公平广告对平台有利吗?

Di Yuan, Manmohan Aseri, T. Mukhopadhyay
{"title":"公平广告对平台有利吗?","authors":"Di Yuan, Manmohan Aseri, T. Mukhopadhyay","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3913739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is sufficient empirical evidence that some groups, e.g., females, are less likely to see advertisements related to economic opportunities, such as employment ads or education degree program ads. More importantly, such biases in advertisements may not be due to any deliberate discrimination by advertisers. Instead, they may occur due to the nature of ad-auctions. For example, females are very lucrative customers for retailers like Macy’s and Target; thus, these retailers place a very high bid in ad-auctions for female impressions and, therefore, win most of these impressions. As a result, an economic-opportunity advertiser, such as an employer, ends up showing its ad to the remaining (male) users. In this paper, we analyze some popular methods of ensuring fairness in the outcome of ad-auctions, on advertising platforms like Facebook, Google, etc. Specifically, we try to understand how these methods of fair-advertising affect the incentives and welfare of various stakeholders. A popular fairness notion in the literature, referred to as equal-exposure in our paper, requires the advertising platforms to artificially increase the bid of an economic-opportunity advertiser for female impressions in ad-auctions (or give away some free female impressions). The increased bid makes economic-opportunity advertisers more competitive against retailers on female impressions and ensures that both males and females are equally exposed to economic-opportunity ads. However, requiring a profit-maximizing platform to artificially increase the bid of an advertiser might lead to a loss of revenue for the platform. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, our results suggest that enforcing equal-exposure fairness in advertising might increase the profit of advertising platforms. This is because equal-exposure fairness intensifies the competition between an economic- opportunity advertiser and a retail advertiser (e.g., Macy’s). This intensified competition leads to a higher ad-spending by both types of advertisers, which increases the profit of the advertising platform. This result highlights that it is in the interest of the advertising platforms to adopt equal-exposure fairness.","PeriodicalId":107258,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Networks (Topic)","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Fair Advertising Good for Platforms?\",\"authors\":\"Di Yuan, Manmohan Aseri, T. Mukhopadhyay\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3913739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is sufficient empirical evidence that some groups, e.g., females, are less likely to see advertisements related to economic opportunities, such as employment ads or education degree program ads. More importantly, such biases in advertisements may not be due to any deliberate discrimination by advertisers. Instead, they may occur due to the nature of ad-auctions. For example, females are very lucrative customers for retailers like Macy’s and Target; thus, these retailers place a very high bid in ad-auctions for female impressions and, therefore, win most of these impressions. As a result, an economic-opportunity advertiser, such as an employer, ends up showing its ad to the remaining (male) users. In this paper, we analyze some popular methods of ensuring fairness in the outcome of ad-auctions, on advertising platforms like Facebook, Google, etc. Specifically, we try to understand how these methods of fair-advertising affect the incentives and welfare of various stakeholders. A popular fairness notion in the literature, referred to as equal-exposure in our paper, requires the advertising platforms to artificially increase the bid of an economic-opportunity advertiser for female impressions in ad-auctions (or give away some free female impressions). The increased bid makes economic-opportunity advertisers more competitive against retailers on female impressions and ensures that both males and females are equally exposed to economic-opportunity ads. However, requiring a profit-maximizing platform to artificially increase the bid of an advertiser might lead to a loss of revenue for the platform. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, our results suggest that enforcing equal-exposure fairness in advertising might increase the profit of advertising platforms. This is because equal-exposure fairness intensifies the competition between an economic- opportunity advertiser and a retail advertiser (e.g., Macy’s). This intensified competition leads to a higher ad-spending by both types of advertisers, which increases the profit of the advertising platform. This result highlights that it is in the interest of the advertising platforms to adopt equal-exposure fairness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":107258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Networks (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"141 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Networks (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3913739\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Networks (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3913739","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

有足够的经验证据表明,一些群体,如女性,不太可能看到与经济机会相关的广告,如就业广告或教育学位广告。更重要的是,广告中的这种偏见可能不是由于广告商有意的歧视。相反,它们可能是由于广告拍卖的性质而发生的。例如,女性是梅西百货(Macy 's)和塔吉特(Target)等零售商非常有利可图的客户;因此,这些零售商在广告拍卖中对女性的印象出价很高,因此赢得了大部分的印象。因此,一个有经济机会的广告商,比如雇主,最终会把广告展示给剩下的(男性)用户。在本文中,我们分析了在Facebook、Google等广告平台上确保广告拍卖结果公平的一些流行方法。具体而言,我们试图了解这些公平广告的方法如何影响各种利益相关者的激励和福利。文献中一个流行的公平概念,在我们的论文中被称为平等曝光,要求广告平台人为地提高经济机会广告商在广告拍卖中的女性印象的出价(或者免费提供一些女性印象)。增加的出价使经济机会广告商在女性印象方面与零售商更具竞争力,并确保男性和女性平等地接触到经济机会广告。然而,要求一个利润最大化的平台人为地提高广告商的出价可能会导致平台的收入损失。与这一传统观点相反,我们的研究结果表明,在广告中执行同等曝光的公平性可能会增加广告平台的利润。这是因为均等曝光的公平性加剧了经济机会广告主和零售广告主(如梅西百货)之间的竞争。这种激烈的竞争导致两类广告商的广告支出增加,从而增加了广告平台的利润。这一结果表明,采用均等曝光公平符合广告平台的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Fair Advertising Good for Platforms?
There is sufficient empirical evidence that some groups, e.g., females, are less likely to see advertisements related to economic opportunities, such as employment ads or education degree program ads. More importantly, such biases in advertisements may not be due to any deliberate discrimination by advertisers. Instead, they may occur due to the nature of ad-auctions. For example, females are very lucrative customers for retailers like Macy’s and Target; thus, these retailers place a very high bid in ad-auctions for female impressions and, therefore, win most of these impressions. As a result, an economic-opportunity advertiser, such as an employer, ends up showing its ad to the remaining (male) users. In this paper, we analyze some popular methods of ensuring fairness in the outcome of ad-auctions, on advertising platforms like Facebook, Google, etc. Specifically, we try to understand how these methods of fair-advertising affect the incentives and welfare of various stakeholders. A popular fairness notion in the literature, referred to as equal-exposure in our paper, requires the advertising platforms to artificially increase the bid of an economic-opportunity advertiser for female impressions in ad-auctions (or give away some free female impressions). The increased bid makes economic-opportunity advertisers more competitive against retailers on female impressions and ensures that both males and females are equally exposed to economic-opportunity ads. However, requiring a profit-maximizing platform to artificially increase the bid of an advertiser might lead to a loss of revenue for the platform. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, our results suggest that enforcing equal-exposure fairness in advertising might increase the profit of advertising platforms. This is because equal-exposure fairness intensifies the competition between an economic- opportunity advertiser and a retail advertiser (e.g., Macy’s). This intensified competition leads to a higher ad-spending by both types of advertisers, which increases the profit of the advertising platform. This result highlights that it is in the interest of the advertising platforms to adopt equal-exposure fairness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信