IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v60y2014i6p1594-1616.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Website Morphing 2.0: Switching Costs, Partial Exposure, Random Exit, and When to Morph

Author

Listed:
  • John R. Hauser

    (MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Guilherme (Gui) Liberali

    (Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands; and MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Glen L. Urban

    (MIT Center for Digital Business, MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

Website morphing infers latent customer segments from clickstreams and then changes websites' look and feel to maximize revenue. The established algorithm infers latent segments from a preset number of clicks and then selects the best “morph” using expected Gittins indices. Switching costs, potential website exit, and all clicks prior to morphing are ignored. We model switching costs, potential website exit, and the (potentially differential) impact of all clicks to determine when to morph for each customer. Morphing earlier means more customer clicks are based on the optimal morph; morphing later reveals more about the customer's latent segment. We couple this within-customer optimization to between-customer expected Gittins index optimization to determine which website “look and feel” to give to each customer at each click. We evaluate the improved algorithm with synthetic data and with a proof-of-feasibility application to Japanese bank card loans. The proposed algorithm generalizes the established algorithm, is feasible in real time, performs substantially better when tuning parameters are identified from calibration data, and is reasonably robust to misspecification.Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1961 . This paper was accepted by Eric Bradlow, special issue on business analytics .

Suggested Citation

  • John R. Hauser & Guilherme (Gui) Liberali & Glen L. Urban, 2014. "Website Morphing 2.0: Switching Costs, Partial Exposure, Random Exit, and When to Morph," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1594-1616, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:60:y:2014:i:6:p:1594-1616
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1961
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1961?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John D. C. Little, 1970. "Models and Managers: The Concept of a Decision Calculus," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(8), pages 466-485, April.
    2. Glen L. Urban & Guilherme (Gui) Liberali & Erin MacDonald & Robert Bordley & John R. Hauser, 2014. "Morphing Banner Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 27-46, January.
    3. Banks, Jeffrey S & Sundaram, Rangarajan K, 1994. "Switching Costs and the Gittins Index," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 687-694, May.
    4. Balabanis, George & Reynolds, Nina & Simintiras, Antonis, 2006. "Bases of e-store loyalty: Perceived switching barriers and satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 214-224, February.
    5. Jones, Michael A. & Mothersbaugh, David L. & Beatty, Sharon E., 2002. "Why customers stay: measuring the underlying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differential strategic outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 441-450, June.
    6. F. Thomas Juster, 1966. "Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number just66-2, March.
    7. John D. C. Little, 1966. "A Model of Adaptive Control of Promotional Spending," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 1075-1097, December.
    8. John R. Hauser & Olivier Toubia, 2005. "The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 498-507, August.
    9. Qing Liu & Thomas Otter & Greg M. Allenby, 2007. "Investigating Endogeneity Bias in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 642-650, 09-10.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Davide Proserpio & John R. Hauser & Xiao Liu & Tomomichi Amano & Alex Burnap & Tong Guo & Dokyun (DK) Lee & Randall Lewis & Kanishka Misra & Eric Schwarz & Artem Timoshenko & Lilei Xu & Hema Yoganaras, 2020. "Soul and machine (learning)," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 393-404, December.
    2. Hu, Peng & Gong, Yeming & Lu, Yaobin & Ding, Amy Wenxuan, 2023. "Speaking vs. listening? Balance conversation attributes of voice assistants for better voice marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 109-127.
    3. Kalaignanam, Kartik & Kushwaha, Tarun & Rajavi, Koushyar, 2018. "How Does Web Personalization Create Value for Online Retailers? Lower Cash Flow Volatility or Enhanced Cash Flows," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 265-279.
    4. Leischnig, Alexander & Kasper-Brauer, Kati & Thornton, Sabrina C., 2018. "Spotlight on customization: An analysis of necessity and sufficiency in services," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 385-390.
    5. S. Mills & S. Costa & C. R. Sunstein, 2023. "AI, Behavioural Science, and Consumer Welfare," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 387-400, September.
    6. José Niño-Mora, 2020. "Fast Two-Stage Computation of an Index Policy for Multi-Armed Bandits with Setup Delays," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-36, December.
    7. Gui Liberali & Alina Ferecatu, 2022. "Morphing for Consumer Dynamics: Bandits Meet Hidden Markov Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 769-794, July.
    8. De Bruyn, Arnaud & Viswanathan, Vijay & Beh, Yean Shan & Brock, Jürgen Kai-Uwe & von Wangenheim, Florian, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence and Marketing: Pitfalls and Opportunities," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 91-105.
    9. Liberali, G., 2018. "Learning with a purpose: the balancing acts of machine learning and individuals in the digital society," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA-2018-074-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam..
    10. Alina Ferecatu & Arnaud De Bruyn, 2022. "Understanding Managers’ Trade-Offs Between Exploration and Exploitation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 139-165, January.
    11. Lambillotte, Laetitia & Magrofuoco, Nathan & Poncin, Ingrid & Vanderdonckt, Jean, 2022. "Enhancing playful customer experience with personalization," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    12. Tuck Siong Chung & Michel Wedel & Roland T. Rust, 2016. "Adaptive personalization using social networks," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 66-87, January.
    13. Wedel, Michel & Bigné, Enrique & Zhang, Jie, 2020. "Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing research in consumer marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 443-465.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Hauser & Gerard J. Tellis & Abbie Griffin, 2006. "Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 687-717, 11-12.
    2. Chung-Yu Wang, 2007. "Investigating antecedents of consumers' recommend intentions and the moderating effect of switching barriers," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(9), pages 1231-1241, November.
    3. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Mutum, Dilip & Mohd Ghazali, Ezlika & Nguyen, Bang & Arnott, David, 2014. "Online loyalty and its interaction with switching barriers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 942-949.
    6. Chebat, Jean-Charles & Davidow, Moshe & Borges, Adilson, 2011. "More on the role of switching costs in service markets: A research note," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 823-829, August.
    7. Nagengast, Liane & Evanschitzky, Heiner & Blut, Markus & Rudolph, Thomas, 2014. "New Insights in the Moderating Effect of Switching Costs on the Satisfaction–Repurchase Behavior Link," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 408-427.
    8. Theodoros Evgeniou & Massimiliano Pontil & Olivier Toubia, 2007. "A Convex Optimization Approach to Modeling Consumer Heterogeneity in Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 805-818, 11-12.
    9. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    10. Woisetschläger, David M. & Lentz, Patrick & Evanschitzky, Heiner, 2011. "How habits, social ties, and economic switching barriers affect customer loyalty in contractual service settings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 800-808, August.
    11. Pham Ngoc Thuy & Le Nguyen Hau & Felicitas Evangelista, 2016. "Service value and switching barriers: a personal values perspective," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3-4), pages 142-162, February.
    12. Ezlika Ghazali & Bang Nguyen & Dilip S. Mutum & Amrul Asraf Mohd-Any, 2016. "Constructing online switching barriers: examining the effects of switching costs and alternative attractiveness on e-store loyalty in online pure-play retailers," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(2), pages 157-171, May.
    13. Danaf, Mazen & Guevara, Angelo & Atasoy, Bilge & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2020. "Endogeneity in adaptive choice contexts: Choice-based recommender systems and adaptive stated preferences surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    14. Kyungyeol (Anthony) Kim & Kevin K. Byon & Heedong Choi, 2020. "A Conceptual Analysis of Switching Costs: Implications for Fitness Centers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-16, May.
    15. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "—It's the Findings, Stupid, Not the Assumptions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 449-459, 07-08.
    16. Olivier Toubia & John Hauser & Rosanna Garcia, 2007. "Probabilistic Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Theory and Application," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 596-610, 09-10.
    17. Urban, Glen L. & Roberts, John H. & Hauser, John R., 1986. "Prelaunch forecasting of new automobiles : models and implementation," Working papers 1820-86., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    18. Liu, Qian & Shao, Zhen & Fan, Weiguo, 2018. "The impact of users’ sense of belonging on social media habit formation: Empirical evidence from social networking and microblogging websites in China," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 209-223.
    19. Cristine D. Delnevo & Michelle Jeong & Ollie Ganz & Daniel P. Giovenco & Erin Miller Lo, 2021. "The Effect of Cigarillo Packaging Characteristics on Young Adult Perceptions and Intentions: An Experimental Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-12, April.
    20. Babur De los Santos & Sergei Koulayev, 2017. "Optimizing Click-Through in Online Rankings with Endogenous Search Refinement," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 542-564, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:60:y:2014:i:6:p:1594-1616. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.