| Literature DB >> 36204756 |
Rong Fu1, Binbin Zheng1, Juan Wen2, Luze Xie1.
Abstract
Under the background of economic globalization and COVID-19, online shopping has gradually replaced offline shopping as the main shopping mode. In this paper, consumers' perceptions are introduced into the traditional BCG matrix to form a new BCG matrix, and according to it, the small gifts of a gift e-commerce platform are classified. We then performed a robustness test comparing the BCG matrix with K-means clustering. We found that new BCG matrix can objectively reflect the value of small gifts and provide suggestions for the e-commerce platform to make subsequent product decisions. Then we judge the customer value of the platform based on the improved RFM model and K-means++ clustering, and provide a reasonable customer value classification method for the e-commerce platform. Finally, we comprehensively consider the relationship between the commodity value and customer value, and analyze the preferences of different types of customer groups for different types of small gifts. Our research result shows that small gifts can be divided into 4 categories according to commodity value, namely "stars," "cash cows," "questions marks," and "dogs." These four categories of small gifts can be converted into each other through marketing ploys. Customers can be divided into important retention customers, key loyal customers and general development customers according to their values. Faced with different types of customers, managers can adopt different strategies to extract customer value. However, consumer psychology will affect consumer cognition, and different types of consumers prefer different types of small gifts, so the precise implementation of marketing strategies will effectively improve the profitability of the gift e-commerce platform. Compared with the traditional classification method, the commodity business value classification method proposed in this paper uses management analysis and planning methods, and introduces consumer psychological factors into the commodity and customer classification, so that the classification results are more credible. In addition, we jointly analyze the results of commodity value classification and customer value classification, and analyze in detail the preferences of different valued customer groups for different types of commodities, so as to provide directions for subsequent research on customer preference.Entities:
Keywords: BCG matrix; cognition; commodity business value; consumer psychology; customer value; improved RFM model; perception
Year: 2022 PMID: 36204756 PMCID: PMC9531681 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985537
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research flow chart.
FIGURE 2BCG matrix.
Description of the characteristic variables of the user’s historical order table.
| Field name | Field meaning | Numeric type |
| InvoiceNo | Invoice number | Object |
| StockCode | Commodity code | Object |
| Description | Product description | Object |
| Quantity | Quantity of the same commodity in a single transaction | Int |
| InvoiceDate | Transaction date | Datetime |
| UnitPrice | Unit price | Float |
| CustomerID | Customer ID | Int |
| Country | User’s country | Object |
Commodity business value index system.
| Level indicators | Secondary indicators | Description |
| Sales indicators | Sales growth rate | Average monthly growth rate of sales |
| Annual sales amount | Total amount of merchandise sold | |
| Annual sales figure | Total number of merchandises sold | |
| Commodity indicators | Price | Average price of goods |
| Product acceptance rate | Goods acceptance rate = Number of unreturned goods/Number of goods sold | |
| Customer preference | The number of customers who bought this item in a year |
Customer value index system.
| Indicator name | Description | Value type |
| R1 | Average consumption time of customers | float |
| F1 | Number of customer transactions | int |
| M1 | Customer consumption amount | float |
| S | Customer relationship duration: time interval from first to last transaction | int |
| P | The type of commodity purchased by customers | int |
Commodity business value index weight table.
| W1 | W2 | W3 | W4 | W5 | W6 | |
| Weights | 0.258414 | 0.445519 | 0.02365 | 0.137093 | 0.003443 | 0.131881 |
Customer value index weight table.
| R1 | F1 | M1 | S |
| |
| Weights | 0.022838 | 0.233296 | 0.482278 | 0.065036 | 0.196552 |
FIGURE 3Commodity BCG matrix.
BCG Matrix classification of some commodities.
| Commodity code | Type | Commodity code | Type |
| 10002 | Dogs | 15030 | Dogs |
| 10080 | Dogs | 15034 | Questions |
| 10120 | Dogs | 15036 | Stars |
| 10125 | Dogs | 15039 | Dogs |
| 10133 | Cash cows | 16008 | Dogs |
| 10135 | Cash cows | 16010 | Dogs |
| 11001 | Dogs | 16011 | Dogs |
Commodity index comparison table.
| Cash cows | Stars | Dogs | Questions | All | |
| Sales indicator | 201.76 | 941.69 | 56.02 | 427.41 | 274.23 |
| Total price indicator | 1427.07 | 7586.37 | 409.7 | 3191.61 | 2160.62 |
| Acceptance rate indicator | 0.9765 | 0.9742 | 0.9467 | 0.9812 | 0.9559 |
| Commodity indicators | 4.11 | 9.16 | 0.9038 | 1.98 | 3.04 |
Commodity value table.
| Commodity value | Questions | Stars | Cash cows | Dogs |
| Is it popular | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Is it highly profitable | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Is it high return | No | No | No | Yes |
| Is it liked | No | Yes | Yes | No |
Clustering results of k = 4.
| Number of clusters | Sales volume | Total sales | Unit price | Number of buyers | Utilization ratio | Sales growth rate | Quantity |
| 0 | 10360 | 21480 | 3 | 666 | 0.975 | 19 | 98 |
| 1 | 561 | 750 | 3 | 55 | 0.953 | 24 | 3103 |
| 2 | 27463 | 84495 | 4 | 1643 | 0.960 | 1 | 5 |
| 3 | 3873 | 6634 | 4 | 297 | 0.970 | 28 | 463 |
Clustering results of k = 3.
| Label | R1 | F1 | M1 | S | P | Count |
| 0 | 1.921453 | 0.884918 | 693.984 | 8.077691 | 11.40231 | 4268 |
| 1 | 0.149268 | 12.98681 | 114081 | 22.78432 | 64.53451 | 3 |
| 2 | 0.559498 | 11.75453 | 28603.78 | 19.64091 | 83.54207 | 26 |
Customer value ranking.
| Label | R1 | F1 | M1 | S | P | Count | Total | Ranking |
| 0 | 1.92 | 0.88 | 693.98 | 8.08 | 11.40 | 4268 | 716.27 | 3 |
| 1 | 0.15 | 12.99 | 114081.00 | 22.78 | 64.53 | 3 | 114181.46 | 1 |
| 2 | 0.56 | 11.75 | 28603.78 | 19.64 | 83.54 | 26 | 28719.27 | 2 |
Important consumer labels.
| Consumer ID | Label | Consumer ID | Label |
| 14646 | 1 | 15061 | 2 |
| 17450 | 1 | 15098 | 2 |
| 18102 | 1 | 15311 | 2 |
| 12346 | 2 | 15749 | 2 |
| 12415 | 2 | 15769 | 2 |
| 12748 | 2 | 15838 | 2 |
| 12931 | 2 | 16013 | 2 |
| 13089 | 2 | 16029 | 2 |
| 13694 | 2 | 16422 | 2 |
| 13798 | 2 | 16684 | 2 |
| 14088 | 2 | 17404 | 2 |
| 14096 | 2 | 17511 | 2 |
| 14156 | 2 | 17841 | 2 |
| 14298 | 2 | 17949 | 2 |
| 14911 | 2 |
FIGURE 4Column stacking chart of the percentage of commodities purchased by high-value customers.