ABSTRACT
In performance based display advertising, campaign effectiveness is often measured in terms of conversions that represent some desired user actions like purchases and product information requests on advertisers' website. Hence, identifying and targeting potential converters is of vital importance to boost campaign performance. This is often accomplished by marketers who define the user base of campaigns based on behavioral, demographic, search, social, purchase, and other characteristics. Such a process is manual and subjective, it often fails to utilize the full potential of targeting. In this paper we show that by using past converted users of campaigns and campaign meta-data (e.g., ad creatives, landing pages), we can combine disparate user information in a principled way to effectively and automatically target converters for new/existing campaigns. At the heart of our approach is a factor model that estimates the affinity of each user feature to a campaign using historical conversion data. In fact, our approach allows building a conversion model for a brand new campaign through campaign meta-data alone, and hence targets potential converters even before the campaign is run. Through extensive experiments, we show the superiority of our factor model approach relative to several other baselines. Moreover, we show that the performance of our approach at the beginning of a campaign's life is typically better than the other models even when they are trained using all conversion data after the campaign has completed. This clearly shows the importance and value of using historical campaign data in constructing an effective audience selection strategy for display advertising.
- Bluekai. www.bluekai.com/.Google Scholar
- Rightmedia. http://rightmedia.com/.Google Scholar
- D. Agarwal and B.-C. Chen. Regression-based latent factor models. In KDD, KDD '09, pages 19--28, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Agarwal, B.-C. Chen, and P. Elango. Fast online learning through offline initialization for time-sensitive recommendation. In KDD, pages 703--712, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Argyriou, C. Micchelli, M. Pontil, and Y. Ying. A spectral regularization framework for multi-task structure learning. NIPS, 2008.Google Scholar
- A. Bagherjeiran, A. O. Hatch, A. Ratnaparkhi, and R. Parekh. Large-scale customized models for advertisers. In ICDM Workshops, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Booth and J. Hobert. Maximizing generalized linear mixed model likelihoods with an automated monte carlo EM algorithm. J.R.Statist. Soc. B, 1999.Google Scholar
- Y. Chen, D. Pavlov, and J. Canny. Large-scale behavioral targeting. In KDD, pages 209--218, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1977.Google Scholar
- A. E. Gelfand. Gibbs sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95:1300--1304, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Gilks and P.Wild. Adaptive rejection sampling for gibbs sampling. 41:337--348, 1992.Google Scholar
- M. Greiner, D. Pfeiffer, and R. D. Smith. Receiver operating characteristic (roc) curves. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 45:23--41, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Lee, V. Chatalbashev, D. Vickrey, and D. Koller. Learning a meta-level prior for feature relevance from multiple related tasks. In ICML, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M.J.Silvapulle. On the existence of maximum likelihood estimates for the binomial response models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 43:310--313, 1981.Google Scholar
- R. Neal and G. Hinton. A view of the EM algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants. In Learning in Graphical Models, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. J. Pan and Q. Yang. A survey on transfer learning. Technical Report HKUST-CS08-08, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2008.Google Scholar
- Y. Peng, L. Zhang, M. Chang, and Y. Guan. An effective method for combating malicious scripts clickbots. In ESORICS, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Press and S. Wilson. Choosing between logistic regression and discriminant analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73:699--705, 1978.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. P. Singh and G. J. Gordon. Relational learning via collective matrix factorization. In KDD, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T.Hastie, R.Tibshirani, and J.Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. E. Tipping and C. M. Bishop. Probabilistic principal components analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Socienty, Series B, 61:611--622, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W.R.Gilks, S.Richardson, and D.J.Spiegelhalter. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Chapman and Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
- J. Yan, N. Liu, G. Wang, W. Zhang, Y. Jiang, and Z. Chen. How much can behavioral targeting help online advertising? In WWW, pages 261--270, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Targeting converters for new campaigns through factor models
Recommendations
The Targeting of Advertising
An important question that firms face in advertising is developing effective media strategy. Major improvements in the quality of consumer information and the growth of targeted media vehicles allow firms to precisely target advertising to consumer ...
Real-Time Bidding in Online Display Advertising
Display advertising is a major source of revenue for many online publishers and content providers. Historically, display advertising impressions have been sold through prenegotiated contracts, known as reservation contracts, between publishers and ...
Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness
We use data from a large-scale field experiment to explore what influences the effectiveness of online advertising. We find that matching an ad to website content and increasing an ad's obtrusiveness independently increase purchase intent. However, in ...
Comments