IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/47man2015.html

The Effectiveness of Individual Targeting Through Smartphone Application in Retail: Evidence from Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Mariia I. Okuneva

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Dmitriy B. Potapov

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

Smartphone applications are becoming an important marketing channel that allows to build long-term relationship with customers. The main advantage of advertising through this kind of media is an opportunity to individually target users with different offers, taking into consideration their characteristics and purchase history. However, little is known about the effectiveness of such practice. We use a purely randomized natural field experiment with 11338 customers of large Russian retail chain to understand factors that influence the effectiveness of advertising through smartphone application. We find that the impact of conducted advertising campaign either on number of purchases or purchase amount is slightly negative on average. While most previous studies report positive effect of advertising through mobile devices, we can explain the average negative effect by influence of small discount (less than 20%) offers on consumers’ behavior. Holiday text of the message makes this effect even stronger. Consistent with the literature, the average effect of advertising depends on RFM characteristics of customers. However, the loyalty of consumers or different texts of an advertising message do not affect the effectiveness of advertising via mobile application. These results can help a retail chain to elaborate rules for individual targeting that assure more profits

Suggested Citation

  • Mariia I. Okuneva & Dmitriy B. Potapov, 2015. "The Effectiveness of Individual Targeting Through Smartphone Application in Retail: Evidence from Field Experiment," HSE Working papers WP BRP 47/MAN/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:47man2015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.hse.ru/data/2016/02/16/1139231504/47MAN2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Randall Lewis & David Reiley, 2014. "Advertising Effectively Influences Older Users: How Field Experiments Can Improve Measurement and Targeting," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 147-159, March.
    4. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    5. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2011. "Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 389-404, 05-06.
    6. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    7. repec:feb:artefa:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    9. Füsun Gönül & Meng Ze Shi, 1998. "Optimal Mailing of Catalogs: A New Methodology Using Estimable Structural Dynamic Programming Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1249-1262, September.
    10. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "What's Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(1), pages 263-306.
    12. Thomas Blake & Chris Nosko & Steven Tadelis, 2015. "Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large‐Scale Field Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 155-174, January.
    13. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2011. "Rejoinder--Implications of "Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness"," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 413-415, 05-06.
    14. Eric T. Anderson & Duncan I. Simester, 2010. "Price Stickiness and Customer Antagonism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(2), pages 729-765.
    15. Bose, Indranil & Chen, Xi, 2009. "Quantitative models for direct marketing: A review from systems perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 1-16, May.
    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. Randall Lewis & Dan Nguyen, 2015. "Display advertising’s competitive spillovers to consumer search," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 93-115, June.
    2. Peters, Jörg & Langbein, Jörg & Roberts, Gareth, 2016. "Policy evaluation, randomized controlled trials, and external validity—A systematic review," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 51-54.
    3. Andre Veiga & Tommaso Valletti, 2020. "Attention, recall and purchase: Experimental evidence on online news and advertising," Working Papers 20-15, NET Institute.
    4. 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.
    5. Brent B Allred & Michael G Findley & Daniel Nielson & J C Sharman, 2017. "Anonymous shell companies: A global audit study and field experiment in 176 countries," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(5), pages 596-619, July.
    6. Joel Barajas & Ram Akella & Marius Holtan & Aaron Flores, 2016. "Experimental Designs and Estimation for Online Display Advertising Attribution in Marketplaces," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 465-483, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael Findley & Nathan M. Jensen & Stephan Meier & Daniel Nielson, 2016. "Field experiments in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 116-132, January.
    9. Peitz, Martin & Reisinger, Markus, 2014. "The Economics of Internet Media," Working Papers 14-23, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. Shun-Yang Lee & Julian Runge & Daniel Yoo & Yakov Bart & Anett Gyurak & J. W. Schneider, 2023. "COVID-19 Demand Shocks Revisited: Did Advertising Technology Help Mitigate Adverse Consequences for Small and Midsize Businesses?," Papers 2307.09035, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    12. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Bayer, Emanuel & Srinivasan, Shuba & Riedl, Edward J. & Skiera, Bernd, 2020. "The impact of online display advertising and paid search advertising relative to offline advertising on firm performance and firm value," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 789-804.
    14. Eric Floyd & John A. List, 2016. "Using Field Experiments in Accounting and Finance," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 54(2), pages 437-475, May.
    15. Wei Zhou & Zidong Wang, 2020. "Competing for Search Traffic in Query Markets: Entry Strategy, Platform Design, and Entrepreneurship," Working Papers 20-12, NET Institute.
    16. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    17. Omar Al‐Ubaydli & John A. List & Dana Suskind, 2020. "2017 Klein Lecture: The Science Of Using Science: Toward An Understanding Of The Threats To Scalability," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1387-1409, November.
    18. Maja Adena & Anselm Hager, 2025. "Does Online Fundraising Increase Charitable Giving? A Nationwide Field Experiment on Facebook," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(4), pages 3216-3231, April.
    19. Mark, Tanya & Bulla, Jan & Niraj, Rakesh & Bulla, Ingo & Schwarzwäller, Wolfgang, 2019. "Catalogue as a tool for reinforcing habits: Empirical evidence from a multichannel retailer," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 528-541.
    20. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • M37 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Advertising
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software

    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:hig:wpaper:47man2015. 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: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.