IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v66y2020i6p2495-2522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Targeting Prospective Customers: Robustness of Machine-Learning Methods to Typical Data Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Duncan Simester

    (Marketing, MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Artem Timoshenko

    (Marketing, MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Spyros I. Zoumpoulis

    (Decision Sciences, INSEAD, 77300 Fontainebleau, France)

Abstract

We investigate how firms can use the results of field experiments to optimize the targeting of promotions when prospecting for new customers. We evaluate seven widely used machine-learning methods using a series of two large-scale field experiments. The first field experiment generates a common pool of training data for each of the seven methods. We then validate the seven optimized policies provided by each method together with uniform benchmark policies in a second field experiment. The findings not only compare the performance of the targeting methods, but also demonstrate how well the methods address common data challenges. Our results reveal that when the training data are ideal, model-driven methods perform better than distance-driven methods and classification methods. However, the performance advantage vanishes in the presence of challenges that affect the quality of the training data, including the extent to which the training data captures details of the implementation setting. The challenges we study are covariate shift, concept shift, information loss through aggregation, and imbalanced data. Intuitively, the model-driven methods make better use of the information available in the training data, but the performance of these methods is more sensitive to deterioration in the quality of this information. The classification methods we tested performed relatively poorly. We explain the poor performance of the classification methods in our setting and describe how the performance of these methods could be improved.

Suggested Citation

  • Duncan Simester & Artem Timoshenko & Spyros I. Zoumpoulis, 2020. "Targeting Prospective Customers: Robustness of Machine-Learning Methods to Typical Data Challenges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2495-2522, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:66:y:2020:i:6:p:2495-2522
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3308
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3308?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. Foekens, Eijte W. & Leeflang, Peter S. H. & Wittink, Dick R., 1994. "A comparison and an exploration of the forecasting accuracy of a loglinear model at different levels of aggregation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 245-261, September.
    2. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    3. Prasad A. Naik & Murali K. Mantrala & Alan G. Sawyer, 1998. "Planning Media Schedules in the Presence of Dynamic Advertising Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 214-235.
    4. Aigner, D.J. & Goldfeld, S.M., 1974. "Estimation and prediction from aggregate data when aggregates are measured more accurately than their components," LIDAM Reprints CORE 190, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    5. Aradhna Krishna, 1992. "The Normative Impact of Consumer Price Expectations for Multiple Brands on Consumer Purchase Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 266-286.
    6. Pesaran, M Hashem & Pierse, Richard G & Kumar, Mohan S, 1989. "Econometric Analysis of Aggregation in the Context of Linear Prediction Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(4), pages 861-888, July.
    7. David Olson & Qing Cao & Ching Gu & Donhee Lee, 2009. "Comparison of customer response models," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 3(2), pages 117-130, June.
    8. Andrews, Rick L. & Currim, Imran S. & Leeflang, Peter S. H., 2011. "A Comparison of Sales Response Predictions From Demand Models Applied to Store-Level versus Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 29(2), pages 319-326.
    9. Gitae Kim & Bongsug Chae & David Olson, 2013. "A support vector machine (SVM) approach to imbalanced datasets of customer responses: comparison with other customer response models," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 7(1), pages 167-182, March.
    10. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    11. Aigner, Dennis J & Goldfeld, Stephen M, 1974. "Estimation and Prediction from Aggregate Data when Aggregates are Measured More Accurately than Their Components," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(1), pages 113-134, January.
    12. McCarty, John A. & Hastak, Manoj, 2007. "Segmentation approaches in data-mining: A comparison of RFM, CHAID, and logistic regression," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 656-662, June.
    13. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey, 2017. "Double/Debiased/Neyman Machine Learning of Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 261-265, May.
    14. Edwards, John B & Orcutt, Guy H, 1969. "Should Aggregation Prior to Estimation Be the Rule?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 51(4), pages 409-420, November.
    15. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2016. "Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Treatment and Causal Parameters," Papers 1608.00060, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2017.
    16. Aradhna Krishna, 1994. "The Impact of Dealing Patterns on Purchase Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 351-373.
    17. Vibhanshu Abhishek & Kartik Hosanagar & Peter S. Fader, 2015. "Aggregation Bias in Sponsored Search Data: The Curse and the Cure," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 59-77, January.
    18. Thompson, Patrick A & Noordewier, Thomas, 1992. "Estimating the Effects of Consumer Incentive Programs on Domestic Automobile Sales," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(4), pages 409-417, October.
    19. Rick L. Andrews & Imran S. Currim & Peter S. H. Leeflang, 2011. "A Comparison of Sales Response Predictions From Demand Models Applied to Store-Level versus Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 319-326, April.
    20. Aigner, Dennis J & Goldfeld, Stephen M, 1973. "Simulation and Aggregation: A Reconsideration," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 55(1), pages 114-118, February.
    21. Peter Hall, 2002. "Permutation tests for equality of distributions in high-dimensional settings," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 89(2), pages 359-374, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wayne Xinwei Wan & Thies Lindenthal, 2023. "Testing machine learning systems in real estate," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 51(3), pages 754-778, May.
    2. Saravanan Thirumuruganathan & Soon-gyo Jung & Dianne Ramirez Robillos & Joni Salminen & Bernard J. Jansen, 2021. "Forecasting the nearly unforecastable: why aren’t airline bookings adhering to the prediction algorithm?," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 73-100, March.
    3. Maria De‐Arteaga & Stefan Feuerriegel & Maytal Saar‐Tsechansky, 2022. "Algorithmic fairness in business analytics: Directions for research and practice," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(10), pages 3749-3770, October.
    4. Zenan Zhou & Xiang Wan, 2022. "Does the Sharing Economy Technology Disrupt Incumbents? Exploring the Influences of Mobile Digital Freight Matching Platforms on Road Freight Logistics Firms," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(1), pages 117-137, January.
    5. Tobias Cagala & Ulrich Glogowsky & Johannes Rincke & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Optimal Targeting in Fundraising: A Machine-Learning Approach," Economics working papers 2021-08, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    6. Wan, Wayne Xinwei & Lindenthal, Thies, 2022. "Towards accountability in machine learning applications: A system-testing approach," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Zhen-Yu Chen & Zhi-Ping Fan & Minghe Sun, 2023. "Machine Learning Methods for Data-Driven Demand Estimation and Assortment Planning Considering Cross-Selling and Substitutions," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 158-177, January.
    8. Ming-Hui Huang & Roland T. Rust, 2021. "A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 30-50, January.

    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. Eric T. Anderson & Duncan I. Simester, 2004. "Long-Run Effects of Promotion Depth on New Versus Established Customers: Three Field Studies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 4-20, February.
    2. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    3. Ruoxuan Xiong & Allison Koenecke & Michael Powell & Zhu Shen & Joshua T. Vogelstein & Susan Athey, 2021. "Federated Causal Inference in Heterogeneous Observational Data," Papers 2107.11732, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    4. Waverly Wei & Maya Petersen & Mark J van der Laan & Zeyu Zheng & Chong Wu & Jingshen Wang, 2023. "Efficient targeted learning of heterogeneous treatment effects for multiple subgroups," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 1934-1946, September.
    5. Huber Martin & Wüthrich Kaspar, 2019. "Local Average and Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity: A Review," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, January.
    6. Carson, Richard T. & Cenesizoglu, Tolga & Parker, Roger, 2011. "Forecasting (aggregate) demand for US commercial air travel," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 923-941.
    7. Giacomini, Raffaella & Granger, Clive W. J., 2004. "Aggregation of space-time processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 118(1-2), pages 7-26.
    8. Miquel Oliu-Barton & Bary S. R. Pradelski & Nicolas Woloszko & Lionel Guetta-Jeanrenaud & Philippe Aghion & Patrick Artus & Arnaud Fontanet & Philippe Martin & Guntram B. Wolff, 2022. "The effect of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake, health outcomes, and the economy," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Sander Gerritsen & Mark Kattenberg & Sonny Kuijpers, 2019. "The impact of age at arrival on education and mental health," CPB Discussion Paper 389.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    10. Elliott Ash & Daniel L. Chen & Sergio Galletta, 2022. "Measuring Judicial Sentiment: Methods and Application to US Circuit Courts," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 362-376, April.
    11. Pradhi Aggarwal & Alec Brandon & Ariel Goldszmidt & Justin Holz & John List & Ian Muir & Gregory Sun & Thomas Yu, 2022. "High-frequency location data shows that race affects the likelihood of being stopped and fined for speeding," Natural Field Experiments 00764, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Songul Cinaroglu, 2020. "Modelling unbalanced catastrophic health expenditure data by using machine‐learning methods," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 168-181, October.
    13. Miruna Oprescu & Vasilis Syrgkanis & Zhiwei Steven Wu, 2018. "Orthogonal Random Forest for Causal Inference," Papers 1806.03467, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    14. Sander Gerritsen & Mark Kattenberg & Sonny Kuijpers, 2019. "The impact of age at arrival on education and mental health," CPB Discussion Paper 389, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Mark Kattenberg & Bas Scheer & Jurre Thiel, 2023. "Causal forests with fixed effects for treatment effect heterogeneity in difference-in-differences," CPB Discussion Paper 452, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    16. Jonas Metzger, 2022. "Adversarial Estimators," Papers 2204.10495, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    17. Yuya Sasaki & Takuya Ura & Yichong Zhang, 2022. "Unconditional quantile regression with high‐dimensional data," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), pages 955-978, July.
    18. S Klaassen & J Kueck & M Spindler & V Chernozhukov, 2023. "Uniform inference in high-dimensional Gaussian graphical models," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 110(1), pages 51-68.
    19. Victor Chernozhukov & Carlos Cinelli & Whitney Newey & Amit Sharma & Vasilis Syrgkanis, 2021. "Long Story Short: Omitted Variable Bias in Causal Machine Learning," Papers 2112.13398, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    20. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.

    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:ormnsc:v:66:y:2020:i:6:p:2495-2522. 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.