IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/qmktec/v22y2024i2d10.1007_s11129-023-09278-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous treatment effects and optimal targeting policy evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Günter J. Hitsch

    (University of Chicago Booth School of Business)

  • Sanjog Misra

    (University of Chicago Booth School of Business)

  • Walter W. Zhang

    (University of Chicago Booth School of Business)

Abstract

We present a general framework to target customers using optimal targeting policies, and we document the profit differences from alternative estimates of the optimal targeting policies. Two foundations of the framework are conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) and off-policy evaluation using data with randomized targeting. This policy evaluation approach allows us to evaluate an arbitrary number of different targeting policies using only one randomized data set and thus provides large cost advantages over conducting a corresponding number of field experiments. We use different CATE estimation methods to construct and compare alternative targeting policies. Our particular focus is on the distinction between indirect and direct methods. The indirect methods predict the CATEs using a conditional expectation function estimated on outcome levels, whereas the direct methods specifically predict the treatment effects of targeting. We introduce a new direct estimation method called treatment effect projection (TEP). The TEP is a non-parametric CATE estimator that we regularize using a transformed outcome loss which, in expectation, is identical to a loss that we could construct if the individual treatment effects were observed. The empirical application is to a catalog mailing with a high-dimensional set of customer features. We document the profits of the estimated policies using data from two campaigns conducted one year apart, which allows us to assess the transportability of the predictions to a campaign implemented one year after collecting the training data. All estimates of the optimal targeting policies yield larger profits than uniform policies that target none or all customers. Further, there are significant profit differences across the methods, with the direct estimation methods yielding substantially larger economic value than the indirect methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Günter J. Hitsch & Sanjog Misra & Walter W. Zhang, 2024. "Heterogeneous treatment effects and optimal targeting policy evaluation," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 115-168, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:qmktec:v:22:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11129-023-09278-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11129-023-09278-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11129-023-09278-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11129-023-09278-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duncan Simester & Artem Timoshenko & Spyros I. Zoumpoulis, 2020. "Efficiently Evaluating Targeting Policies: Improving on Champion vs. Challenger Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3412-3424, August.
    2. Max H. Farrell & Tengyuan Liang & Sanjog Misra, 2021. "Deep Neural Networks for Estimation and Inference," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 181-213, January.
    3. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Sanjog Misra & Harikesh Nair, 2011. "A structural model of sales-force compensation dynamics: Estimation and field implementation," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 211-257, September.
    6. Harikesh S. Nair & Sanjog Misra & William J. Hornbuckle IV & Ranjan Mishra & Anand Acharya, 2017. "Big Data and Marketing Analytics in Gaming: Combining Empirical Models and Field Experimentation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 699-725, September.
    7. Ali Hortacsu & Olivia R. Natan & Hayden Parsley & Timothy Schwieg & Kevin R. Williams, 2021. "Organizational Structure and Pricing: Evidence from a Large U.S. Airline," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2312R3, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jan 2023.
    8. 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.
    9. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2019. "Machine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 685-725, August.
    10. Aurélie Lemmens & Sunil Gupta, 2020. "Managing Churn to Maximize Profits," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 956-973, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Jianqing Fan & Jinchi Lv, 2008. "Sure independence screening for ultrahigh dimensional feature space," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(5), pages 849-911, November.
    13. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Sanjog Misra, 2023. "Personalized Pricing and Consumer Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(1), pages 131-189.
    14. Hema Yoganarasimhan & Ebrahim Barzegary & Abhishek Pani, 2023. "Design and Evaluation of Optimal Free Trials," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3220-3240, June.
    15. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881, September.
    16. Daniel Zantedeschi & Eleanor McDonnell Feit & Eric T. Bradlow, 2017. "Measuring Multichannel Advertising Response," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(8), pages 2706-2728, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Bradley T. Shapiro & Günter J. Hitsch & Anna E. Tuchman, 2021. "TV Advertising Effectiveness and Profitability: Generalizable Results From 288 Brands," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1855-1879, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2019. "Synthetic learner: model-free inference on treatments over time," Papers 1904.01490, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    4. Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Gobillon, Laurent & Zylberberg, Yanos, 2022. "Urban economics in a historical perspective: Recovering data with machine learning," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Yiyi Huo & Yingying Fan & Fang Han, 2023. "On the adaptation of causal forests to manifold data," Papers 2311.16486, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    6. Michael Lechner, 2023. "Causal Machine Learning and its use for public policy," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 159(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Michael C Knaus, 2022. "Double machine learning-based programme evaluation under unconfoundedness [Econometric methods for program evaluation]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(3), pages 602-627.
    9. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2020. "Double Debiased Machine Learning Nonparametric Inference with Continuous Treatments," Papers 2004.03036, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    10. Phillip Heiler & Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "Effect or Treatment Heterogeneity? Policy Evaluation with Aggregated and Disaggregated Treatments," Papers 2110.01427, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    11. Goller, Daniel & Lechner, Michael & Moczall, Andreas & Wolff, Joachim, 2020. "Does the estimation of the propensity score by machine learning improve matching estimation? The case of Germany's programmes for long term unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    12. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Papers 2101.00878, arXiv.org.
    13. 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.
    14. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-001/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Joshua B. Gilbert & Zachary Himmelsbach & James Soland & Mridul Joshi & Benjamin W. Domingue, 2024. "Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects with Item-Level Outcome Data: Insights from Item Response Theory," Papers 2405.00161, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    16. Alena Skolkova, 2023. "Instrumental Variable Estimation with Many Instruments Using Elastic-Net IV," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp759, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    17. Harsh Parikh & Carlos Varjao & Louise Xu & Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, 2022. "Validating Causal Inference Methods," Papers 2202.04208, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    18. Davide Viviano, 2019. "Policy Targeting under Network Interference," Papers 1906.10258, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    19. Lundberg, Ian & Brand, Jennie E. & Jeon, Nanum, 2022. "Researcher reasoning meets computational capacity: Machine learning for social science," SocArXiv s5zc8, Center for Open Science.
    20. Zhexiao Lin & Fang Han, 2022. "On regression-adjusted imputation estimators of the average treatment effect," Papers 2212.05424, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Targeting; Customer relationship management (CRM); Causal inference; Heterogeneous treatment effects; Machine learning; Field experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • C54 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Quantitative Policy Modeling
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D04 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Policy: Formulation; Implementation; Evaluation

    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:kap:qmktec:v:22:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11129-023-09278-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.