Big Data Must Get Smaller

Like many folks who worked in the data business for a long time, I don’t even like the words “Big Data.” Yeah, data is big now, I get it. But so what? Faster and bigger have been the theme in the computing business since the first calculator was invented. In fact, I don’t appreciate the common definition of Big Data that is often expressed in the three Vs: volume, velocity and variety. So, if any kind of data are big and fast, it’s all good? I don’t think so. If you have lots of “dumb” data all over the place, how does that help you? Well, as much as all the clutter that’s been piled on in your basement since 1971. It may yield some profit on an online auction site one day. Who knows? Maybe some collector will pay good money for some obscure Coltrane or Moody Blues albums that you never even touched since your last turntable (Ooh, what is that?) died on you. Those oversized album jackets were really cool though, weren’t they?

Like many folks who worked in the data business for a long time, I don’t even like the words “Big Data.” Yeah, data is big now, I get it. But so what? Faster and bigger have been the theme in the computing business since the first calculator was invented. In fact, I don’t appreciate the common definition of Big Data that is often expressed in the three Vs: volume, velocity and variety. So, if any kind of data are big and fast, it’s all good? I don’t think so. If you have lots of “dumb” data all over the place, how does that help you? Well, as much as all the clutter that’s been piled on in your basement since 1971. It may yield some profit on an online auction site one day. Who knows? Maybe some collector will pay good money for some obscure Coltrane or Moody Blues albums that you never even touched since your last turntable (Ooh, what is that?) died on you. Those oversized album jackets were really cool though, weren’t they?

Seriously, the word “Big” only emphasizes the size element, and that is a sure way to miss the essence of the data business. And many folks are missing even that little point by calling all decision-making activities that involve even small-sized data “Big Data.” It is entirely possible that this data stuff seems all new to someone, but the data-based decision-making process has been with us for a very long time. If you use that “B” word to differentiate old-fashioned data analytics of yesteryear and ridiculously large datasets of the present day, yes, that is a proper usage of it. But we all know most people do not mean it that way. One side benefit of this bloated and hyped up buzzword is data professionals like myself do not have to explain what we do for living for 20 minutes anymore by simply uttering the word “Big Data,” though that is a lot like a grandmother declaring all her grandchildren work on computers for living. Better yet, that magic “B” word sometimes opens doors to new business opportunities (or at least a chance to grab a microphone in non-data-related meetings and conferences) that data geeks of the past never dreamed of.

So, I guess it is not all that bad. But lest we forget, all hypes lead to overinvestments, and all overinvestments leads to disappointments, and all disappointments lead to purging of related personnel and vendors that bear that hyped-up dirty word in their titles or division names. If this Big Data stuff does not yield significant profit (or reduction in cost), I am certain that those investment bubbles will burst soon enough. Yes, some data folks may be lucky enough to milk it for another two or three years, but brace for impact if all those collected data do not lead to some serious dollar signs. I know how the storage and processing cost decreased significantly in recent years, but they ain’t totally free, and related man-hours aren’t exactly cheap, either. Also, if this whole data business is a new concept to an organization, any money spent on the promise of Big Data easily becomes a liability for the reluctant bunch.

This is why I open up my speeches and lectures with this question: “Have you made any money with this Big Data stuff yet?” Surely, you didn’t spend all that money to provide faster toys and nicer playgrounds to IT folks? Maybe the head of IT had some fun with it, but let’s ask that question to CFOs, not CTOs, CIOs or CDOs. I know some colleagues (i.e., fellow data geeks) who are already thinking about a new name for this—”decision-making activities, based on data and analytics”—because many of us will be still doing that “data stuff” even after Big Data cease to be cool after the judgment day. Yeah, that Gangnam Style dance was fun for a while, but who still jumps around like a horse?

Now, if you ask me (though nobody did yet), I’d say the Big Data should have been “Smart Data,” “Intelligent Data” or something to that extent. Because data must provide insights. Answers to questions. Guidance to decision-makers. To data professionals, piles of data—especially the ones that are fragmented, unstructured and unformatted, no matter what kind of fancy names the operating system and underlying database technology may bear—it is just a good start. For non-data-professionals, unrefined data—whether they are big or small—would remain distant and obscure. Offering mounds of raw data to end-users is like providing a painting kit when someone wants a picture on the wall. Bragging about the size of the data with impressive sounding new measurements that end with “bytes” is like counting grains of rice in California in front of a hungry man.

Big Data must get smaller. People want yes/no answers to their specific questions. If such clarity is not possible, probability figures to such questions should be provided; as in, “There’s an 80 percent chance of thunderstorms on the day of the company golf outing,” “An above-average chance to close a deal with a certain prospect” or “Potential value of a customer who is repeatedly complaining about something on the phone.” It is about easy-to-understand answers to business questions, not a quintillion bytes of data stored in some obscure cloud somewhere. As I stated at the end of my last column, the Big Data movement should be about (1) Getting rid of the noise, and (2) Providing simple answers to decision-makers. And getting to such answers is indeed the process of making data smaller and smaller.

In my past columns, I talked about the benefits of statistical models in the age of Big Data, as they are the best way to compact big and complex information in forms of simple answers (refer to “Why Model?”). Models built to predict (or point out) who is more likely to be into outdoor sports, to be a risk-averse investor, to go on a cruise vacation, to be a member of discount club, to buy children’s products, to be a bigtime donor or to be a NASCAR fan, are all providing specific answers to specific questions, while each model score is a result of serious reduction of information, often compressing thousands of variables into one answer. That simplification process in itself provides incredible value to decision-makers, as most wouldn’t know where to cut out unnecessary information to answer specific questions. Using mathematical techniques, we can cut down the noise with conviction.

In model development, “Variable Reduction” is the first major step after the target variable is determined (refer to “The Art of Targeting“). It is often the most rigorous and laborious exercise in the whole model development process, where the characteristics of models are often determined as each statistician has his or her unique approach to it. Now, I am not about to initiate a debate about the best statistical method for variable reduction (I haven’t met two statisticians who completely agree with each other in terms of methodologies), but I happened to know that many effective statistical analysts separate variables in terms of data types and treat them differently. In other words, not all data variables are created equal. So, what are the major types of data that database designers and decision-makers (i.e., non-mathematical types) should be aware of?

In the business of predictive analytics for marketing, the following three types of data make up three dimensions of a target individual’s portrait:

  1. Descriptive Data
  2. Transaction Data / Behavioral Data
  3. Attitudinal Data

In other words, if we get to know all three aspects of a person, it will be much easier to predict what the person is about and/or what the person will do. Why do we need these three dimensions? If an individual has a high income and is living in a highly valued home (demographic element, which is descriptive); and if he is an avid golfer (behavioral element often derived from his purchase history), can we just assume that he is politically conservative (attitudinal element)? Well, not really, and not all the time. Sometimes we have to stop and ask what the person’s attitude and outlook on life is all about. Now, because it is not practical to ask everyone in the country about every subject, we often build models to predict the attitudinal aspect with available data. If you got a phone call from a political party that “assumes” your political stance, that incident was probably not random or accidental. Like I emphasized many times, analytics is about making the best of what is available, as there is no such thing as a complete dataset, even in this age of ubiquitous data. Nonetheless, these three dimensions of the data spectrum occupy a unique and distinct place in the business of predictive analytics.

So, in the interest of obtaining, maintaining and utilizing all possible types of data—or, conversely, reducing the size of data with conviction by knowing what to ignore, let us dig a little deeper:

Descriptive Data
Generally, demographic data—such as people’s income, age, number of children, housing size, dwelling type, occupation, etc.—fall under this category. For B-to-B applications, “Firmographic” data—such as number of employees, sales volume, year started, industry type, etc.—would be considered as descriptive data. It is about what the targets “look like” and, generally, they are frozen in the present time. Many prominent data compilers (or data brokers, as the U.S. government calls them) collect, compile and refine the data and make hundreds of variables available to users in various industry sectors. They also fill in the blanks using predictive modeling techniques. In other words, the compilers may not know the income range of every household, but using statistical techniques and other available data—such as age, home ownership, housing value, and many other variables—they provide their best estimates in case of missing values. People often have some allergic reaction to such data compilation practices siting privacy concerns, but these types of data are not about looking up one person at a time, but about analyzing and targeting groups (or segments) of individuals and households. In terms of predictive power, they are quite effective and results are very consistent. The best part is that most of the variables are available for every household in the country, whether they are actual or inferred.

Other types of descriptive data include geo-demographic data, and the Census Data by the U.S. Census Bureau falls under this category. These datasets are organized by geographic denominations such as Census Block Group, Census Tract, Country or ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA, much like postal ZIP codes, but not exactly the same). Although they are not available on an individual or a household level, the Census data are very useful in predictive modeling, as every target record can be enhanced with it, even when name and address are not available, and data themselves are very stable. The downside is that while the datasets are free through Census Bureau, the raw datasets contain more than 40,000 variables. Plus, due to the budget cut and changes in survey methods during the past decade, the sample size (yes, they sample) decreased significantly, rendering some variables useless at lower geographic denominations, such as Census Block Group. There are professional data companies that narrowed down the list of variables to manageable sizes (300 to 400 variables) and filled in the missing values. Because they are geo-level data, variables are in the forms of percentages, averages or median values of elements, such as gender, race, age, language, occupation, education level, real estate value, etc. (as in, percent male, percent Asian, percent white-collar professionals, average income, median school years, median rent, etc.).

There are many instances where marketers cannot pinpoint the identity of a person due to privacy issues or challenges in data collection, and the Census Data play a role of effective substitute for individual- or household-level demographic data. In predictive analytics, duller variables that are available nearly all the time are often more valuable than precise information with limited availability.

Transaction Data/Behavioral Data
While descriptive data are about what the targets look like, behavioral data are about what they actually did. Often, behavioral data are in forms of transactions. So many just call it transaction data. What marketers commonly refer to as RFM (Recency, Frequency and Monetary) data fall under this category. In terms of predicting power, they are truly at the top of the food chain. Yes, we can build models to guess who potential golfers are with demographic data, such as age, gender, income, occupation, housing value and other neighborhood-level information, but if you get to “know” that someone is a buyer of a box of golf balls every six weeks or so, why guess? Further, models built with transaction data can even predict the nature of future purchases, in terms of monetary value and frequency intervals. Unfortunately, many who have access to RFM data are using them only in rudimentary filtering, as in “select everyone who spends more than $200 in a gift category during the past 12 months,” or something like that. But we can do so much more with rich transaction data in every stage of the marketing life cycle for prospecting, cultivating, retaining and winning back.

Other types of behavioral data include non-transaction data, such as click data, page views, abandoned shopping baskets or movement data. This type of behavioral data is getting a lot of attention as it is truly “big.” The data have been out of reach for many decision-makers before the emergence of new technology to capture and store them. In terms of predictability, nevertheless, they are not as powerful as real transaction data. These non-transaction data may provide directional guidance, as they are what some data geeks call “a-camera-on-everyone’s-shoulder” type of data. But we all know that there is a clear dividing line between people’s intentions and their commitments. And it can be very costly to follow every breath you take, every move you make, and every step you take. Due to their distinct characteristics, transaction data and non-transaction data must be managed separately. And if used together in models, they should be clearly labeled, so the analysts will never treat them the same way by accident. You really don’t want to mix intentions and commitments.

The trouble with the behavioral data are, (1) they are difficult to compile and manage, (2) they get big; sometimes really big, (3) they are generally confined within divisions or companies, and (4) they are not easy to analyze. In fact, most of the examples that I used in this series are about the transaction data. Now, No. 3 here could be really troublesome, as it equates to availability (or lack thereof). Yes, you may know everything that happened with your customers, but do you know where else they are shopping? Fortunately, there are co-op companies that can answer that question, as they are compilers of transaction data across multiple merchants and sources. And combined data can be exponentially more powerful than data in silos. Now, because transaction data are not always available for every person in databases, analysts often combine behavioral data and descriptive data in their models. Transaction data usually become the dominant predictors in such cases, while descriptive data play the supporting roles filling in the gaps and smoothing out the predictive curves.

As I stated repeatedly, predictive analytics in marketing is all about finding out (1) whom to engage, and (2) if you decided to engage someone, what to offer to that person. Using carefully collected transaction data for most of their customers, there are supermarket chains that achieved 100 percent customization rates for their coupon books. That means no two coupon books are exactly the same, which is a quite impressive accomplishment. And that is all transaction data in action, and it is a great example of “Big Data” (or rather, “Smart Data”).

Attitudinal Data
In the past, attitudinal data came from surveys, primary researches and focus groups. Now, basically all social media channels function as gigantic focus groups. Through virtual places, such as Facebook, Twitter or other social media networks, people are freely volunteering what they think and feel about certain products and services, and many marketers are learning how to “listen” to them. Sentiment analysis falls under that category of analytics, and many automatically think of this type of analytics when they hear “Big Data.”

The trouble with social data is:

  1. We often do not know who’s behind the statements in question, and
  2. They are in silos, and it is not easy to combine such data with transaction or demographic data, due to lack of identity of their sources.

Yes, we can see that a certain political candidate is trending high after an impressive speech, but how would we connect that piece of information to whom will actually donate money for the candidate’s causes? If we can find out “where” the target is via an IP address and related ZIP codes, we may be able to connect the voter to geo-demographic data, such as the Census. But, generally, personally identifiable information (PII) is only accessible by the data compilers, if they even bothered to collect them.

Therefore, most such studies are on a macro level, citing trends and directions, and types of analysts in that field are quite different from the micro-level analysts who deal with behavioral data and descriptive data. Now, the former provide important insights regarding the “why” part of the equation, which is often the hardest thing to predict; while the latter provide answers to “who, what, where and when.” (“Who” is the easiest to answer, and “when” is the hardest.) That “why” part may dictate a product development part of the decision-making process at the conceptual stage (as in, “Why would customers care for a new type of dishwasher?”), while “who, what, where and when” are more about selling the developed products (as in “Let’s sell those dishwashers in the most effective ways.”). So, it can be argued that these different types of data call for different types of analytics for different cycles in the decision-making processes.

Obviously, there are more types of data out there. But for marketing applications dealing with humans, these three types of data complete the buyers’ portraits. Now, depending on what marketers are trying to do with the data, they can prioritize where to invest first and what to ignore (for now). If they are early in the marketing cycle trying to develop a new product for the future, they need to understand why people want something and behave in certain ways. If signing up as many new customers as possible is the immediate goal, finding out who and where the ideal prospects are becomes the most imminent task. If maximizing the customer value is the ongoing objective, then you’d better start analyzing transaction data more seriously. If preventing attrition is the goal, then you will have to line up the transaction data in time series format for further analysis.

The business goals must dictate the analytics, and the analytics call for specific types of data to meet the goals, and the supporting datasets should be in “analytics-ready” formats. Not the other way around, where businesses are dictated by the limitations of analytics, and analytics are hampered by inadequate data clutters. That type of business-oriented hierarchy should be the main theme of effective data management, and with clear goals and proper data strategy, you will know where to invest first and what data to ignore as a decision-maker, not necessarily as a mathematical analyst. And that is the first step toward making the Big Data smaller. Don’t be impressed by the size of the data, as they often blur the big picture and not all data are created equal.

Data Deep Dive: The Art of Targeting

Even if you own a sniper rifle (and I’m not judging), if you aim at the wrong place, you will never hit the target. Obvious, right? But that happens all the time in the world of marketing, even when advanced analytics and predictive modeling techniques are routinely employed. How is that possible? Well, the marketing world is not like an Army shooting range where the silhouette of the target is conveniently hung at the predetermined location, but it is more like the “Twilight Zone,” where things are not what they seem. Marketers who failed to hit the real target often blame the guns, which in this case are targeting tools, such as models and segmentations. But let me ask, was the target properly defined in the first place?

Even if you own a sniper rifle (and I’m not judging), if you aim at the wrong place, you will never hit the target. Obvious, right? But that happens all the time in the world of marketing, even when advanced analytics and predictive modeling techniques are routinely employed. How is that possible? Well, the marketing world is not like an Army shooting range where the silhouette of the target is conveniently hung at the predetermined location, but it is more like the “Twilight Zone,” where things are not what they seem. Marketers who failed to hit the real target often blame the guns, which in this case are targeting tools, such as models and segmentations. But let me ask, was the target properly defined in the first place?

In my previous columns, I talked about the importance of predictive analytics in modern marketing (refer to “Why Model?”) for various reasons, such as targeting accuracy, consistency, deeper use of data, and most importantly in the age of Big Data, concise nature of model scores where tons of data are packed into ready-for-use formats. Now, even the marketers who bought into these ideas often make mistakes by relinquishing the important duty of target definition solely to analysts and statisticians, who do not necessarily possess the power to read the marketers’ minds. Targeting is often called “half-art and half-science.” And it should be looked at from multiple angles, starting with the marketer’s point of view. Therefore, even marketers who are slightly (or, in many cases, severely) allergic to mathematics should come one step closer to the world of analytics and modeling. Don’t be too scared, as I am not asking you to be a rifle designer or sniper here; I am only talking about hanging the target in the right place so that others can shoot at it.

Let us start by reviewing what statistical models are: A model is a mathematical expression of “differences” between dichotomous groups; which, in marketing, are often referred to as “targets” and “non-targets.” Let’s say a marketer wants to target “high-value customers.” To build a model to describe such targets, we also need to define “non-high-value customers,” as well. In marketing, popular targets are often expressed as “repeat buyers,” “responders to certain campaigns,” “big-time spenders,” “long-term, high-value customers,” “troubled customers,” etc. for specific products and channels. Now, for all those targets, we also need to define “bizarro” or “anti-” versions of them. One may think that they are just the “remainders” of the target. But, unfortunately, it is not that simple; the definition of the whole universe should be set first to even bring up the concept of the remainders. In many cases, defining “non-buyers” is much more difficult than defining “buyers,” because lack of purchase information does not guarantee that the individual in question is indeed a non-buyer. Maybe the data collection was never complete. Maybe he used a different channel to respond. Maybe his wife bought the item for him. Maybe you don’t have access to the entire pool of names that represent the “universe.”

Remember T, C, & M
That is why we need to examine the following three elements carefully when discussing statistical models with marketers who are not necessarily statisticians:

  1. Target,
  2. Comparison Universe, and
  3. Methodology.

I call them “TCM” in short, so that I don’t leave out any element in exploratory conversations. Defining proper target is the obvious first step. Defining and obtaining data for the comparison universe is equally important, but it could be challenging. But without it, you’d have nothing against which you compare the target. Again, a model is an algorithm that expresses differences between two non-overlapping groups. So, yes, you need both Superman and Bizarro-Superman (who always seems more elusive than his counterpart). And that one important variable that differentiates the target and non-target is called “Dependent Variable” in modeling.

The third element in our discussion is the methodology. I am sure you may have heard of terms like logistic regression, stepwise regression, neural net, decision trees, CHAID analysis, genetic algorithm, etc., etc. Here is my advice to marketers and end-users:

  • State your goals and usages cases clearly, and let the analyst pick proper methodology that suites your goals.
  • Don’t be a bad patient who walks into a doctor’s office demanding a specific prescription before the doctor even examines you.

Besides, for all intents and purposes, the methodology itself matters the least in comparison with an erroneously defined target and the comparison universes. Differences in methodologies are often measured in fractions. A combination of a wrong target and wrong universe definition ends up as a shotgun, if not an artillery barrage. That doesn’t sound so precise, does it? We should be talking about a sniper rifle here.

Clear Goals Leading to Definitions of Target and Comparison
So, let’s roll up our sleeves and dig deeper into defining targets. Allow me to use an example, as you will be able to picture the process better that way. Let’s just say that, for general marketing purposes, you want to build a model targeting “frequent flyers.” One may ask for business or for pleasure, but let’s just say that such data are hard to obtain at this moment. (Finding the “reasons” is always much more difficult than counting the number of transactions.) And it was collectively decided that it would be just beneficial to know who is more likely to be a frequent flyer, in general. Such knowledge could be very useful for many applications, not just for the travel industry, but for other affiliated services, such as credit cards or publications. Plus, analytics is about making the best of what you’ve got, not waiting for some perfect datasets.

Now, here is the first challenge:

  • When it comes to flying, how frequent is frequent enough for you? Five times a year, 10 times, 20 times or even more?
  • Over how many years?
  • Would you consider actual miles traveled, or just number of issued tickets?
  • How large are the audiences in those brackets?

If you decided that five times a year is a not-so-big or not-so-small target (yes, sizes do matter) that also fits the goal of the model (you don’t want to target only super-elites, as they could be too rare or too distinct, almost like outliers), to whom are they going to be compared? Everyone who flew less than five times last year? How about people who didn’t fly at all last year?

Actually, one option is to compare people who flew more than five times against people who didn’t fly at all last year, but wouldn’t that model be too much like a plain “flyer” model? Or, will that option provide more vivid distinction among the general population? Or, one analyst may raise her hand and say “to hell with all these breaks and let’s just build a model using the number of times flown last year as the continuous target.” The crazy part is this: None of these options are right or wrong, but each combination of target and comparison will certainly yield very different-looking models.

Then what should a marketer do in a situation like this? Again, clearly state the goal and what is more important to you. If this is for general travel-related merchandizing, then the goal should be more about distinguishing more likely frequent flyers out of the general population; therefore, comparing five-plus flyers against non-flyers—ignoring the one-to-four-time flyers—makes sense. If this project is for an airline to target potential gold or platinum members, using people who don’t even fly as comparison makes little or no sense. Of course, in a situation like this, the analyst in charge (or data scientist, the way we refer to them these days), must come halfway and prescribe exactly what target and comparison definitions would be most effective for that particular user. That requires lots of preliminary data exploration, and it is not all science, but half art.

Now, if I may provide a shortcut in defining the comparison universe, just draw the representable sample from “the pool of names that are eligible for your marketing efforts.” The key word is “eligible” here. For example, many businesses operate within certain areas with certain restrictions or predetermined targeting criteria. It would make no sense to use the U.S. population sample for models for supermarket chains, telecommunications, or utility companies with designated footprints. If the business in question is selling female apparel items, first eliminate the male population from the comparison universe (but I’d leave “unknown” genders in the mix, so that the model can work its magic in that shady ground). You must remember, however, that all this means you need different models when you change the prospecting universe, even if the target definition remains unchanged. Because the model algorithm is the expression of the difference between T and C, you need a new model if you swap out the C part, even if you left the T alone.

Multiple Targets
Sometimes it gets twisted the other way around, where the comparison universe is relatively stable (i.e., your prospecting universe is stable) but there could be multiple targets (i.e., multiple Ts, like T1, T2, etc.) in your customer base.

Let me elaborate with a real-life example. A while back, we were helping a company that sells expensive auto accessories for luxury cars. The client, following his intuition, casually told us that he only cares for big spenders whose average order sizes are more than $300. Now, the trouble with this statement is that:

  1. Such a universe could be too small to be used effectively as a target for models, and
  2. High spenders do not tend to purchase often, so we may end up leaving out the majority of the potential target buyers in the whole process.

This is exactly why some type of customer profiling must precede the actual target definition. A series of simple distribution reports clearly revealed that this particular client was dealing with a dual-universe situation, where the first group (or segment) is made of infrequent, but high-dollar spenders whose average orders were even greater than $300, and the second group is made of very frequent buyers whose average order sizes are well below the $100 mark. If we had ignored this finding, or worse, neglected to run preliminary reports and just relying on our client’s wishful thinking, we would have created a “phantom” target, which is just an average of these dual universes. A model designed for such a phantom target will yield phantom results. The solution? If you find two distinct targets (as in T1 and T2), just bite the bullet and develop two separate models (T1 vs. C and T2 vs. C).

Multi-step Approach
There are still other reasons why you may need multiple models. Let’s talk about the case of “target within a target.” Some may relate this idea to a “drill-down” concept, and it can be very useful when the prospecting universe is very large, and the marketer is trying to reach only the top 1 percent (which can be still very large, if the pool contains hundreds of millions of people). Correctly finding the top 5 percent in any universe is difficult enough. So what I suggest in this case is to build two models in sequence to get to the “Best of the Best” in a stepwise fashion.

  • The first model would be more like an “elimination” model, where obviously not-so-desirable prospects would be removed from the process, and
  • The second-step model would be designed to go after the best prospects among survivors of the first step.

Again, models are expressions of differences between targets and non-targets, so if the first model eliminated the bottom 80 percent to 90 percent of the universe and leaves the rest as the new comparison universe, you need a separate model—for sure. And lots of interesting things happen at the later stage, where new variables start to show up in algorithms or important variables in the first step lose steam in later steps. While a bit cumbersome during deployment, the multi-step approach ensures precision targeting, much like a sniper rifle at close range.

I also suggest this type of multi-step process when clients are attempting to use the result of segmentation analysis as a selection tool. Segmentation techniques are useful as descriptive analytics. But as a targeting tool, they are just too much like a shotgun approach. It is one thing to describe groups of people such as “young working mothers,” “up-and-coming,” and “empty-nesters with big savings” and use them as references when carving out messages tailored toward them. But it is quite another to target such large groups as if the population within a particular segment is completely homogeneous in terms of susceptibility to specific offers or products. Surely, the difference between a Mercedes buyer and a Lexus buyer ain’t income and age, which may have been the main differentiator for segmentation. So, in the interest of maintaining a common theme throughout the marketing campaigns, I’d say such segments are good first steps. But for further precision targeting, you may need a model or two within each segment, depending on the size, channel to be employed and nature of offers.

Another case where the multi-step approach is useful is when the marketing and sales processes are naturally broken down into multiple steps. For typical B-to-B marketing, one may start the campaign by mass mailing or email (I’d say that step also requires modeling). And when responses start coming in, the sales team can take over and start contacting responders through more personal channels to close the deal. Such sales efforts are obviously very time-consuming, so we may build a “value” model measuring the potential value of the mail or email responders and start contacting them in a hierarchical order. Again, as the available pool of prospects gets smaller and smaller, the nature of targeting changes as well, requiring different types of models.

This type of funnel approach is also very useful in online marketing, as the natural steps involved in email or banner marketing go through lifecycles, such as blasting, delivery, impression, clickthrough, browsing, shopping, investigation, shopping basket, checkout (Yeah! Conversion!) and repeat purchases. Obviously, not all steps require aggressive or precision targeting. But I’d say, at the minimum, initial blast, clickthrough and conversion should be looked at separately. For any lifetime value analysis, yes, the repeat purchase is a key step; which, unfortunately, is often neglected by many marketers and data collectors.

Inversely Related Targets
More complex cases are when some of these multiple response and conversion steps are “inversely” related. For example, many responders to invitation-to-apply type credit card offers are often people with not-so-great credit. Well, if one has a good credit score, would all these credit card companies have left them alone? So, in a case like that, it becomes very tricky to find good responders who are also credit-worthy in the vast pool of a prospect universe.

I wouldn’t go as far as saying that it is like finding a needle in a haystack, but it is certainly not easy. Now, I’ve met folks who go after the likely responders with potential to be approved as a single target. It really is a philosophical difference, but I much prefer building two separate models in a situation like this:

  • One model designed to measure responsiveness, and
  • Another to measure likelihood to be approved.

The major benefit for having separate models is that each model will be able employ different types and sources of data variables. A more practical benefit for the users is that the marketers will be able to pick and choose what is more important to them at the time of campaign execution. They will obviously go to the top corner bracket, where both scores are high (i.e., potential responders who are likely to be approved). But as they dial the selection down, they will be able to test responsiveness and credit-worthiness separately.

Mixing Multiple Model Scores
Even when multiple models are developed with completely different intentions, mixing them up will produce very interesting results. Imagine you have access to scores for “High-Value Customer Model” and “Attrition Model.” If you cross these scores in a simple 2×2 matrix, you can easily create a useful segment in one corner called “Valuable Vulnerable” (a term that my mentor created a long time ago). Yes, one score is predicting who is likely to drop your service, but who cares if that customer shows little or no value to your business? Take care of the valuable customers first.

This type of mixing and matching becomes really interesting if you have lots of pre-developed models. During my tenure at a large data compiling company, we built more than 120 models for all kinds of consumer characteristics for general use. I remember the real fun began when we started mixing multiple models, like combining a “NASCAR Fan” model with a “College Football Fan” model; a “Leaning Conservative” model with an “NRA Donor” model; an “Organic Food” one with a “Cook for Fun” model or a “Wine Enthusiast” model; a “Foreign Vacation” model with a “Luxury Hotel” model or a “Cruise” model; a “Safety and Security Conscious” model or a “Home Improvement” model with a “Homeowner” model, etc., etc.

You see, no one is one dimensional, and we proved it with mathematics.

No One is One-dimensional
Obviously, these examples are just excerpts from a long playbook for the art of targeting. My intention is to emphasize that marketers must consider target, comparison and methodologies separately; and a combination of these three elements yields the most fitting solutions for each challenge, way beyond what some popular toolsets or new statistical methodologies presented in some technical conferences can acomplish. In fact, when the marketers are able to define the target in a logical fashion with help from trained analysts and data scientists, the effectiveness of modeling and subsequent marketing campaigns increase dramatically. Creating and maintaining an analytics department or hiring an outsourcing analytics vendor aren’t enough.

One may be concerned about the idea of building multiple models so casually, but let me remind you that it is the reality in which we already reside, anyway. I am saying this, as I’ve seen too many marketers who try to fix everything with just one hammer, and the results weren’t ideal—to say the least.

It is a shame that we still treat people with one-dimensional tools, such segmentations and clusters, in this age of ubiquitous and abundant data. Nobody is one-dimensional, and we must embrace that reality sooner than later. That calls for rapid model development and deployment, using everything that we’ve got.

Arguing about how difficult it is to build one or two more models here and there is so last century.