On the Role of Ad Networks: To Endogenize or Not to Endogenize the Number of Bidders in Auctions?

Q4 Business, Management and Accounting
Parneet Pahwa
{"title":"On the Role of Ad Networks: To Endogenize or Not to Endogenize the Number of Bidders in Auctions?","authors":"Parneet Pahwa","doi":"10.1515/roms-2022-0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the world of online advertising, demand for banner slots by advertisers is matched with the inventory available at different publishers by an intermediary (Ad Network or an Exchange). One important feature of auctions in the online advertising space is that publishers typically have multiple slots and advertisers are not necessarily interested in purchasing one unit but are rather interested in purchasing thousands of impressions. Furthermore, an ad network may have different types of publishers with varying quality of advertising space available. Consequently, bidders may value slots in one set of publishers very differently from slots in a different set. For instance, firms selling financial products and services may value slots at CNN.com’s financial section or WSJ.com very differently from slots available at people.com or even the weather section in CNN.com. So, the dilemma confronting an ad network that has inventory from different publishers, facing demand from say, advertisers selling financial products is whether to pool the inventory and conduct a single auction or conduct separate auctions so that the advertisers know that they are bidding for slots on CNN.com’s financial section or on WSJ.com and not for slots on the weather section on CNN.com or some other less preferred slots. Given the critical role that ad networks play, in serving the request of advertisers to get their advertising banners displayed in online media we examine the economic incentives of these intermediaries to derive implications for the optimal market design. More specifically, we seek answers to the following questions. Given the variation in the quality of inventory available from different publishers under what market conditions should the intermediary pool the inventory across the different publishers and conduct a single (undisclosed) auction and when would it be more profitable to conduct different (disclosed) auctions? Given a fixed number of bidders, if the intermediary chooses to conduct two auctions how many bidders should be allocated to each auction and how do market parameters such as the number of bidders or the inventory available of each type affect the allocation rule. Finally, if the intermediary chooses to conduct two auctions should they charge the same commission or different commissions in each auction? We find that when the number of advertisers is small then pooling inventory and conducting a single auction is the optimal strategy. Under these conditions when the inventory of the publishers is sufficiently differentiated it may even be optimal for the intermediary to conduct a single auction but ignore the inventory of the publisher that is valued lower. When the number of advertisers is large, we find very interestingly that conducting multiple auctions is not always optimal. Indeed, when the inventory of publishers is sufficiently differentiated conducting a single auction and ignoring the inventory of the publisher that is valued lower can still be optimal. We also identify market conditions when conducting two auctions and charging a single commission in both markets is more profitable than conducting two auctions and charging separate commissions (and vice versa).","PeriodicalId":35829,"journal":{"name":"Review of Marketing Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Marketing Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/roms-2022-0032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In the world of online advertising, demand for banner slots by advertisers is matched with the inventory available at different publishers by an intermediary (Ad Network or an Exchange). One important feature of auctions in the online advertising space is that publishers typically have multiple slots and advertisers are not necessarily interested in purchasing one unit but are rather interested in purchasing thousands of impressions. Furthermore, an ad network may have different types of publishers with varying quality of advertising space available. Consequently, bidders may value slots in one set of publishers very differently from slots in a different set. For instance, firms selling financial products and services may value slots at CNN.com’s financial section or WSJ.com very differently from slots available at people.com or even the weather section in CNN.com. So, the dilemma confronting an ad network that has inventory from different publishers, facing demand from say, advertisers selling financial products is whether to pool the inventory and conduct a single auction or conduct separate auctions so that the advertisers know that they are bidding for slots on CNN.com’s financial section or on WSJ.com and not for slots on the weather section on CNN.com or some other less preferred slots. Given the critical role that ad networks play, in serving the request of advertisers to get their advertising banners displayed in online media we examine the economic incentives of these intermediaries to derive implications for the optimal market design. More specifically, we seek answers to the following questions. Given the variation in the quality of inventory available from different publishers under what market conditions should the intermediary pool the inventory across the different publishers and conduct a single (undisclosed) auction and when would it be more profitable to conduct different (disclosed) auctions? Given a fixed number of bidders, if the intermediary chooses to conduct two auctions how many bidders should be allocated to each auction and how do market parameters such as the number of bidders or the inventory available of each type affect the allocation rule. Finally, if the intermediary chooses to conduct two auctions should they charge the same commission or different commissions in each auction? We find that when the number of advertisers is small then pooling inventory and conducting a single auction is the optimal strategy. Under these conditions when the inventory of the publishers is sufficiently differentiated it may even be optimal for the intermediary to conduct a single auction but ignore the inventory of the publisher that is valued lower. When the number of advertisers is large, we find very interestingly that conducting multiple auctions is not always optimal. Indeed, when the inventory of publishers is sufficiently differentiated conducting a single auction and ignoring the inventory of the publisher that is valued lower can still be optimal. We also identify market conditions when conducting two auctions and charging a single commission in both markets is more profitable than conducting two auctions and charging separate commissions (and vice versa).
论广告网络的作用:在拍卖中允许还是不允许投标人数量?
摘要在在线广告的世界里,广告商对横幅广告位的需求与不同出版商通过中介(广告网络或交易所)提供的库存相匹配。在线广告领域拍卖的一个重要特征是,出版商通常有多个时段,广告商不一定对购买一个单元感兴趣,而是对购买数千个印象感兴趣。此外,广告网络可以具有不同类型的发布者,具有不同质量的可用广告空间。因此,竞标者可能会对一组发布者中的插槽与不同组中的插槽进行非常不同的估价。例如,销售金融产品和服务的公司可能会对CNN.com金融部分或WSJ.com的时段进行估价,这与people.com甚至CNN.com天气部分的时段非常不同,销售金融产品的广告商是将库存集中起来,进行一次拍卖,还是进行单独的拍卖,这样广告商就知道他们在竞标CNN.com金融部分或WSJ.com的时段,而不是CNN.com天气部分或其他一些不太受欢迎的时段。鉴于广告网络发挥的关键作用,在满足广告商在在线媒体上展示广告横幅的要求时,我们研究了这些中介机构的经济激励因素,以得出最佳市场设计的启示。更具体地说,我们寻求以下问题的答案。鉴于不同出版商提供的库存质量存在差异,在什么市场条件下,中介机构应该将不同出版商的库存汇集起来,进行单一(未披露)拍卖?何时进行不同(已披露)的拍卖更有利可图?给定固定数量的投标人,如果中介机构选择进行两次拍卖,每次拍卖应分配多少投标人,以及投标人数量或每种类型的可用库存等市场参数如何影响分配规则。最后,如果中介选择进行两次拍卖,他们在每次拍卖中应该收取相同的佣金还是不同的佣金?我们发现,当广告商数量较少时,集中库存并进行单一拍卖是最佳策略。在这些条件下,当出版商的库存充分区分时,中介机构甚至可以进行单一拍卖,但忽略价值较低的出版商的库存。当广告商的数量很大时,我们发现非常有趣的是,进行多次拍卖并不总是最优的。事实上,当出版商的库存充分分化时,进行单一拍卖并忽略价值较低的出版商的库存仍然是最佳的。我们还确定了在两个市场进行两次拍卖并收取单一佣金比两次拍卖和收取单独佣金(反之亦然)更有利可图的市场条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Review of Marketing Science
Review of Marketing Science Business, Management and Accounting-Marketing
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The Review of Marketing Science (ROMS) is a peer-reviewed electronic-only journal whose mission is twofold: wide and rapid dissemination of the latest research in marketing, and one-stop review of important marketing research across the field, past and present. Unlike most marketing journals, ROMS is able to publish peer-reviewed articles immediately thanks to its electronic format. Electronic publication is designed to ensure speedy publication. It works in a very novel and simple way. An issue of ROMS opens and then closes after a year. All papers accepted during the year are part of the issue, and appear as soon as they are accepted. Combined with the rapid peer review process, this makes for quick dissemination.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信