skip to main content
10.1145/3292500.3330829acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Optimizing Impression Counts for Outdoor Advertising

Published:25 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we propose and study the problem of optimizing the influence of outdoor advertising (ad) when impression counts are taken into consideration. Given a database U of billboards, each of which has a location and a non-uniform cost, a trajectory database T and a budget B, it aims to find a set of billboards that has the maximum influence under the budget. In line with the advertising consumer behavior studies, we adopt the logistic function to take into account the impression counts of an ad (placed at different billboards) to a user trajectory when defining the influence measurement. However, this poses two challenges: (1) our problem is NP-hard to approximate within a factor of O(|T|1-ε) for any ε>0 in polynomial time; (2) the influence measurement is non-submodular, which means a straightforward greedy approach is not applicable. Therefore, we propose a tangent line based algorithm to compute a submodular function to estimate the upper bound of influence. Henceforth, we introduce a branch-and-bound framework with a θ-termination condition, achieving θ2/(1 - 1/e) approximation ratio. However, this framework is time-consuming when |U| is huge. Thus, we further optimize it with a progressive pruning upper bound estimation approach which achieves θ2/(1 - 1/e - ε) approximation ratio and significantly decreases the running-time. We conduct the experiments on real-world billboard and trajectory datasets, and show that the proposed approaches outperform the baselines by 95% in effectiveness. Moreover, the optimized approach is around two orders of magnitude faster than the original framework.

References

  1. Penneco Outdoor Advertising. 2016. Billboard Statistics. https://www.pennecooutdoor.com/billboard-statisticsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Sara Ahmadian, Zachary Friggstad, and Chaitanya Swamy. 2013. Local-Search based Approximation Algorithms for Mobile Facility Location Problems. In SODA. SIAM, 1607--1621. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Christoph Ambü hl, Monaldo Mastrolilli, and Ola Svensson. 2011. Inapproximability Results for Maximum Edge Biclique, Minimum Linear Arrangement, and Sparsest Cut. SIAM J. Comput., Vol. 40, 2 (2011), 567--596. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Margaret C Campbell and Kevin Lane Keller. 2003. Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of consumer research, Vol. 30, 2 (2003), 292--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Can Chen, Junming Liu, Qiao Li, Yijun Wang, Hui Xiong, and Shanshan Wu. 2017. Warehouse Site Selection for Online Retailers in Inter-Connected Warehouse Networks. In ICDM. IEEE, 805--810.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Farhana Murtaza Choudhury, J. Shane Culpepper, Zhifeng Bao, and Timos Sellis. 2018. Finding the optimal location and keywords in obstructed and unobstructed space. VLDB J., Vol. 27, 4 (2018), 445--470. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Gershon Feder, Richard E Just, and David Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic development and cultural change, Vol. 33, 2 (1985), 255--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Gerald J Gorn and Marvin E Goldberg. 1980. Children's responses to repetitive television commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6, 4 (1980), 421--424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. William H Greene. 2003. Econometric analysis .Pearson Education India.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Johny K Johansson. 1979. Advertising and the S-curve: A new approach. Journal of Marketing Research (1979), 346--354.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Samir Khuller, Anna Moss, and Joseph Naor. 1999. The Budgeted Maximum Coverage Problem. Inf. Process. Lett., Vol. 70, 1 (1999), 39--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. LAMAR. 2017. National Rate Card. http://apps.lamar.com/demographicrates/content/salesdocuments/nationalratecard.xlsxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sang Yup Lee. 2014. Examining the factors that influence early adopters' smartphone adoption: The case of college students. Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 31, 2 (2014), 308--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Guoliang Li, Shuo Chen, Jianhua Feng, Kian-Lee Tan, and Wen-Syan Li. 2014. Efficient location-aware influence maximization. In SIGMOD. ACM, 87--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Shi Li. 2019. On Facility Location with General Lower Bounds. In SODA. SIAM, 2279--2290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. John DC Little. 1979. Aggregate advertising models: The state of the art. Operations research, Vol. 27, 4 (1979), 629--667. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Dongyu Liu, Di Weng, Yuhong Li, Jie Bao, Yu Zheng, Huamin Qu, and Yingcai Wu. 2017. SmartAdP: Visual Analytics of Large-scale Taxi Trajectories for Selecting Billboard Locations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., Vol. 23, 1 (2017), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yubao Liu, Raymond Chi-Wing Wong, Ke Wang, Zhijie Li, Cheng Chen, and Zitong Chen. 2013. A new approach for maximizing bichromatic reverse nearest neighbor search. Knowl. Inf. Syst., Vol. 36, 1 (2013), 23--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Prashant Malaviya. 2007. The moderating influence of advertising context on ad repetition effects: The role of amount and type of elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, 1 (2007), 32--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. M. Teresa Melo, Stefan Nickel, and Francisco Saldanha-da-Gama. 2006. Dynamic multi-commodity capacitated facility location: a mathematical modeling framework for strategic supply chain planning. Computers & OR, Vol. 33 (2006), 181--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Teresa Melo, Stefan Nickel, and Francisco Saldanha-da-Gama. 2009. Facility location and supply chain management - A review. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 196, 2 (2009), 401--412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. George A Miller. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, Vol. 63, 2 (1956), 81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kristian S Palda. 1965. The measurement of cumulative advertising effects. The Journal of Business, Vol. 38, 2 (1965), 162--179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. William Sierzchula, Sjoerd Bakker, Kees Maat, and Bert Van Wee. 2014. The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy, Vol. 68 (2014), 183--194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Julian L Simon and Johan Arndt. 1980. The shape of the advertising response function. Journal of Advertising Research (1980).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jennifer Taylor, Rachel Kennedy, and Byron Sharp. 2009. Is once really enough? Making generalizations about advertising's convex sales response function. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 49, 2 (2009), 198--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Gerard J Tellis. 1988. Advertising exposure, loyalty, and brand purchase: A two-stage model of choice. Journal of marketing research (1988), 134--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kenneth E Train. 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation .Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Demetrios Vakratsas, Fred M Feinberg, Frank M Bass, and Gurumurthy Kalyanaram. 2004. The shape of advertising response functions revisited: A model of dynamic probabilistic thresholds. Marketing Science, Vol. 23, 1 (2004), 109--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Sheng Wang, Zhifeng Bao, J. Shane Culpepper, Timos Sellis, and Gao Cong. 2018. Reverse k Nearest Neighbor Search over Trajectories. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., Vol. 30, 4 (2018), 757--771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Raymond Chi-Wing Wong, M. Tamer Ö zsu, Philip S. Yu, Ada Wai-Chee Fu, and Lian Liu. 2009. Efficient Method for Maximizing Bichromatic Reverse Nearest Neighbor. PVLDB, Vol. 2, 1 (2009), 1126--1137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ping Zhang, Zhifeng Bao, Yuchen Li, Guoliang Li, Yipeng Zhang, and Zhiyong Peng. 2018. Trajectory-driven Influential Billboard Placement. In SIGKDD. ACM, 2748--2757. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Zenan Zhou, Wei Wu, Xiaohui Li, Mong-Li Lee, and Wynne Hsu. 2011. MaxFirst for MaxBRkNN. In ICDE. IEEE, 828--839. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Optimizing Impression Counts for Outdoor Advertising

    Recommendations

    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 Conferences
      KDD '19: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
      July 2019
      3305 pages
      ISBN:9781450362016
      DOI:10.1145/3292500

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 July 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      KDD '19 Paper Acceptance Rate110of1,200submissions,9%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

      Upcoming Conference

      KDD '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader