IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2304.06828.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Predictive Incrementality by Experimentation (PIE) for Ad Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Brett R. Gordon
  • Robert Moakler
  • Florian Zettelmeyer

Abstract

We present a novel approach to causal measurement for advertising, namely to use exogenous variation in advertising exposure (RCTs) for a subset of ad campaigns to build a model that can predict the causal effect of ad campaigns that were run without RCTs. This approach -- Predictive Incrementality by Experimentation (PIE) -- frames the task of estimating the causal effect of an ad campaign as a prediction problem, with the unit of observation being an RCT itself. In contrast, traditional causal inference approaches with observational data seek to adjust covariate imbalance at the user level. A key insight is to use post-campaign features, such as last-click conversion counts, that do not require an RCT, as features in our predictive model. We find that our PIE model recovers RCT-derived incremental conversions per dollar (ICPD) much better than the program evaluation approaches analyzed in Gordon et al. (forthcoming). The prediction errors from the best PIE model are 48%, 42%, and 62% of the RCT-based average ICPD for upper-, mid-, and lower-funnel conversion outcomes, respectively. In contrast, across the same data, the average prediction error of stratified propensity score matching exceeds 491%, and that of double/debiased machine learning exceeds 2,904%. Using a decision-making framework inspired by industry, we show that PIE leads to different decisions compared to RCTs for only 6% of upper-funnel, 7% of mid-funnel, and 13% of lower-funnel outcomes. We conclude that PIE could enable advertising platforms to scale causal ad measurement by extrapolating from a limited number of RCTs to a large set of non-experimental ad campaigns.

Suggested Citation

  • Brett R. Gordon & Robert Moakler & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2023. "Predictive Incrementality by Experimentation (PIE) for Ad Measurement," Papers 2304.06828, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2304.06828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.06828
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Navdeep S. Sahni, 2015. "Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 203-247, September.
    3. Susan Athey & Raj Chetty & Guido W. Imbens & Hyunseung Kang, 2019. "The Surrogate Index: Combining Short-Term Proxies to Estimate Long-Term Treatment Effects More Rapidly and Precisely," NBER Working Papers 26463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Brett R. Gordon & Florian Zettelmeyer & Neha Bhargava & Dan Chapsky, 2019. "A Comparison of Approaches to Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 193-225, March.
    5. Navdeep S. Sahni, 2015. "Erratum to: Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 249-250, September.
    6. Caio Waisman & Harikesh S. Nair & Carlos Carrion, 2019. "Online Causal Inference for Advertising in Real-Time Bidding Auctions," Papers 1908.08600, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    7. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    8. Navdeep Sahni, 2015. "Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 203-247, September.
    9. Kesten Geeen & Len Tashman, 2009. "Percentage Error: What Denominator?," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 12, pages 36-40, Winter.
    10. Navdeep Sahni, 2015. "Erratum to: Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 249-250, September.
    11. Navdeep S. Sahni & Harikesh S. Nair, 2020. "Sponsorship Disclosure and Consumer Deception: Experimental Evidence from Native Advertising in Mobile Search," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 5-32, January.
    12. Brett R. Gordon & Robert Moakler & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2022. "Close Enough? A Large-Scale Exploration of Non-Experimental Approaches to Advertising Measurement," Papers 2201.07055, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    13. George Gui & Harikesh Nair & Fengshi Niu, 2021. "Auction Throttling and Causal Inference of Online Advertising Effects," Papers 2112.15155, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    14. Randall Lewis & David Reiley, 2014. "Online ads and offline sales: measuring the effect of retail advertising via a controlled experiment on Yahoo!," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 235-266, September.
    15. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    16. Randall A. Lewis & Justin M. Rao, 2015. "The Unfavorable Economics of Measuring the Returns to Advertising," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(4), pages 1941-1973.
    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. Weijia Dai & Hyunjin Kim & Michael Luca, 2023. "Frontiers: Which Firms Gain from Digital Advertising? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 429-439, May.
    2. Brett R Gordon & Kinshuk Jerath & Zsolt Katona & Sridhar Narayanan & Jiwoong Shin & Kenneth C Wilbur, 2019. "Inefficiencies in Digital Advertising Markets," Papers 1912.09012, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2020.
    3. Brett R. Gordon & Florian Zettelmeyer & Neha Bhargava & Dan Chapsky, 2019. "A Comparison of Approaches to Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 193-225, March.
    4. Johannes Hermle & Giorgio Martini, 2022. "Valid and Unobtrusive Measurement of Returns to Advertising through Asymmetric Budget Split," Papers 2207.00206, arXiv.org.
    5. Kirthi Kalyanam & John McAteer & Jonathan Marek & James Hodges & Lifeng Lin, 2018. "Cross channel effects of search engine advertising on brick & mortar retail sales: Meta analysis of large scale field experiments on Google.com," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-42, March.
    6. Hana Choi & Carl F. Mela & Santiago R. Balseiro & Adam Leary, 2020. "Online Display Advertising Markets: A Literature Review and Future Directions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 556-575, June.
    7. Stephan Seiler & Song Yao & Wenbo Wang, 2017. "Does Online Word of Mouth Increase Demand? (And How?) Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 838-861, November.
    8. Christina Uhl & Nadia Abou Nabout & Klaus Miller, 2020. "How Much Ad Viewability is Enough? The Effect of Display Ad Viewability on Advertising Effectiveness," Papers 2008.12132, arXiv.org.
    9. Garrett A. Johnson & Randall A. Lewis & David H. Reiley, 2017. "When Less Is More: Data and Power in Advertising Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 43-53, January.
    10. Thomas W. Frick & Rodrigo Belo & Rahul Telang, 2023. "Incentive Misalignments in Programmatic Advertising: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 1665-1686, March.
    11. Navdeep S. Sahni & Dan Zou & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2017. "Do Targeted Discount Offers Serve as Advertising? Evidence from 70 Field Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(8), pages 2688-2705, August.
    12. Omid Rafieian & Hema Yoganarasimhan, 2021. "Targeting and Privacy in Mobile Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 193-218, March.
    13. Wesley R. Hartmann & Daniel Klapper, 2018. "Super Bowl Ads," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(1), pages 78-96, January.
    14. Navdeep S. Sahni & Harikesh S. Nair, 2020. "Sponsorship Disclosure and Consumer Deception: Experimental Evidence from Native Advertising in Mobile Search," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 5-32, January.
    15. Caio Waisman & Navdeep S. Sahni & Harikesh S. Nair & Xiliang Lin, 2019. "Parallel Experimentation and Competitive Interference on Online Advertising Platforms," Papers 1903.11198, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    16. Brett R. Gordon & Robert Moakler & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2023. "Close Enough? A Large-Scale Exploration of Non-Experimental Approaches to Advertising Measurement," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 768-793, July.
    17. Anja Lambrecht & Catherine Tucker & Caroline Wiertz, 2018. "Advertising to Early Trend Propagators: Evidence from Twitter," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 177-199, March.
    18. Paul B. Ellickson & Wreetabrata Kar & James C. Reeder, 2023. "Estimating Marketing Component Effects: Double Machine Learning from Targeted Digital Promotions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 704-728, July.
    19. Chadwick J. Miller & Daniel C. Brannon & Jim Salas & Martha Troncoza, 2021. "Advertising, incentives, and the upsell: how advertising differentially moderates customer- vs. retailer-directed price incentives’ impact on consumers’ preferences for premium products," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1043-1064, November.
    20. Chen He & Tobias J. Klein, 2023. "Advertising as a Reminder: Evidence from the Dutch State Lottery," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 892-909, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2304.06828. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.