market.
That argues for a simple idea, interest in the concept of customer equity on a strategic marketing, when the separate CLTV is essentially a business problem.
source: i-marketing
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire