Some recent academic literature has shown that companies using the standard Net Present Value (NPV) approach to calculate Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) and allocating their marketing spending might be losing substantial profits.

The standard CLV approach calculates the net present value (NPV) of all the anticipated cash flows coming in (revenues) and going out (expenses) over the projected life time for a given customer. Customers with a positive NPV are aggressively marketed and the ones which do not have a positive NPV are dropped. This is a pretty logical choice at the point of calculation- but only then. The existing conventional structure of calculating CLV is static and has the potential to leave money on the table for the company; because it does not account for the fact the company has the flexibility of abandoning a customer at any future point in time. Flexibility means options and options have a value.  The paper lays down a methodology (based on dynamic programming) to explicitly estimate the value of such options in the CLV calculation.

The authors of the paper cite the example of a specialty catalog company. They took data of 12 years and around 100,000 customers, and the difference in CLV using the traditional versus real options was as much as 20% in some cases. In fact, certain customers who had negative CLV’s turned positive when the value of real options was considered.

Retailers, communication companies and consumer finance companies who frequently use CLV as a decision making metric, are strongly recommended to read this paper.