skip to main content
10.1145/2566486.2568030acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Advertising in a stream

Published:07 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

One of the most important innovations of social networking websites is the notion of a "feed", a sequence of news items presented to the user as a stream that expands as the user scrolls down. The common method for monetizing such streams is to insert ads in between news items. In this paper, we model this setting, and observe that allocation and pricing of ad insertions in a stream poses interesting algorithmic and mechanism design challenges. In particular, we formulate an optimization problem that captures a typical stream ad placement setting. We give an approximation algorithm for this problem that provably achieves a value close to the optimal, and show how this algorithm can be turned into an incentive compatible mechanism. Finally, we conclude with a simple practical algorithm that makes the allocation decisions in an online fashion. We prove this algorithm to be approximately welfare-maximizing and show that it also has good incentive properties.

References

  1. G. Aggarwal, J. Feldman, S. Muthukrishnan, and M. Pál. Sponsored search auctions with markovian users. In Proc. 4th WINE, pages 621--628, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. G. Aggarwal, A. Goel, and R. Motwani. Truthful auctions for pricing search keywords. In Proc. 7th EC, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. N. Alon, I. Gamzu, and M. Tennenholtz. Optimizing budget allocation among channels and influencers. In WWW '12, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Archer and E. Tardos. Truthful mechanisms for one-parameter agents. In Proc. 42nd FOCS, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. Bakshy, D. Eckles, R. Yan, and I. Rosenn. Social influence in social advertising: Evidence from field experiments. In Proc. 13th EC, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. N. Buchbinder, K. Jain, and J. S. Naor. Online primal-dual algorithms for maximizing ad-auctions revenue. In Algorithms--ESA 2007, pages 253--264. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. O. Candogan, K. Bimpikis, and A. Ozdaglar. Optimal pricing in the presence of local network effect. In Proc. 6th WINE, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. E. H. Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, pages 17--33, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. N. R. Devenur and T. P. Hayes. The adwords problem: online keyword matching with budgeted bidders under random permutations. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 71--78. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. B. Edelmen, M. Ostrovsky, and M. Schwarz. Internet advertising and the generalized second price auction. Amer. Econ. Review, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Feldman, A. Mehta, V. Mirrokni, and S. Muthukrishnan. Online stochastic matching: Beating 1--1/e. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2009. FOCS'09. 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on, pages 117--126. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. T. Groves. Inventive in teams. Econometrica, pages 617--631, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. N. Haghpanah, N. Immorlica, K. Munagala, and V. S. Mirrokni. Optimal auctions with positive network externalities. In Proc. 12th EC, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. D. Hartline, V. S. Mirrokni, and M. Sundararajan. Optimal marketing strategies over social network. In WWW '08, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and Éva Tardos. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proc. 9th KDD, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Kempe and M. Mahdian. A cascade model for externalities in sponsored search. In Proc. 4th WINE, pages 585--596, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Mahdian, H. Nazerzadeh, and A. Saberi. Allocating online advertisement space with unreliable estimates. In Proc. 8th EC, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. Mehta, A. Saberi, U. Vazirani, and V. Vazirani. Adwords and generalized on-line matching. In Proc. 46th FOCS, pages 264--273, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Mu'alem and N. Nisan. Truthful approximation mechanisms for restricted combinatorial auctions. In Proc. 18th AAAI, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. R. B. Myerson. Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res., 6(1):58--73, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. N. Nisan, T. Roughgarden, Éva Tardos, and V. V. Vazirani, editors. Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. P. Papadimitriou, H. Garcia-Molina, P. Krishnamurthy, R. A. Lewis, and D. H. Reiley. Display advertising impact: Search lift and social influence. In Proc. 17th KDD, pages 1019--1027, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Todi. Advertising on social networking websites. Wharton Research Scholars Journal, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. H. Varian. Position auctions. Int. J. Industrial Organization, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. W. Vickrey. Conunterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. J. Finance, pages 8--37, 1061.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. K. C. Wilbur, L. Xu, and D. Kempe. Correcting audience externalities in television advertising. Marketing Science, Forthcoming. Available attextttSSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1423702, September 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Advertising in a stream

      Recommendations

      Reviews

      Amrinder Arora

      A “feed,” a personalized list of content, is the new normal for content consumption on the web. Whether in the form of a news feed based on search criteria from favorite news websites, or in the form of a personalized radio station, the consumption of content via feeds is clearly on the rise. Feeds are monetized by inserting advertisements between the items in the feed, such as a radio commercial between two songs played on Pandora or a text advertisement inserted between two news stories. Hence, there is a clear need for sophisticated mathematical models that maximize the monetary value of the feed while providing a consistent experience to end users at the same time. In this paper, the authors first study the problem of inserting ads in the content feed in order to maximize the monetary value. They formulate the problem as a reward maximization problem, where the reward is a function of the advertisements, their utility values, and the placements selected for those advertisements. The crux of the problem is that the probability that a user observes the n th item or advertisement is a nonlinear decreasing function of n , and is not a constant. This creates a nonlinear term in the objective function, which renders the overall optimization problem hard to solve using maximum matching algorithms. To solve this, the authors first present a four-approximation algorithm by discretizing the nonlinear term, and then generalize the idea therein to create a polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS). An obvious question arises: Assuming the probability that a user observes the n th item is precalculated in an array and can be interpreted as a constant, does that not render the overall optimization problem trivial, while maintaining the utility of the practical scenarios presented in the paper__?__ In the second part of the paper, the authors present a mechanism design problem in which the network must assume that the advertisers need not be truthful when revealing the utility value of showing their advertisement. For this problem, the authors present an approximate mechanism. Considering the relevance and the hardness of keyword pricing and bidding algorithms, the second problem is significantly more applicable in many practical scenarios. Online Computing Reviews Service

      Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

      Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        WWW '14: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web
        April 2014
        926 pages
        ISBN:9781450327442
        DOI:10.1145/2566486

        Copyright © 2014 Copyright is held by the International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2).

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 April 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WWW '14 Paper Acceptance Rate84of645submissions,13%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader