ارش ویژه مشتری و ارزش بازار: دو روش، نتایج مشابه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|14764||2012||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 5547 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 65, Issue 12, December 2012, Pages 1752–1758
Although researchers have developed a variety of methods to model customer equity (CE), producing simple and robust models is a difficult task. Often, researchers have to compromise simplicity in favor of robustness or completeness. This paper empirically investigates two CE-based methods to compute proxies for market value. The models differ substantially in terms of complexity and the type of information they use, but their result is equivalent. Both models use Gupta et al. (2004) CE approach, and use data from the Brazilian Telecom Industry. The results show that CE, under the simpler, static approach, when added to net equity, is a good proxy for market value and reasonably equivalent to Gupta et al.'s (2004) CE under the dynamic approach. While the dynamic approach requires some technical training and substantive customer information that might not be readily available, the static approach is simpler and easier to compute.
Marketing managers are under constant pressure to measure, and demonstrate, the effectiveness of marketing, and academics are actively developing new methods to help. For example, the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) calls for research on metrics to assess the outcome of marketing efforts, and accountability and return on investment of marketing expenditures have consistently been the MSI's top research priorities for over a decade.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper empirically investigates the equivalence of two customer equity (CE) methods—static and dynamic—to compute proxies for the market value (MV) of a firm. The evidence is interesting from the shareholders' point of view, as the results help put marketing closer to the center of the firm's important decisions. The value of this study lies in its contributions to research and its implications for managers and analysts. Like Rust et al. (2004), the authors of this paper recognize that making marketing actions financially accountable is an important issue in marketing theory and practices. Hence, this paper relates the key focus of marketing effort, the customers, to market valuation, the key measure of a firm's financial success. The test results show an equivalent relationship between static and dynamic CE, and also between each one of the models—static and dynamic CE—and MV. Hence, both models are good proxies for the market value of companies. These results provide marketing managers with ways to demonstrate the influence of marketing in business performance. Managers can also justify their investments in the drivers of CE, and financial and investment analysts can add another variable to their analyses and recommendations, making them stronger and more convincing.