IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v62y2016i7p2022-2038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentive Problems in Performance-Based Online Advertising Pricing: Cost per Click vs. Cost per Action

Author

Listed:
  • Yu (Jeffrey) Hu

    () (Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30308)

  • Jiwoong Shin

    () (School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520)

  • Zhulei Tang

    () (Independent Consultant, Atlanta, Georgia 30305)

Abstract

The multibillion-dollar online advertising industry continues to debate whether to use the cost per click (CPC) or cost per action (CPA) pricing model as an industry standard. This paper applies the economic framework of incentive contracts to study how these pricing models can lead to risk sharing between the publisher and the advertiser and incentivize them to make efforts that improve the performance of online ads. We find that, compared with the CPC model, the CPA model can better incentivize the publisher to make efforts that can improve the purchase rate. However, the CPA model can cause an adverse selection problem: the winning advertiser tends to have a lower profit margin under the CPA model than under the CPC model. We identify the conditions under which the CPA model leads to higher publisher (or advertiser) payoffs than the CPC model. Whether publishers (or advertisers) prefer the CPA model over the CPC model depends on the advertisers’ risk aversion, uncertainty in the product market, and the presence of advertisers with low immediate sales ratios. Our findings indicate a conflict of interest between publishers and advertisers in their preferences for these two pricing models. We further consider which pricing model offers greater social welfare. This paper was accepted by J. Miguel Villas-Boas, marketing .

Suggested Citation

  • Yu (Jeffrey) Hu & Jiwoong Shin & Zhulei Tang, 2016. "Incentive Problems in Performance-Based Online Advertising Pricing: Cost per Click vs. Cost per Action," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2022-2038, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:62:y:2016:i:7:p:2022-2038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2223
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Athey & Glenn Ellison, 2011. "Position Auctions with Consumer Search," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(3), pages 1213-1270.
    2. Wilfred Amaldoss & Preyas S. Desai & Woochoel Shin, 2015. "Keyword Search Advertising and First-Page Bid Estimates: A Strategic Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 507-519, March.
    3. Benjamin Edelman & Michael Ostrovsky & Michael Schwarz, 2007. "Internet Advertising and the Generalized Second-Price Auction: Selling Billions of Dollars Worth of Keywords," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 242-259, March.
    4. Susan Athey & Jonathan Levin, 2001. "Information and Competition in U.S. Forest Service Timber Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(2), pages 375-417, April.
    5. Yi Zhu & Kenneth C. Wilbur, 2011. "Hybrid Advertising Auctions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 249-273, 03-04.
    6. Kenneth C. Wilbur & Yi Zhu, 2009. "Click Fraud," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 293-308, 03-04.
    7. Thomas A. Weber & Zhiqiang (Eric) Zheng, 2007. "A Model of Search Intermediaries and Paid Referrals," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 414-436, December.
    8. Asplund, Marcus, 2002. "Risk-averse firms in oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 995-1012, September.
    9. Ganesh Iyer & David Soberman & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2005. "The Targeting of Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 461-476, May.
    10. Varian, Hal R., 2007. "Position auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1163-1178, December.
    11. John R. Hauser & Duncan I. Simester & Birger Wernerfelt, 1994. "Customer Satisfaction Incentives," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 327-350.
    12. Juan Feng & Hemant K. Bhargava & David M. Pennock, 2007. "Implementing Sponsored Search in Web Search Engines: Computational Evaluation of Alternative Mechanisms," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 137-148, February.
    13. Nikhil Agarwal & Susan Athey & David Yang, 2009. "Skewed Bidding in Pay-per-Action Auctions for Online Advertising," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 441-447, May.
    14. Patrali Chatterjee & Donna L. Hoffman & Thomas P. Novak, 2003. "Modeling the Clickstream: Implications for Web-Based Advertising Efforts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 520-541, May.
    15. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1987. "Aggregation and Linearity in the Provision of Intertemporal Incentives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 303-328, March.
    16. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    17. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2011. "Search Engine Advertising: Channel Substitution When Pricing Ads to Context," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 458-470, March.
    18. Kursad Asdemir & Nanda Kumar & Varghese S. Jacob, 2012. "Pricing Models for Online Advertising: CPM vs. CPC," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-1), pages 804-822, September.
    19. Song Yao & Carl F. Mela, 2011. "A Dynamic Model of Sponsored Search Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 447-468, 05-06.
    20. Bengt Holmstrom, 1979. "Moral Hazard and Observability," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 74-91, Spring.
    21. Zsolt Katona & Miklos Sarvary, 2010. "The Race for Sponsored Links: Bidding Patterns for Search Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 199-215, 03-04.
    22. Lafontaine, Francine & Slade, Margaret E., 1996. "Retail contracting and costly monitoring: Theory and evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 923-932, April.
    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. repec:eee:transe:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:189-210 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:62:y:2016:i:7:p:2022-2038. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.