1 / 8

Search Engine Advertising Pricing Ads to Context

Search Engine Advertising Pricing Ads to Context. Discussant: Chris Dellarocas cdell@umd.edu. Paper Summary. Main findings In states where lawyers cannot contact clients by mail price per ad click $0.93 higher In states with contingency fee limits price per ad click $2.27 lower

elittrell
Download Presentation

Search Engine Advertising Pricing Ads to Context

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Search Engine AdvertisingPricing Ads to Context Discussant: Chris Dellarocas cdell@umd.edu

  2. Paper Summary • Main findings • In states where lawyers cannot contact clients by mail price per ad click $0.93 higher • In states with contingency fee limits price per ad click $2.27 lower • Author conclusions • Match-difficulty increases price of sponsored links • Use of context can monetize the long tail by reducing friction in the matching process

  3. Empirical method • Compare average price per ad click of same set of keywords in different geographical regions with different legislation • Very interesting idea that can inspire other researchers • Careful execution and analysis

  4. What explains the results? • Let’s go back to good-ol’ auction theory: Bid = expected valuation (per click) Avg. Payment = Exp. second-highest bid Expected valuation per exposure = Pr[click]*Pr[buy|click]*Unit_Profit Expected valuation per click = Pr[buy|click]*Unit_Profit

  5. What explains the results? Bid = Pr[buy|click]*Unit_Profit Avg. Payment = Exp. Second highest bid • Continency fee limits  lower Unit_Profit  lower Bid  lower Payment • Offline advertising bans  fewer alternative outlets  more lawyers resorting to keyword bidding  more bidders  higher expected second highest bid  higher Payment

  6. What I think is going on… • Keyword bids reflect the bidder’s expected valuation of a click • Lack of alternative advertising outlets increases the number of lawyers who bid for keywords, which drives prices up • Both behaviors consistent with rationality – not surprising

  7. Comments on authors’ main point • “Search engines can monetize the difficulties that vendors have finding clients in thin markets” • In the authors’ setting match difficulty offline was “artificially” driven by legislation – there is nothing special about keyword search technology that reduces friction in this case • What I think is happening is that, given that offline and online media are substitutes, restricting access to one channel will increase demand for the other • However, my interpretation is also tentative (is there a way to measure the average # of bids per keyword varies in the different regions studied by the authors?)

  8. Conclusions • The authors have conducted a beautiful natural experiment that can inspire other researchers • But need a little more work in weaving the right set of “so-what” implications • Quantify the degree of offline and online substitutability • Include search ads in efforts to limit “ambulance chasing” • …

More Related