Mckinsey Scale
🛑 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 INFORMATION AVAILABLE CLICK HERE👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
We use cookies essential for this site to function well. Please click "Accept" to help us improve its usefulness with additional cookies. Learn about our use of cookies, and collaboration with select social media and trusted analytics partners hereLearn more about cookies, Opens in new tab.
Engineering, Construction & Building Materials
Private Equity & Principal Investors
Technology, Media & Telecommunications
People create and sustain change. Unleash their potential.
Digital upends old models. Reinvent your business.
Most transformations fail. Flip the odds.
McKinsey and the World Economic Forum
Practical resources to help leaders navigate to the next normal: guides, tools, checklists, interviews and more.
Our mission is to help leaders in multiple sectors develop a deeper understanding of the global economy.
Our flagship business publication has been defining and informing the senior-management agenda since 1964.
Practical resources to help leaders navigate to the next normal: guides, tools, checklists, interviews and more
Learn what it means for you, and meet the people who create it
Inspire, empower, and sustain action that leads to the economic development of Black communities across the globe
Please use UP and DOWN arrow keys to review autocomplete results. Press enter to select and open the results on a new page.
Personalization at scale: First steps in a profitable journey to growth
August 3, 2018 | Article
Personalization at scale: First steps in a profitable journey to growth
Julien Boudet: Let’s start with the personalization part. Consider your daily life as a customer: you don’t want to be bothered with irrelevant coupons, emails, or texts, but you do want to be informed of offers that meet your specific needs. Personalization is an approach to customer engagement—almost a philosophy—that focuses on delivering tailored, meaningful, and relevant customer communication. On the business side, personalization allows a company to activate all the customer data available to deliver more relevant experiences for your existing customers and for your prospects as well.
Kai Vollhardt: Let me take the “at scale” part. In today’s marketplace, it’s not enough to send each customer an e-mail that addresses her by name and offers a discount based on a past purchase. You have to design and deliver tailored messages to thousands of customers in multiple interactions. That’s where technology comes in. It makes it possible for companies to truly interact on a personal basis with all their customers. That’s why it’s important to always think and talk in terms not just of personalization, but personalization at scale.
Julien Boudet: When done well, personalization can deliver impact and growth quickly while creating better experiences for your customers. Personalization plays a critical role across the full customer lifecycle—acquisition, customer engagement, basket size, frequency of purchase, cross-sell, and/or churn prevention, among other things.
Kai Vollhardt: Because the future of marketing is in data analytics, agile, and digital—and personalization at scale is where they all intersect! A majority of classical marketing disciplines—advertising, messages, prices, services—will become much more personalized. And it builds real value. Our research and experience show that personalization, fully implemented, can unlock significant near-term value for businesses—such as 10 to 20 percent more efficient marketing and greater cost savings and a 10 to 30 percent uplift in revenue and retention. What’s more, even though immediate results can be achieved in a matter of months, adopting personalization as a practice can have a long-term positive effect on customer satisfaction
The reality is that consumers want better personalization: approximately 80 percent of them say it’s important to them. But, while 95 percent of the marketing professionals we questioned at the 2017 World Retail Congress, in industries from energy to banking, said they recognize the need and potential for personalization, only 20 percent say retailers are doing a good job at it. For many companies, personalization at scale is still a mystery.
Julien Boudet: Understanding the importance of data and analytics is the key value generator for all personalization attempts, and it has to be at the heart of your thinking. First of all, you need to make personalization a priority and develop a strategy to build the right foundations and operational capabilities. Establishing the strategy doesn’t have to be a lengthy project that takes weeks or months, just a deliberate top-management decision to create a path to more personalized customer experience.
Kai Vollhardt: That’s true. Many marketers believe the first priority is to fully understand the quality of their data, build capabilities in analytics, or find the right tools. But most of them can start making personalization work quickly with what they already have. One of my core clients tried for a long time to build the perfect data cube in an attempt to harmonize data. But when he took a step back and rethought what personalization he could accomplish with the existing data, he decided to prioritize the analysis of data on customer interactions he already had. That made it possible for us to launch initial pilots within days.
Julien Boudet: Yes, I can’t emphasize enough that you can find real value—often a lot of it—by working with what you have. Naturally you should strive for the full customer-data platform (CDP and a 360-degree view of the customer), but don’t wait for perfection. Even a first model can yield great results. You can start personalized cross-selling with basic information on past behavior; you don’t have to buy new data or connect systems. We often start with a simple customer-data set that combines basic demographic information with transaction history, product details, and maybe Web data to get a preliminary understanding of the customer. A “167-degree view” of the customer that enables the activation of a few prioritized consumer use cases is better than a long quest for a 360-degree view of the same customer.
The next step, decisioning, is also not as complicated as at first it might seem. We typically start by understanding who the customer is, looking at their behaviors, and identifying the key triggers we can act on, or markers of value. This might come as a surprise, but a lot of the initial data mining is simply hypothesis driven, and a lot of the low-hanging fruit to drive momentum in the organization is common sense.
We worked with a telecom client that wanted to upsell a new service. Starting from a hypothesis about who should be targeted, we used frequency plots of customer value and past reactions to campaigns to identify and prioritize subsegments. This substantially accelerated the launch of pilot campaigns. Based on response rates, we refined the campaigns week by week, and we got progressively better response rates.
Kai Vollhardt: We’ve observed four common roadblocks. First, many companies are collecting and storing massive amounts of data but are having trouble finding and merging the most relevant subsets. Instead of generating and assembling more and more data, companies should focus on identifying and collecting the right data. Sometimes less data actually put into action is more effective than adding the most sophisticated external data set.
Second, many companies still think in terms of seasons or general events rather than appropriate triggers. Triggers are the specific occasions when a particular message will be most valuable to a customer. A customer moving to a new home, for example, is a trigger for an energy company. In my experience, trigger-based actions have three to four times the effect of standard communication.
Third, personalization at scale requires agile, cross-functional teams, and many companies are still stuck in a siloed way of working. Running an agile project once is relatively easy, but making it stick and scale is difficult. Those cross-functional teams make it easier to apply a test-and-learn approach, as all relevant experts are in the room and insights can be shared instantly, which is a prerequisite for personalization at scale. As a result, the number of campaigns brought live can easily increase by a factor of ten or more. Test-and-learn or not being afraid to fail can be a significant cultural shift for traditional companies. And it’s a lot of fun for employees—something we always find amazing.
Finally, the right tech tools and infrastructure have to be in place to test successfully on a large scale across the entire customer base, and this can feel overwhelming. However, technology has advanced a lot, and there are several simple and powerful solutions available.
Julien Boudet: I’d like to emphasize what you said about cross-functional teams, Kai. Companies really need to engage with marketing, operations, and tech experts to build organizational capabilities that can sustain change and establish new ways of working. That comes from both training existing staff and recruiting new top talent. For companies that need to fill multiple roles with specific skill sets, specialist competence is essential. But it’s not enough. Specialists also need to be “translators,” who can communicate insights comfortably and effectively across business functions.
Julien Boudet: It’s understandably difficult to make the right technology choices, since the landscape is very dynamic, complex, and not particularly transparent, and it’s unclear what different providers are doing and what advantages they offer. In the 2018 edition of Scott Brinker’s Marketing Technology Landscape overview, he lists ~7,000 marketing-technology solutions.
McKinsey’s new weekly newsletter, featuring must-read content on a range of topics, every Friday
But one way to start to simplify the technology side is to understand that it has to enable three things:
Kai Vollhardt: Simply put, technology is crucial to scaling personalization, and a customer decision platform has to be at the heart of it. We found that 50 percent of companies that outperform the market feel they have the tech tools they need, compared with only 16 percent of their poorer-performing peers. In the long run, the real value comes not just in developing the three elements of the operating model but in getting them to work together seamlessly. Once consumer data has been collected, it needs to be prepared and transformed to uncover additional insights: the more comprehensive the customer view, the more accurate the predictions of the decision-engine models will be. But while technology is very important, technology alone won’t solve all the personalization challenges.
Julien Boudet: Absolutely. Technology and analytics play a big role in driving impact beyond pilots and scale, but at the end of the day, companies don’t achieve the impact without changing their internal operating model to be agile, focused on key customer KPIs, cross-functional, and driven by rapid decision making.
Julien Boudet is a partner in McKinsey’s Seattle office, and Kai Vollhardt is a partner in the Munich office.
Never miss an insight. We'll email you when new articles are published on this topic.
Something went wrong. Please try again later.
Subscribed to Marketing & Sales email alerts.
Select topics and stay current with our latest insights
Select topics and stay current with our latest insights
McKinsey Insights - Get our latest thinking on your iPhone, iPad, or Android device.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Kinsey scale, also called the Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating Scale,[1] is used in research to describe a person's sexual orientation based on one’s experience or response at a given time. The scale typically ranges from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to a 6, meaning exclusively homosexual. In both the male and female volumes of the Kinsey Reports, an additional grade, listed as "X", indicated "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions". The reports were first published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)[2] by Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and others, and were also prominent in the complementary work Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).[1]
Alfred Kinsey, the creator of the Kinsey scale, is known as "the father of the sexual revolution."[3] The Kinsey scale was created in order to demonstrate that sexuality does not fit into two strict categories: homosexual and heterosexual. Instead, Kinsey believed that sexuality is fluid and subject to change over time.[4]
Instead of using sociocultural labels, Kinsey primarily used assessments of behavior in order to rate individuals on the scale.[4] Kinsey's first rating scale had thirty categories that represented thirty different case studies, but his final scale has only seven categories.[5] Over 8,000 interviews were coordinated throughout his research.[6]
Introducing the scale, Kinsey wrote:
Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.
The Kinsey scale ranges from 0 for those interviewed who solely had desires for or sexual experiences with the opposite sex to 6 for those who had exclusively same sex desires or experiences, and 1–5 for those who had varying levels of desire or experiences with both sexes, including "incidental" or "occasional" desire for sexual activity with the same sex. It did not reference whether they "identified" as heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.[7]
Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
Equally heterosexual and homosexual
Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
No socio-sexual contacts or reactions
Kinsey recognized that the seven categories of the scale could not fully capture every individual's sexuality. He wrote that "it should be recognized that the reality includes individuals of every intermediate type, lying in a continuum between the two extremes and between each and every category on the scale."[8] Although sociologists Martin S. Weinberg and Colin J. Williams write that, in principle, people who rank anywhere from 1 to 5 could be considered bisexual,[9] Kinsey disliked the use of the term bisexual to describe individuals who engage in sexual activity with both males and females, preferring to use bisexual in its original, biological sense as hermaphroditic; he stated, "Until it is demonstrated [that] taste in a sexual relation is dependent upon the individual containing within his anatomy both male and female structures, or male and female physiological capacities, it is unfortunate to call such individuals bisexual."[10] Psychologist Jim McKnight writes that while the idea that bisexuality is a form of sexual orientation intermediate between homosexuality and heterosexuality is implicit in the Kinsey scale, that conception has been "severely challenged" since the publication of Homosexualities (1978), by Weinberg and the psychologist Alan P. Bell.[11]
Furthermore, although the additional X grade used to mean "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions" is today described as asexuality,[10] psychologist Justin J. Lehmiller stated, "the Kinsey X classification emphasized a lack of sexual behavior, whereas the modern definition of asexuality emphasizes a lack of sexual attraction. As such, the Kinsey Scale may not be sufficient for accurate classification of asexuality."[12]
The Kinsey Reports are two published works, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). These reports discuss the sexual attractions, behaviors, and development of human males and females.[8][13] The data to scale the participants comes from their "psychosexual responses and/or overt experience" in relation to sexual attraction and activity with the same and opposite sexes.[8] The inclusion of psychosexual responses allows someone with less sexual experience to rank evenly with someone of greater sexual experience.[8]
The results found in "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" show a higher number of men who lean towards homosexuality than recorded for the women.[8] Kinsey addresses that the result is contrary to reports that women have more homosexual leanings than men. He posits that such reports are due to the "wishful thinking on the part of such heterosexual males."[8]
The Kinsey scale is credited as one of the first attempts to "acknowledge the diversity and fluidity of human sexual behavior" by illustrating that "sexuality does not fall neatly into the dichotomous categories of exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual."[17] Most studies regarding homosexuality, at the time, were conducted by medical professionals who were sought out by individuals that wanted to change their sexual orientation.[18] Alfred Kinsey's publications on human sexuality, which encompasses the Kinsey scale, were widely advertised and had a huge impact on society's modern conceptions of sexuality, post-World War II.[19]
Galupo et al. argued, "Despite the availability of the Kinsey Scale, assessment via sociocultural labels (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) is the predominant modality for determining the sexual orientation of research participants."[17] Many sexologists see the Kinsey scale as relevant to sexual orientation, but not comprehensive enough to cover all sexual identity aspects. Measures of sexual orientation do not always correlate with individuals' self-identification labels.[17] As such, sexual identity involves more than one component and may also involve biological sex and gender identity.[20] However, Bullough et al. argued that this "wide-scale public discussion of human sexuality" ultimately led Americans to challenge traditional heteronormative behaviors. His research and findings encouraged gay men and lesbians to come out by debunking much of the stigma revolved around homosexuality.[21]
Others have further defined the scale. In 1980, Michael Storms proposed a two dimensional chart with an X and Y axis.[22] This scale explicitly takes into account the case of asexuality and the simultaneous expression of hetero-eroticism and homo-eroticism.[23] Fritz Klein, in his Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, included factors such as how orientation can change throughout a person's lifetime, as well as emotional and social orientation.[24] Kinsey, Storm, and Klein are only three of more than 200 scales to measure and describe sexual orientation.[25] For example, there are scales that rate homosexual behaviors from 1 to 14, and measures for gender, masculinity, femininity, and transsexualism.[26][27]
There have been similar studies using a scale from 0 to 10. In such studies, the person would be asked a question such as "If 0 is completely gay and 10 is completely hetero, what is your orientation number?".[28]
A study published in 2014 aimed to explore "sexual minority individuals' qualitative responses regarding the ways in which the Kinsey Scale [...] captures (or fail to capture) their sexuality."[17] Participants completed the [Kinsey] scale and then were aske
Speed and scale : Unlocking digital value in customer journeys | McKinsey
Personalization at scale : First steps in a profitable journey... | McKinsey
Kinsey scale - Wikipedia
Анализ ассортимента с помощью матрицы McKinsey-General Electric | | iteam
This test will give you your results on the Kinsey scale.
Most Mature Tube
Asian Matures Fucking
Robin Quivers Tits
Mckinsey Scale
