IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v38y2019i6p918-926.html

Frontiers: How Effective Is Third-Party Consumer Profiling? Evidence from Field Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Nico Neumann

    (Melbourne Business School, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia)

  • Catherine E. Tucker

    (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142; National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138)

  • Timothy Whitfield

    (Burst SMS, Sydney, New South Wales 2000, Australia)

Abstract

Data brokers often use online browsing records to create digital consumer profiles that they sell to marketers as predefined audiences for ad targeting. However, this process is a “black box”—little is known about the reliability of the digital profiles that are created or of the audience identification provided by buying platforms. In this paper, we investigate using three field tests the accuracy of a variety of demographic and audience-interest segments. We examine the accuracy of more than 90 third-party audiences across 19 data brokers. Audience segments vary greatly in quality and are often inaccurate across leading data brokers. In comparison with random audience selection, the use of black box data profiles, on average, increased identification of a user with a desired single attribute by 0%–77%. Audience identification can be improved, on average, by 123% when combined with optimization software. However, given the high extra costs of targeting solutions and the relative inaccuracy, we find that third-party audiences are often economically unattractive except for higher-priced media placements.

Suggested Citation

  • Nico Neumann & Catherine E. Tucker & Timothy Whitfield, 2019. "Frontiers: How Effective Is Third-Party Consumer Profiling? Evidence from Field Studies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 918-926, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:38:y:2019:i:6:p:918-926
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2019.1188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1188
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2019.1188?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. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1344-1362, October.
    2. YongSeog Kim & W. Nick Street & Gary J. Russell & Filippo Menczer, 2005. "Customer Targeting: A Neural Network Approach Guided by Genetic Algorithms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 264-276, February.
    3. Young-Hoon Park & Peter S. Fader, 2004. "Modeling Browsing Behavior at Multiple Websites," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 280-303, May.
    4. Michael Trusov & Liye Ma & Zainab Jamal, 2016. "Crumbs of the Cookie: User Profiling in Customer-Base Analysis and Behavioral Targeting," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 405-426, May.
    5. Dirk Bergemann & Alessandro Bonatti, 2015. "Selling Cookies," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 259-294, August.
    6. Yuxin Chen & Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2001. "Individual Marketing with Imperfect Targetability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 23-41, November.
    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. Nico Neumann & Catherine E. Tucker & Kumar Subramanyam & John Marshall, 2023. "Is first- or third-party audience data more effective for reaching the ‘right’ customers? The case of IT decision-makers," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 519-571, December.
    2. Fay, Scott & Mitra, Deb & Wang, Qiong, 2009. "Ask or infer? Strategic implications of alternative learning approaches in customization," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 136-152.
    3. Sumitro Banerjee & Alex P. Thevaranjan, 2013. "How to deal with unprofitable customers? A salesforce compensation perspective," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-13-05, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    4. Avi Goldfarb, 2014. "What is Different About Online Advertising?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 115-129, March.
    5. Neeraj Arora & Xavier Dreze & Anindya Ghose & James Hess & Raghuram Iyengar & Bing Jing & Yogesh Joshi & V. Kumar & Nicholas Lurie & Scott Neslin & S. Sajeesh & Meng Su & Niladri Syam & Jacquelyn Thom, 2008. "Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 305-321, December.
    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. Sumitro Banerjee & Alex P. Thevaranjan, 2019. "Targeting and salesforce compensation: When sales spill over to unprofitable customers," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 81-104, March.
    8. Nico Neumann & Catherine E. Tucker & Levi Kaplan & Alan Mislove & Piotr Sapiezynski, 2024. "Data Deserts and Black Boxes: The Impact of Socio-Economic Status on Consumer Profiling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 8003-8029, November.
    9. Felipe Thomaz & Carolina Salge & Elena Karahanna & John Hulland, 2020. "Learning from the Dark Web: leveraging conversational agents in the era of hyper-privacy to enhance marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 43-63, January.
    10. Roland T. Rust & Ming-Hui Huang, 2014. "The Service Revolution and the Transformation of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 206-221, March.
    11. Schröder, Nadine & Falke, Andreas & Hruschka, Harald & Reutterer, Thomas, 2019. "Analyzing the Browsing Basket: A Latent Interests-Based Segmentation Tool," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 181-197.
    12. Peitz, Martin & Reisinger, Markus, 2014. "The Economics of Internet Media," Working Papers 14-23, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    13. Chen, Bintong & Chen, Jing, 2017. "Compete in Price or Service?—A Study of Personalized Pricing and Money Back Guarantees," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 154-171.
    14. Stylianos Despotakis & Jungju Yu, 2023. "Multidimensional Targeting and Consumer Response," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4518-4540, August.
    15. Goker Aydin & Serhan Ziya, 2009. "Technical Note---Personalized Dynamic Pricing of Limited Inventories," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1523-1531, December.
    16. Xi Chen & Zachary Owen & Clark Pixton & David Simchi-Levi, 2022. "A Statistical Learning Approach to Personalization in Revenue Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1923-1937, March.
    17. Zheyin (Jane) Gu & Giri K. Tayi, 2023. "Consumer self‐design and brand competition," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(8), pages 2420-2437, August.
    18. Bita Hajihashemi & Amin Sayedi & Jeffrey D. Shulman, 2022. "The Perils of Personalized Pricing with Network Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 477-500, May.
    19. Jentzsch, Nicola & Sapi, Geza & Suleymanova, Irina, 2013. "Targeted pricing and customer data sharing among rivals," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 131-144.
    20. Kwon, He-Boong & Lee, Jooh, 2019. "Exploring the differential impact of environmental sustainability, operational efficiency, and corporate reputation on market valuation in high-tech-oriented firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 1-14.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ormksc:v:38:y:2019:i:6:p:918-926. 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.