When trying to manage a population of customers in a high frequency-of-purchase business where unique customer data are obtainable, it can be helpful to look at a grid comparing:

• Frequency of purchase in the last "active" 30 day period, and;
• Last purchase date.
  

This grid will look like this, when the report is run against the current state of customers:

• Freq of Purchase {0-->∞}
• Last Purchase {0-->∞}

And each customer is plotted along these dimensions.

But, to make things convenient, we cut off "last purchase", at, say, 90 days, and frequency at, say, 4 X for our table. We can then bucketize these scalar dimensions into a neat 4X4 (or nXn) grid like the one above.

A simple customer count in each bucket lets one understand current state. This is a perfect application for an OLAP reporting tool. It's also interesting, however, to understand dynamics: How customer status has changed from previous periods--the real point of this post.

To do this, I use the concept of vectors. A table such as the following can be created:

We can then simply average all of the movements for each unique starting cell location. For example, for the starting cell 1,1, which would correspond to Frequency of Purchase = 1 and Last Purchase <= 30 days, we might get {1.283, 1.321} for movement. These two numbers are the sides of a right triangle, the hypotenuse of which is the vector of customer movement.

There is an even more precise way to do this, which is to measure actual change in frequency of purchase and last purchase for each customer. In this way, we can actually measure customers who are going "beyond the edges" of our table--for example purchasing more than 4 times per 30 day period.

We can then plot our vectors in our table, which might look like this:

Each vector "direction" has a meaning. For example, "North" means more recent; "East" means more frequent / valuable, and so on.

We can also get to the velocity of change--the second derivative--by simply differencing two vectors, say, a month apart. These would tell you how a dynamic trend like the one above is changing. This is a very useful indicator of how marketing programs are impacting customer status.

This approach can also be used with virtually any customer attribute replacing these two dimensions, for example:

• Total value
• Customer Lifetime Value
• Category-Specific Activity
• Etc.

This is a neat approach that can be done with basically any pivot table / OLAP tool and a database of customer purchases.

I recently interviewed Scott Cross for an upcoming issue of MarketBridge's client email newsletter (Minds Over Markets). Scott is Director of Strategic Campaigns at Office Depot. Scott's a super smart guy who's tried a lot of innovative things and has a firm grasp on the big picture of B2B Marketing.

---------------------------------------------------

AH: Talk a little about how customer data is being used to bring together vendors, manufacturers, retailers and distributors in a more customer focused strategy, and where that’s headed from a B2B perspective.

SC: The manufacturers don’t really understand who is making the decisions and what information is available within the network of their distributors and retailers. A lot of them aren’t set up to understand the information, and don’t have the capabilities to analyze it. So it’s really a green field, and that offers businesses the greatest upside today in the marketplace.

How can you get that data and marry it with the manufacturer? It’s critical because the manufacturer has the expertise when it comes to their products, customers’ behaviors and reactions to those products, and even customer trends when it comes to the features, benefits and requirements. What distributors and retailers have are customer data -- transactional and market basket data -- that completes the picture. So there is definitely room to grow there. For us, that’s where MarketBridge comes in: bringing the manufacturer together with the retailer.

AH: How has customer insight evolved at Office Depot over the past few years?

SC: Obviously, the retail sector is important for us, but there has been a big insurgence in B2B. But when you look at our customer base, about 80 to 90 percent of our customers are actually businesses now. So we really started trying to understand what drives their buying behavior, and who the decision makers are. In the past we did a lot of qualitative research. Any type of quantitative research was based on surveys, but we didn’t do a lot with customer analytics, database mining, and market basket analysis on the delivery side of the business with our larger contract customers. Most of the market basket analysis was done with the retail customer data.
So we’ve taken it to the next level by looking at the market basket information such as buying trends and behaviors, and looking at high value customers. Now much of our primary research is done with business customers rather than consumers. MarketBridge has played a big role in helping us understand that, and doing a lot of the modeling on our customer data set.

AH: As the manager around customer insight, what are the three most valuable reports that you receive or would like to receive? Which ones help you make better decisions about customers?

SC: I think ideally there are three reports managers want to see. First, a daily overall sales report that shows how you’re doing by product category and by channel is important, because every morning I can see whether we had a good day or a bad day and why, and the most effective channels from a product perspective. We’re also working to understand that at a customer level.

The ideal state is overall sales by product category and channel, and the second layer would be to look at that by customer segment. It’s the ability to drill into your sales vs. plan vs. last year, find out which categories are up and down, and in which customer segments.

The third report would be how we are doing against campaigns: how a campaign is performing by product category, customer segment, and by channel. Then, taking it even further, how a campaign is doing at the sales rep level. It’s really measuring the performance at a high level down to product, channel, customer and sales rep levels.

And the next step would be to get this information in real-time, and I think we’re headed in that direction.

AH: Given that, we often talk about the three dimensions of account structure, product market basket and marketing effectiveness reporting. How much importance do you put on those three when you’re managing your business?

SC: Marketing effectiveness is certainly important. You want to understand what vehicles are working and which customer segments are responding to which vehicles. In today’s economy, knowing which customer segments are doing financially better and have a little more money to invest in our products is important. For example, the public sector is definitely a growth opportunity in the current state of the economy.

Understanding the effectiveness of marketing to those segments is important, but just as critical is the product marketing basket and the account structure. For example, the product marketing basket allows us to understand that customers are buying ink, toner and paper, but they are no longer buying filing products, because budgets have been cut and they can reuse their file folders. So to understand how the product marketing basket changes by segment, by the cyclical nature of the economy and by the overall macroeconomic environment is important.

And the account structure is equally important. Knowing the difference between a small single-office customer down the street and a multinational corporation with small branches all over the country is key. At the same time, how do these different accounts make buying decisions? Is it the owner of a small business vs. the administrator within a large company? When you are able to marry those three together, it’s really powerful information to use in effectively marketing to your customers.

AH: Who understands customers better, the marketing organization or the sales force, and why?
SC: The sales force understands the customer better when it comes to interacting and knowing the way they customers think. When it comes down to one-to-one relationships, the sales force is number one. That said, the marketing organization is more effective in taking that information and using it to segment the customers into similar groupings, so you can have the same type of effect as with the one-to-one sales effort. So in looking at the overall customer base, how to segment them and market to them, and also which product or offering is most relevant to the entire set of customers, marketing is the most effective.

AH: Switching gears, you’ve got a market research person on your team and plenty of analytics people that are dealing with your core systems. How can market researchers and data analytics people better integrate to drive customer insight? How do you take those two separate tools and merge them together?

SC: Our philosophy is that research and analytics should be in the same group, because data is just another view of the customers, so if you can understand the customer through market research, you are getting a better picture of what the customer looks like. So market research and analytics go hand in hand.

AH: With your CPG background, you saw efficient customer response take off with retail scanner data in the supermarket sector, for example. Now it’s finally happening for B2B, and Office Depot is a pioneer in that.

SC: I do think we’re on the cutting edge. You always feel like it can’t go fast enough, and you’re always feeling behind when you look at retailers and all the information they’ve shared for many years. But it makes you realize there’s a lot of opportunity.

As a shameless tag along to last night's Mad Men premiere, I want to develop a hypothesis that I've been kicking around about how agencies, companies, and other elements of the marketing value chain have evolved since 1963.

Back in the 1960s, I've heard from some reputable sources, agencies were much more "do it all marketing companies." The distinctions we make today between a digital agency, an old line agency, an experiential marketing agency, and a marketing strategy firm would be foreign and meaningless back then, because agencies, in many cases, handled all elements of a client's customer facing presence. This was marketing in it purest form. The agency handled research, ideas, creation of message, art, and getting it out to the market. In many cases, agency folks would do things they had no idea how to do, but succeeded anyway. From what I've heard, it was (even removing all the booze, womanizing, and other crap,) a much more exciting time.

I work in a marketing consultancy. We do things that agencies would have done in the 1960s without knowing they were doing them. Did they do those things as well as a specialist would do today? Probably not--but I'm also willing to bet that marketing has lost something to over-specialization and fragmentation. Having all of the people thinking about a brand under one roof has huge benefits. Network effects drove huge creative outbursts and incredible innovation in marketing in the 1960s and 1970s. This is similar to a Google today, at least what I imagine Google to be. You have a company trying to do a whole bunch of cool stuff; specialization has not yet occurred, and innovation happens.

Much more of marketing has been brought in house by companies trying to save money. A lot of this was definitely good, but I think it can also be stagnating. Having people working on your customer facing presence who were working on, say, London Fog last year has benefits. I'm not saying that companies should look to "re outsource" the marketing function, but it's an interesting idea. H1: A company that came along today looking to trade on network effects of multiple creatives handling all elements of a company's customer facing presence... from sales to TV to database to you name it... and really executed on it (and not just said it) might actually be able to make some serious hay.

This is why it would be tough to make a Mad Men today about a company in the "marketing business". If you were going to make a show that good about a company today, it would probably take place at Google. Actually, let's try "company shows" most emblematic of their decade:

• 1960s: Mad Men (Advertising)
• 1980s: L.A. Law (Legal)
• 1990s: Office Space (IT.. ok, it's a movie, but give me a better one)
• 2000s: Project Runway (Fashion)

Seems like a Google show needs to get made.

P.S. As far as Mad Men last night, while initially underwhelmed, I've been thinking about the episode all morning, which probably means it was actually really good. I didn't like the birth flashback at first, but I now think it was really clever. I loved the London Fog sales call, and I guess the thing that struck me there was that Don was essentially out of ideas and looked pretty impotent. The Sal scene with the bellhop was so awkward but great... and finally Pete's behavior as the junior executive we love to hate reached new levels. Lots of great aesthetic pieces too--the Japanese porn, the Stolichnaya as a cuban cigar equivalent, the use of raincoats as metaphor for (staying in the closet; hiding from the past)... By the way I'm headed to Baltimore tonight. Should I be worried?