Skip to content

Making Connections

isee systems blog

Making Connections

  • About
  • More Connections
Search

Modeling Customers Switching Between Brands – The General Case

Updated: November 30, 2011October 23, 2009Filed under: Modeling Tips8 Comments

This is the last installment of a four-part series.  The first three parts can be accessed by clicking on the links below.
Methods for Using Arrays Effectively

Modeling a Watershed with Arrays
Modeling Customers Switching Between Brands

Generalizing the Model

When I showed Steve Peterson (at Lexidyne) my brand switching model, he told me there is a more general version that separates the customer loss fraction from the fraction won by another competitor.  This has been presented in Pharmaceutical Product Strategy by Mark Paich, Corey Peck, and Jason Valant.

In my original formulation, the switching probability matrix was the product of these two variables.  However, in many practical cases, the data available comes from two different places and reflects these two separate components.  The revised model structure is shown below.

image

Instead of one composite switching probability, this model uses a switching out probability that is distinct from the switching in probability.  The switching out probability is a one-dimensional array that, for each product, contains the fraction of customers lost to rivals every time unit (in our case, month).  A sample for the five brands A, B, C, D, and E appears below.

Brand Fraction Lost
A 0.091
B 0.170
C 0.046
D 0.026
E 0.071

switching out probability

We can see from this table that Brand B is losing 17% of its customers to rivals each and every month!  Whoever is managing that product had better do something quickly.

The other side of the story has to do with which brand the customers are switching to.  The switching in probability matrix contains, for each brand, the fraction of lost customers that migrate to a rival brand.  Thus, each row of this matrix must add up to one (100% of lost customers).  A sample appears below.

From\To A B C D E
A 0.00 0.11 0.33 0.55 0.01
B 0.18 0.00 0.29 0.41 0.12
C 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.44 0.32
D 0.04 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.19
E 0.02 0.07 0.28 0.63 0.00

switching in probability

Note the diagonal will always be zero.

We can determine a lot of things from this table.  For example, brand B offers no competition to brand D, brand D is the biggest rival of all the other brands, and brand C is brand D’s biggest rival.

Given these probabilities, we can find the number of customers switching out with the equation:

switching_out_probability[Products]*Customers[Products]

We can then use the exact same formulation as previously for switching to:

switching_out[Products]*switching_in_probability[Products, Products]

and switching in:

ARRAYSUM(switching_to[*, Products])

Note that all customers that switch between two brands also pass through a stock called Customers Switching.  This was Steve Peterson’s idea:  If the equations in the model are correct and all rows of switching in probability add up to one, as they ought to, this stock will always be zero.  If it is ever non-zero, you immediately know there is something wrong with the numbers in switching in probability.  [Note:  Due to truncation errors during the simulation, the stock will not identically equal zero, so it has been globally scaled from –1 to +1 using the Range Specs.]

Expanding the Model

The structure given above models rivalry for existing customers quite well.  However, it does not include flows for new customers entering the market or existing customers leaving the market.  The full structure for acquiring and retaining customers looks like this (and is available by clicking here):

image

New customers are gained by each brand based on their respective market shares.  Each brand also has a fraction of customers who are lost completely to this market, who perhaps move on to other technology or just stop using that type of product.

The simulation results are shown below for the case where all products start with 100 customers, no new customers are added, and the loss rate is zero.

image

Switching Based on Market Shares

There is one further variant to customer brand switching that may be useful in some circumstances (it is available by clicking here):

image

In this version, rather than using a switching in probability, the number of customers gained each unit time is determined by a dynamic overall market share, the one-dimensional array switching in market share.  Whereas the previous model (above) includes a mechanism whereby brand X explicitly gains customers from brand Y, this model bases switching on market share dynamics; if a customer decides to stop using brand X, they might then go searching for a replacement and would be more likely pick the market leader.  Note the switching in market share can be the same as the brand’s overall market share or, as shown, it can reflect the different market shares between new customers (market share) and switching customers (switching in market share).

Modeling Tips
  • 2D array
  • arrays
  • iThink/STELLA
  • market dynamics

Post navigation

Previous Post:

Running Mean and Standard Deviation

Next Post:

Modeling H1N1 Flu Outbreak

About the Author

Karim Chichakly

Co-President

All posts byKarim ChichaklyWebsite

Hide

Categories

  • Education (4)
  • isee NetSim (3)
  • isee.NET Framework (1)
  • Modeling Tips (32)
  • News & Announcements (15)
  • STELLA & iThink (14)
  • Stories from the Field (5)
  • Systems Thinking (8)
  • Training (6)

Archives

Browse by keyword

2D array archetypes arrays Barry Richmond Bass diffusion builtins calibration Causal Loop CLD command line conferences crisis data diffusion Education environment export game graphical function h1n1 healthcare housing import iThink/STELLA market dynamics MODSIM modules mortgage netsim optimization Physics policy price releases scholarship software spatial Stella storytelling System Dynamics Society Systems Thinking Version 9.1.2 video webinar workshop

Recent Posts

  • COVID-19: Modeling Distributions of Incubation and Recovery Times April 1, 2020
  • Multiobjective Optimization January 9, 2018
  • Optimizing Model Performance December 22, 2017
  • Calibration in Stella® December 15, 2017
  • Drifting Goals March 9, 2016

RSS System Dynamics Forum

Recent Comments

  • best apps review on About
  • digital software on Modeling the Economic Crisis
  • Mishawaka Indiana on What are “Mental Models”?
  • La Paz Indiana on XMILE – An open standard for system dynamics models
  • Bristol Indiana on Modeling the Economic Crisis

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
Products
Software (v1.3)
  • Stella Architect
  • Stella Professional
  • Stella Designer
  • Stella Simulator
  • iThink
  • Feature Updates
  • Policies
  • Publishing Options
  • License Agreement
Free Software
  • Stella Online
  • isee Player
  • Stella Architect Trial
Solutions
Consulting
  • Systems Innovation Practice
Common Applications
  • Business
  • Education
  • Research
  • Government
  • Energy
  • Health
  • Agriculture
  • Manufacturing
  • Conservation
Quick Links
About
  • isee systems
  • Systems Thinking
  • Barry Richmond Scholarship
Resources
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Product Help
  • Examples
  • Request Support
  • Request Quote
  • Systems in Focus
  • Quick Tips
  • Legacy Tutorials
News and Events
Upcoming Workshops
  • Introduction to Dynamic Modeling
  • Whole Systems Partnership
Newsletter
  • The Connector
Recent Webinars
  • Model Mysteries
Recent Training
  • Systems Thinking Practice
Press Release
  • Stella Architect Release

  Phone: (603) 448-4990   Email: info@iseesystems.com

   Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EDT | Saturday - Sunday: Closed
Wheelock Office Park | 31 Old Etna Rd, Suite 7N | Lebanon, NH 03766 | US

isee systems inc. holds registered trademark rights over the following: iThink®, STELLA®, Stella®, isee systems® and claims the following trademarks; isee NetSim™, Stella Live™, Causal Lens™ and Stella Online™.

Terms of Use

© 2017. isee systems inc . All rights reserved.