IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v36y2017i4p500-522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Customer Acquisition via Display Advertising Using Multi-Armed Bandit Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Eric M. Schwartz

    (Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

  • Eric T. Bradlow

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

  • Peter S. Fader

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

Abstract

Firms using online advertising regularly run experiments with multiple versions of their ads since they are uncertain about which ones are most effective. During a campaign, firms try to adapt to intermediate results of their tests, optimizing what they earn while learning about their ads. Yet how should they decide what percentage of impressions to allocate to each ad? This paper answers that question, resolving the well-known “learn-and-earn” trade-off using multi-armed bandit (MAB) methods. The online advertiser’s MAB problem, however, contains particular challenges, such as a hierarchical structure (ads within a website), attributes of actions (creative elements of an ad), and batched decisions (millions of impressions at a time), that are not fully accommodated by existing MAB methods. Our approach captures how the impact of observable ad attributes on ad effectiveness differs by website in unobserved ways, and our policy generates allocations of impressions that can be used in practice. We implemented this policy in a live field experiment delivering over 750 million ad impressions in an online display campaign with a large retail bank. Over the course of two months, our policy achieved an 8% improvement in the customer acquisition rate, relative to a control policy, without any additional costs to the bank. Beyond the actual experiment, we performed counterfactual simulations to evaluate a range of alternative model specifications and allocation rules in MAB policies. Finally, we show that customer acquisition would decrease by about 10% if the firm were to optimize click-through rates instead of conversion directly, a finding that has implications for understanding the marketing funnel.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric M. Schwartz & Eric T. Bradlow & Peter S. Fader, 2017. "Customer Acquisition via Display Advertising Using Multi-Armed Bandit Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 500-522, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:36:y:2017:i:4:p:500-522
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2016.1023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.1023
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2016.1023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glen L. Urban & Guilherme (Gui) Liberali & Erin MacDonald & Robert Bordley & John R. Hauser, 2014. "Morphing Banner Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 27-46, January.
    2. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2011. "Rejoinder--Implications of "Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness"," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 413-415, 05-06.
    3. Stephen E. Chick & Peter Frazier, 2012. "Sequential Sampling with Economics of Selection Procedures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 550-569, March.
    4. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Paat Rusmevichientong & John N. Tsitsiklis, 2010. "Linearly Parameterized Bandits," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 395-411, May.
    6. Michael Braun & Wendy W. Moe, 2013. "Online Display Advertising: Modeling the Effects of Multiple Creatives and Individual Impression Histories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 753-767, September.
    7. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2011. "Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 389-404, 05-06.
    8. Peter Frazier & Warren Powell & Savas Dayanik, 2009. "The Knowledge-Gradient Policy for Correlated Normal Beliefs," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 599-613, November.
    9. Dimitris Bertsimas & Adam J. Mersereau, 2007. "A Learning Approach for Interactive Marketing to a Customer Segment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1120-1135, December.
    10. Vikram Krishnamurthy & Bo Wahlberg, 2009. "Partially Observed Markov Decision Process Multiarmed Bandits---Structural Results," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 287-302, May.
    11. Keller, Godfrey & Oldale, Alison, 2003. "Branching bandits: a sequential search process with correlated pay-offs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 302-315, December.
    12. Robert J. Meyer & Yong Shi, 1995. "Sequential Choice Under Ambiguity: Intuitive Solutions to the Armed-Bandit Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 817-834, May.
    13. Brezzi, Monica & Lai, Tze Leung, 2002. "Optimal learning and experimentation in bandit problems," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 87-108, November.
    14. Stephen E. Chick & Jürgen Branke & Christian Schmidt, 2010. "Sequential Sampling to Myopically Maximize the Expected Value of Information," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 71-80, February.
    15. Daniel Russo & Benjamin Van Roy, 2014. "Learning to Optimize via Posterior Sampling," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 1221-1243, November.
    16. Stephen E. Chick & Koichiro Inoue, 2001. "New Two-Stage and Sequential Procedures for Selecting the Best Simulated System," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(5), pages 732-743, October.
    17. Steven L. Scott, 2010. "A modern Bayesian look at the multi‐armed bandit," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 639-658, November.
    18. Stephen E. Chick & Noah Gans, 2009. "Economic Analysis of Simulation Selection Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(3), pages 421-437, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chao Qin & Daniel Russo, 2024. "Optimizing Adaptive Experiments: A Unified Approach to Regret Minimization and Best-Arm Identification," Papers 2402.10592, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    2. Bin Han & Ilya O. Ryzhov & Boris Defourny, 2016. "Optimal Learning in Linear Regression with Combinatorial Feature Selection," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 721-735, November.
    3. Jan Krämer & Daniel Schnurr & Michael Wohlfarth, 2019. "Winners, Losers, and Facebook: The Role of Social Logins in the Online Advertising Ecosystem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1678-1699, April.
    4. Haihui Shen & L. Jeff Hong & Xiaowei Zhang, 2021. "Ranking and Selection with Covariates for Personalized Decision Making," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1500-1519, October.
    5. Jing Xie & Peter I. Frazier, 2013. "Sequential Bayes-Optimal Policies for Multiple Comparisons with a Known Standard," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1174-1189, October.
    6. Stephen Chick & Martin Forster & Paolo Pertile, 2017. "A Bayesian decision theoretic model of sequential experimentation with delayed response," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1439-1462, November.
    7. Daniel Russo, 2020. "Simple Bayesian Algorithms for Best-Arm Identification," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 1625-1647, November.
    8. Powell, Warren B., 2019. "A unified framework for stochastic optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 795-821.
    9. Ilya O. Ryzhov & Warren B. Powell & Peter I. Frazier, 2012. "The Knowledge Gradient Algorithm for a General Class of Online Learning Problems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 180-195, February.
    10. Elea McDonnell Feit & Ron Berman, 2019. "Test & Roll: Profit-Maximizing A/B Tests," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1038-1058, November.
    11. Somayeh Moazeni & Boris Defourny & Monika J. Wilczak, 2020. "Sequential Learning in Designing Marketing Campaigns for Market Entry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4226-4245, September.
    12. Stephen E. Chick & Peter Frazier, 2012. "Sequential Sampling with Economics of Selection Procedures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 550-569, March.
    13. Sameer Mehta & Milind Dawande & Ganesh Janakiraman & Vijay Mookerjee, 2020. "Sustaining a Good Impression: Mechanisms for Selling Partitioned Impressions at Ad Exchanges," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 126-147, March.
    14. Raluca M. Ursu & Qingliang Wang & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2020. "Search Duration," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 849-871, September.
    15. Gui Liberali & Alina Ferecatu, 2022. "Morphing for Consumer Dynamics: Bandits Meet Hidden Markov Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 769-794, July.
    16. Victor F. Araman & René A. Caldentey, 2022. "Diffusion Approximations for a Class of Sequential Experimentation Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(8), pages 5958-5979, August.
    17. Weiwei Fan & L. Jeff Hong & Xiaowei Zhang, 2020. "Distributionally Robust Selection of the Best," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 190-208, January.
    18. Stephen E. Chick & Noah Gans & Özge Yapar, 2022. "Bayesian Sequential Learning for Clinical Trials of Multiple Correlated Medical Interventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 4919-4938, July.
    19. van Ewijk, Bernadette J. & Stubbe, Astrid & Gijsbrechts, Els & Dekimpe, Marnik G., 2021. "Online display advertising for CPG brands: (When) does it work?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 271-289.
    20. Bleier, Alexander & Eisenbeiss, Maik, 2015. "The Importance of Trust for Personalized Online Advertising," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 390-409.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:36:y:2017:i:4:p:500-522. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.