Budget Optimization for Online Campaigns with Positive Carryover Effects

  • Nikolay Archak
  • Vahab Mirrokni
  • S. Muthukrishnan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7695)


While it is relatively easy to start an online advertising campaign, proper allocation of the marketing budget is far from trivial. A major challenge faced by the marketers attempting to optimize their campaigns is in the sheer number of variables involved, the many individual decisions they make in fixing or changing these variables, and the nontrivial short and long-term interplay among these variables and decisions.

In this paper, we study interactions among individual advertising decisions using a Markov model of user behavior. We formulate the budget allocation task of an advertiser as a constrained optimal control problem for a Markov Decision Process (MDP). Using the theory of constrained MDPs, a simple LP algorithm yields the optimal solution. Our main result is that, under a reasonable assumption that online advertising has positive carryover effects on the propensity and the form of user interactions with the same advertiser in the future, there is a simple greedy algorithm for the budget allocation with the worst-case running time cubic in the number of model states (potential advertising keywords) and an efficient parallel implementation in a distributed computing framework like MapReduce. Using real-world anonymized datasets from sponsored search advertising campaigns of several advertisers, we evaluate performance of the proposed budget allocation algorithm, and show that the greedy algorithm performs well compared to the optimal LP solution on these datasets and that both show consistent 5-10% improvement in the expected revenue against the optimal baseline algorithm ignoring carryover effects.


Greedy Algorithm Markov Decision Process Advertising Campaign Occupation Measure Markov Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aggarwal, G., Feldman, J., Muthukrishnan, S., Pál, M.: Sponsored Search Auctions with Markovian Users. In: Papadimitriou, C., Zhang, S. (eds.) WINE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5385, pp. 621–628. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman, E.: Constrained Markov Decision Processes. Technical Report RR-2574, INRIA, 05 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Archak, N., Mirrokni, V., Muthukrishnan, M.: Mining advertiser-specific user behavior using adfactors. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2010 (2010) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Athey, S., Ellison, G.: Position auctions with consumer search. Working Paper (2008), Available at SSRN:
  5. 5.
    Blattberg, R.C., Jeuland, A.P.: A micromodeling approach to investigate the advertising-sales relationship. Management Science 27(9), 988–1005 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charikar, M., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S., Tomkins, A.: On targeting markov segments. In: STOC 1999: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 99–108 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, D.G.: Econometric measurement of the duration of advertising effect on sales. Journal of Marketing Research 13(4), 345–357 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    comScore. Whither the click? comscore brand metrix norms prove ‘view-thru’ value of on-line advertising (2008),
  9. 9.
    Coppersmith, D., Winograd, S.: Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions. In: STOC 1987: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 1–6 (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dar, E.E., Mansour, Y., Mirrokni, V., Muthukrishnan, S., Nadav, U.: Budget optimization for broad-match ad auctions. In: WWW, World Wide Web Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dean, J., Ghemawat, S.: Mapreduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Communications of ACM 51(1), 107–113 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feldman, J., Muthukrishnan, S., Pal, M., Stein, C.: Budget optimization in search-based advertising auctions. In: EC 2007: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 40–49 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghose, A., Yang, S.: An empirical analysis of sponsored search performance in search engine advertising. In: WSDM 2008: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining, pp. 241–250 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghose, A., Yang, S.: Analyzing the Relationship between Organic and Sponsored Search Advertising: Positive, Negative or Zero Interdependence? Marketing Science (2009) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghosh, A., Sayedi, A.: Expressive auctions for externalities in online advertising. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2010 (2010) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gomes, R., Immorlica, N., Markakis, E.: Externalities in Keyword Auctions: An Empirical and Theoretical Assessment. In: Leonardi, S. (ed.) WINE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5929, pp. 172–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kempe, D., Mahdian, M.: A Cascade Model for Externalities in Sponsored Search. In: Papadimitriou, C., Zhang, S. (eds.) WINE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5385, pp. 585–596. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, R., Reiley, D.: Retail advertising works!: Measuring the effects of advertising on sales via a controlled experiment on yahoo! Working paper, Yahoo! Research (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muthukrishnan, S.M., Pál, M., Svitkina, Z.: Stochastic Models for Budget Optimization in Search-Based Advertising. In: Deng, X., Graham, F.C. (eds.) WINE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4858, pp. 131–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R. and Winograd, T.: The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical Report. Stanford InfoLab (1999) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Interactive Advertising Bureau. IAB Internet advertising revenue report (2009),
  22. 22.
    Topkis, D.M.: Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice. Operations Research 26(2), 305–321 (1978)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu, J., Cook, J., Victor, J., Strong, E.C.: A Two-Stage Model of the Promotional Performance of Pure Online Firms. Information Systems Research 16(4), 334–351 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolay Archak
    • 1
  • Vahab Mirrokni
    • 2
  • S. Muthukrishnan
    • 2
  1. 1.Leonard N. Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Google ResearchNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations