← Every exhibit
The customer lifetime value boundary card
Map the margin, survival, horizon, discount rate and decision before multiplying ratios.
| Field | Question to settle | Failure if omitted |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship type | Is the commercial relationship contractual (observable cancellations) or noncontractual (latent unobserved defection)? | Constant churn applied to irregular reorder baskets |
| Contribution boundary | Which customer-specific hosting, infrastructure, support, and payment costs are deducted from net revenue? | Top-line billing confused with cash contribution |
| Survival function | Does retention decay follow a constant geometric rate, an empirical retention curve, or an increasing hazards model? | Survival overstated in late periods |
| Discount rate | What cost of capital or hurdle rate discounts distant cash flows back to present value? | Distant, uncertain future cash weighted equally with current cash |
| Observation horizon | Is the model calculated over a finite window (e.g., 36 or 60 months) or an infinite geometric series? | Infinite tail captures speculative value |
| Cohort stability | Did the customer cohort enter under identical channel, discount, and onboarding terms? | Mix shifts look like structural loyalty shifts |
| Decision use | Does the calculated CLV guide acquisition bidding, retention spend, credit terms, or account tiering? | The metric becomes passive reporting |
Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.
Reference & Evidence
Source: Author's framework grounded in the customer-valuation and customer-equity models of Gupta, Lehmann and Stuart (2004), Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml (2004), Mulhern (1999), and Malthouse and Blattberg (2005).
Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.
- A The valuation move, in one sentence: they "demonstrate how valuing customers makes it feasible to value firms, including high-growth firms with negative earnings", defining customer value as "the expected sum of discounted future earnings" Gupta, Lehmann & Stuart. (2004) ·
GLS04-C1 - A The sensitivity is theirs and it is asymmetric: "a 1% improvement in retention, margin, or acqui"sition cost "improves firm value by 5%, 1%, and .1%, respectively" Gupta, Lehmann & Stuart. (2004) ·
GLS04-C2 - A The framework is a trade-off device, in the authors' words: "a unified strategic framework that enables competing marketing strategy options to be traded off on the basis of projected financial return, which is operationalized as the change in a firm's customer equity rel"ative to the incremental expenditure needed to produce it Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml. (2004) ·
RLZ04-C1 - A The components of a lifetime value are enumerated: "each customer's lifetime value results from the frequency of category purchases, average quantity of purchase, and brand-switching patterns combined with the firm's contribution margin" Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml. (2004) ·
RLZ04-C2 - A The paper is METHOD, not an empirical finding, in its own words: "This paper provides a conceptual and methodological foundation for measuring customer profitability" by extending customer-lifetime-value approaches to broader target-marketing applications. Mulhern. (1999) ·
MUL99-C1 - A The question is feasibility, not desirability: relationship-marketing strategies "presume that a firm can accurately predict the future profitability of customers", and the paper is "a detailed empirical evaluation of how accurately the future profitability of customers" can be predicted across four industry data sets Malthouse & Blattberg. (2005) ·
MB05-C1
Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.