Uplift Modeling in Direct Marketing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26636/jtit.2012.2.1263Keywords:
decision trees, information theory, marketing tools, uplift modelingAbstract
Marketing campaigns directed to randomly selected customers often generate huge costs and a weak response. Moreover, such campaigns tend to unnecessarily annoy customers and make them less likely to answer to future communications. Precise targeting of marketing actions can potentially results in a greater return on investment. Usually, response models are used to select good targets. They aim at achieving high prediction accuracy for the probability of purchase based on a sample of customers, to whom a pilot campaign has been sent. However, to separate the impact of the action from other stimuli and spontaneous purchases we should model not the response probabilities themselves, but instead, the change in those probabilities caused by the action. The problem of predicting this change is known as uplift modeling, differential response analysis, or true lift modeling. In this work, tree-based classifiers designed for uplift modeling are applied to real marketing data and compared with traditional response models, and other uplift modeling techniques described in literature. The experiments show that the proposed approaches outperform existing uplift modeling algorithms and demonstrate significant advantages of uplift modeling over traditional, response based targeting.
Downloads
References
[1] B. Hansotia and B. Rukstales, „Incremental value modeling”, J. Interact. Marketing, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 35-46, 2002.
View in Google Scholar
[2] N. J. Radcliffe and R. Simpson, „Identifying who can be saved and who will be driven away by retention activity”, White paper, Stochastic Solutions Limited, 2007.
View in Google Scholar
[3] N. J. Radcliffe and P. D. Surry, „Differential response analysis: modeling true response by isolating the effect of a single action”, in Proc. Credit Scoring Credit Control VI, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1999.
View in Google Scholar
[4] N. J. Radcliffe and P. D. Surry, „Real-world uplift modelling with significance-based uplift trees”, Portrait Tech. Rep. TR-2011-1, Stochastic Solutions, 2011.
View in Google Scholar
[5] K. Hillstrom, „The MineThatData e-mail analytics and data mining challenge”, MineThatData blog, 2008 [Online]. Available: http://blog.minethatdata.com/2008/03/minethatdata-e-mailanalytics-and-data.html, retrieved on 02.04.2012.
View in Google Scholar
[6] P. Rzepakowski and S. Jaroszewicz, „Decision trees for uplift modeling”, in Proc. 10th IEEE Int. Conf. Data Mining ICDM-2010, Sydney, Australia, Dec. 2010, pp. 441-450.
View in Google Scholar
[7] P. Rzepakowski and S. Jaroszewicz, „Decision trees for uplift modeling with single and multiple treatments”, Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 1-25, 2011 [Online]. Available: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f45pw0171234524j
View in Google Scholar
[8] C. Manahan, „A proportional hazards approach to campaign list selection”, in Proc. Thirtieth Ann. SAS Users Group Int. Conf. SUGI, Philadelphia, PA, 2005.
View in Google Scholar
[9] D. M. Chickering and D. Heckerman, „A decision theoretic approach to targeted advertising”, in Proc. 16th Conf. Uncertainty in Artif. Intell. UAI-2000, Stanford, CA, 2000, pp. 82-88.
View in Google Scholar
[10] V. S. Y. Lo, „The true lift model - a novel data mining approach to response modeling in database marketing”, SIGKDD Explor., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 78-86, 2002.
View in Google Scholar
[11] J. R. Quinlan, C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.
View in Google Scholar
[12] I. Csiszár and P. Shields, „Information theory and statistics: A tutorial”, Found. Trends in Commun. Inform. Theory, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 417-528, 2004.
View in Google Scholar
[13] L. Lee, „Measures of distributional similarity”, in Proc. 37th Ann. Meet. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. ACL-1999, Maryland, USA, 1999, pp. 25-32.
View in Google Scholar
[14] T. S. Han and K. Kobayashi, Mathematics of information and coding. Boston, USA: American Mathematical Society, 2001.
View in Google Scholar
[15] S. Jaroszewicz and D. A. Simovici, „A general measure of rule interestingness”, in Proc. 5th Eur. Conf. Princ. Data Mining Knowl. Discov. PKDD-2001, Freiburg, Germany, 2001, pp. 253-265.
View in Google Scholar
[16] L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and Regression Trees. Monterey, USA: Wadsworth Inc., 1984.
View in Google Scholar
[17] T. Mitchell, Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, 1997.
View in Google Scholar
[18] J. R. Quinlan, „Simplifying decision trees”, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 221-234, 1987.
View in Google Scholar
[19] I. H. Witten and E. Frank, Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, 2005.
View in Google Scholar
Downloads
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2012 Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.