[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article

Aggregation Bias in Sponsored Search Data: The Curse and the Cure

Published: 01 January 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Recently there has been significant interest in studying consumer behavior in sponsored search advertising SSA. Researchers have typically used daily data from search engines containing measures such as average bid, average ad position, total impressions, clicks, and cost for each keyword in the advertiser's campaign. A variety of random utility models have been estimated using such data and the results have helped researchers explore the factors that drive consumer click and conversion propensities. However, virtually every analysis of this kind has ignored the intraday variation in ad position. We show that estimating random utility models on aggregated daily data without accounting for this variation will lead to systematically biased estimates. Specifically, the impact of ad position on click-through rate CTR is attenuated and the predicted CTR is higher than the actual CTR. We analytically demonstrate the existence of the bias and show the effect of the bias on the equilibrium of the SSA auction. Using a large data set from a major search engine, we measure the magnitude of bias and quantify the losses suffered by the search engine and an advertiser using aggregate data. The search engine revenue loss can be as high as 11% due to aggregation bias. We also present a few data summarization techniques that can be used by search engines to reduce or eliminate the bias.

References

[1]
Abhishek V, Hosanagar K (2013) Optimal bidding in multiitem multislot sponsored search auctions. Oper. Res. 61(4):855-873.
[2]
Agarwal A, Hosanagar K, Smith MD (2011) Location, location, location: An analysis of profitability and position in online advertising markets. J. Marketing Res. 48(6):1057-1073.
[3]
Ali K, Scarr M (2007) Robust methodologies for modeling web click distributions. Proc. 16th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web, WWW '07 (ACM, New York), 511-520.
[4]
Allenby GM, Rossi PE (1991) There is no aggregation bias: Why macro logit models work. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 9(1):1-14.
[5]
Animesh A, Ramachandran V, Viswanathan S (2010) Research note-Quality uncertainty and the performance of online sponsored search markets: An empirical investigation. Inform. Systems Res. 21(1):190-201.
[6]
Christen M, Gupta S, Porter JC, Staelin R, Wittink DR (1997) Using market-level data to understand promotion effects in a nonlinear model. J. Marketing Res. 34(3):322-334.
[7]
Craswell N, Zoeter O, Taylor M, Ramsey B (2008) An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. Proc. Internat. Conf. Web Search Web Data Mining, WSDM '08 (ACM, New York), 87-94.
[8]
Danaher PJ, Bonfrer A, Dhar S (2008) The effect of competitive advertising interference on sales for packaged goods. J. Marketing Res. 45(2):211-225.
[9]
Ebbes P, Wedel M, Steerneman T, Boeckenholt U (2005) Solving and testing for regressor-error (in)dependence when no instrumental variables are available: With new evidence for the effect of education on income. Quant. Marketing Econom. 3(4):365-392.
[10]
Edelman B, Ostrovsky M, Schwarz M (2007) Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(1):242-259.
[11]
Ghose A, Yang S (2009) An empirical analysis of search engine advertising: Sponsored search in electronic markets. Management Sci. 55(10):1605-1622.
[12]
Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2010) Search engine advertising: Pricing ads to context. SSRN eLibrary. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_idD10214151.
[13]
Good IJ, Mittal Y (1987) The amalgamation and geometry of two-by-two contingency tables. Ann. Statist. 15(2):694-711.
[14]
Gupta S, Chintagunta P, Kaul A, Wittink DR (1996) Do household scanner data provide representative inferences from brand choices: A comparison with store data. J. Marketing Res. 33(4):383-398.
[15]
Hayashi F (2000) Econometrics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
[16]
Jeziorski P, Segal I (2009) What makes them click: Empirical analysis of consumer demand for search advertising. Working paper, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. http://web.stanford.edu/~isegat/ads.pdf.
[17]
Kelejian HH (1995) Aggregated heterogeneous dependent data and the logit model: A suggested approach. Econom. Lett. 47(3-4): 243-248.
[18]
Kendall M, Stuart A (1977) The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1. Distribution Theory (Macmillan Publishing Co., New York).
[19]
Liu D, Chen J, Whinston AB (2009) Competing keyword auctions. J. Marketing 73(4):125-141.
[20]
Muller A, Stoyan D (2002) Comparison Methods for Stochastic Models and Risks (John Wiley, Chichester, UK).
[21]
Narayanan S, Nair HS (2013) Estimating causal installed-base effects: A bias-correction approach. J. Marketing Res. 50(1): 70-94.
[22]
Neslin SA, Shoemaker RW (1989) An alternative explanation for lower repeat rates after promotion purchases. J. Marketing Res. 26(2):205-213.
[23]
Russell GJ, Kamakura WA (1994) Understanding brand competition using micro and macro scanner data. J. Marketing Res. 31(2):289-303.
[24]
Rutz OJ, Bucklin RE (2011) From generic to branded: A model of spillover dynamics in paid search advertising. J. Marketing Res. 48(1):87-102.
[25]
Rutz OJ, Trusov M (2011) Zooming in on paid search ads--A consumer-level model calibrated on aggregated data. Marketing Sci. 30(5):789-800.
[26]
Rutz OJ, Bucklin RE, Sonnier GP (2012) A latent instrumental variables approach to modeling keyword conversion in paid search advertising. J. Marketing Res. 49(3):306-319.
[27]
Steenkamp J-BEM, Nijs VR, Hanssens DM, Dekimpe MG (2005) Competitive reactions to advertising and promotion attacks. Marketing Sci. 24(1):35-54.
[28]
Weber TA, Zheng ZE (2007) A model of search intermediaries and paid referrals. Inform. Systems Res. 18(4):414-436.
[29]
Wooldridge JM (2001) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
[30]
Yang S, Ghose A (2010) Analyzing the relationship between organic and sponsored search advertising: Positive, negative, or zero interdependence? Marketing Sci. 29(4):602-623.
[31]
Yao S, Mela CF (2011) A dynamic model of sponsored search advertising. Marketing Sci. 30(3):447-468.
[32]
Yatchew A, Griliches Z (1985) Specification error in probit models. Rev. Econom. Statist. 67(1):134-139.

Cited By

View all
  1. Aggregation Bias in Sponsored Search Data: The Curse and the Cure

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Marketing Science
    Marketing Science  Volume 34, Issue 1
    January 2015
    178 pages

    Publisher

    INFORMS

    Linthicum, MD, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 January 2015
    Accepted: 22 August 2014
    Received: 28 December 2012

    Author Tags

    1. Hierarchical Bayesian estimation
    2. aggregation bias
    3. consumer choice models
    4. generalized second-price auctions
    5. latent instrumental variables
    6. sponsored search

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    View options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media