Comments for Marketing Science

Comment on Net Promoter Score (NPS) Does Not Predict Growth – it’s fake science by Latest Breaking News

Latest Breaking News — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:59:58 +0000

Came across your post as I was looking for press release related info. Very nice post. Hope to learn more from you.

Comment on Consumption Situations – some perspective by Frank Stone

Frank Stone — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:04:06 +0000

Hello, i have a little offtopic question. I like the Layout of this site, can i get the template somewhere? Thank you in behind and best wishes from austria.

Comment on What’s wrong with loyalty ladders ? by Stefan

Stefan — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:26:25 +0000

I agree that ladders are usually not very helpful. Only sometimes for diagnosis.

Concerning the value of a real commitment-measure compared to the NBD-Dirichlet check this:
http://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.samra.co.za%2Flibs%2Fpdf%2Fconf2009%2FHofmeyr_J_and_Bongers_M_The_only_universal_law_in_market.pdf&ei=XyWlSr_wFsi5sgb42ozTBA&rct=j&q=hofmeyr+bongers+Dirichlet&usg=AFQjCNGndAQOHezErovz1vc7Ao2htR7etg

Comment on What’s wrong with loyalty ladders ? by Byron

Byron — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:53:00 +0000

Jim, If attitudes (commitment) are included in the ladder it makes little difference because they largely reflect behavioural loyalty.

Anon, it’s not about causal direction, market share is made up of buying, the two just have to move together.

Comment on What’s wrong with loyalty ladders ? by Jim

Jim — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:39:25 +0000

if the ladder is the only measure of brand viability I agree with the argument. But if a brand is also measured on consumer commitment (loyalty to brand versus alternatives, etc) advocacy dimensions, the ladder might be useful. The additional cost for the ladder may negate any added value.

Comment on What’s wrong with loyalty ladders ? by Anon

Anon — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:23 +0000

I’ve read a bit about Ehrenberg’s double jeopardy. I understand that the ratios of heavy/medium/light buyers is predictable but but I get stuck with the direction of causation.

You say that “If a brand gains in share/sales, the ratios all move in a predictable way” but could it not be that if the ratios change the brands market share must move in a predictable way? Or for that matter that their is some other mechanism that causes both to move in a related manner?

Comment on Snake (oil) and loyalty ladders by What’s wrong with loyalty ladders ? « Marketing Science

What’s wrong with loyalty ladders ? « Marketing Science — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:46:25 +0000

[...] wrong with loyalty ladders ? I’ve written before about how silly loyalty ladders are. I’ve been asked, aren’t they harmless, just showing the heterogeneity within any [...]

Comment on Brand value quackery by Erich Joachimsthaler

Erich Joachimsthaler — Mon, 25 May 2009 13:49:14 +0000

It is true, it is true what you say and it is sad. And here in the US everyone is talking about metrics and measurements and accountability of marketing and how now slowly all CMOs really know how to measure and track marketing performance. It has been an enormous push of all the associations from the AMA to the ANA. So after all these years, there seems little of better understanding to show.

Comment on Net Promoter Score (NPS) Does Not Predict Growth – it’s fake science by Youth and Loyalty 16 March 09 | mobileYouth - youth marketing mobile culture research

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:06:57 +0000

[...] (enGaugement) * Net Promoter Score (NPS) Does Not Predict Growth – it’s fake science (Marketing Science) * What’s Your Net Promoter Score (NPS)? (Trevor Reid) * Net Promoter Score: Good Tool or Too [...]

Comment on Net Promoter Score (NPS) Does Not Predict Growth – it’s fake science by T O'Donnell

T O'Donnell — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:59:26 +0000

The case for sounds rather like the case for global warming. Perhaps Reichheld should get together with Michael Mann, a joint paper on “Successfully Grabbing Headlines Through Sloppy Statistical Analysis” would find many ready publishers.