Heterogeneous Treatment Effects and Optimal Targeting Policy Evaluation

We discuss how to construct optimal targeting policies and document the difference in profits from alternative targeting policies by using estimation approaches that are based on recent advances in causal inference and machine learning. We introduce an approach to evaluate the profit of any targeting policy using only one single randomized sample. This approach is qualitatively equivalent to conducting a field test, but reduces the cost of multiple field tests because all comparisons can be conducted in only one sample. The approach allows us to compare many alternative optimal targeting policies that are constructed based on different estimates of the conditional average treatment effect, i.e. the incremental effect of targeting. We draw a conceptual distinction between methods that predict the conditional average treatment effect indirectly via the conditional expectation function trained on the outcome level, and methods that directly predict the conditional average treatment effect. We propose a new direct estimation method, called treatment effect projection. The empirical application is to a catalog mailing with a high-dimensional set of customer features. We find that the optimal targeting policies based on the direct estimation methods typically outperform the indirect estimation methods, both in the validation sets from the same population from which the training set is drawn and in the data obtained one year after the training set was collected. In particular, the treatment effect projection performs similar to the recently introduced causal forest of Wager and Athey (2017). We also compare targeting policies based on conditional average treatment effects with a sophisticated application of the traditional CRM approach that is based on a prediction of the outcome level. Even though based on a conceptually incorrect metric — outcome levels — the sophisticated application of the traditional CRM approach often yields larger profits than the targeting policies based on the indirect estimation methods.

[1]  Eva Ascarza,et al.  The Perils of Proactive Churn Prevention Using Plan Recommendations: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2015 .

[2]  D. Horvitz,et al.  A Generalization of Sampling Without Replacement from a Finite Universe , 1952 .

[3]  Peter S. Fader,et al.  Marketing Models for the Customer-Centric Firm , 2017 .

[4]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[5]  D. Rubin,et al.  Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction , 2016 .

[6]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Measuring Multichannel Advertising Response , 2017, Manag. Sci..

[7]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  Econometric Tools for Analyzing Market Outcomes , 2007 .

[8]  Catherine E. Tucker,et al.  When Does Retargeting Work? Information Specificity in Online Advertising , 2013 .

[9]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[10]  R. Tibshirani Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[11]  Eva Ascarza Retention Futility: Targeting High-Risk Customers Might be Ineffective , 2018 .

[12]  Eva Ascarza,et al.  Beyond the Target Customer: Social Effects of CRM Campaigns , 2016 .

[13]  Toru Kitagawa,et al.  Who should be Treated? Empirical Welfare Maximization Methods for Treatment Choice , 2015 .

[14]  M. Davidian,et al.  Improving efficiency and robustness of the doubly robust estimator for a population mean with incomplete data , 2009, Biometrika.

[15]  LEO GUELMAN,et al.  Uplift Random Forests , 2015, Cybern. Syst..

[16]  Szymon Jaroszewicz,et al.  Decision trees for uplift modeling with single and multiple treatments , 2011, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[17]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Statistical Learning with Sparsity: The Lasso and Generalizations , 2015 .

[18]  Sridhar Narayanan,et al.  Position Effects in Search Advertising and their Moderators: A Regression Discontinuity Approach , 2015, Mark. Sci..

[19]  David H. Reiley,et al.  Online ads and offline sales: measuring the effect of retail advertising via a controlled experiment on Yahoo! , 2014 .

[20]  Sanjog Misra,et al.  Big Data and Marketing Analytics in Gaming: Combining Empirical Models and Field Experimentation , 2017, Mark. Sci..

[21]  Susan Athey,et al.  Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  Kevin P. Murphy,et al.  Machine learning - a probabilistic perspective , 2012, Adaptive computation and machine learning series.

[23]  Byung-Do Kim,et al.  Mailing smarter to catalog customers , 2000 .

[24]  Steven Tadelis,et al.  Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large Scale Field Experiment , 2014 .

[25]  Stefan Wager,et al.  Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests , 2015, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[26]  Navdeep S. Sahni Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments , 2015 .