The Design and Targeting of Compliance Promotions

References

• Ascarza E (2018) Retention futility: Targeting high-risk customers might be ineffective. J. Marketing Res. 55(1):80–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bang H, Robins JM (2005) Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics 61(4):962–973.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brinch CN, Mogstad M, Wiswall M (2017) Beyond LATE with a discrete instrument. J. Political Econom. 125(4):985–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danaher PJ (2002) Optimal pricing of new subscription services: Analysis of a market experiment. Marketing Sci. 21(2):119–138.Link, Google Scholar
• Dubé JP, Misra S (2022) Personalized pricing and customer welfare, Preprint, submitted June 19, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3035110.Google Scholar
• Dubé JP, Luo X, Fang Z (2017) Self-signaling and prosocial behavior: A cause marketing experiment. Marketing Sci. 36(2):161–186.Link, Google Scholar
• French E, Song J (2014) The effect of disability insurance receipt on labor supply. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 6(2):291–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghose A, Li B, Liu S (2019) Mobile targeting using customer trajectory patterns. Management Sci. 65(11):5027–5049.Link, Google Scholar
• Handel BR, Misra K, Roberts JW (2013) Robust firm pricing with panel data. J. Econometrics 174(2):165–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Vytlacil EJ (1999) Local instrumental variables and latent variable models for identifying and bounding treatment effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96(8):4730–4734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Vytlacil E (2001) Policy-relevant treatment effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(2):107–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Vytlacil E (2005) Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation. Econometrica 73(3):669–738.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Vytlacil EJ (2007) Econometric evaluation of social programs, Part I: Causal models, structural models and econometric policy evaluation. Heckman JJ, Leamer EE, eds. Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 6 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 4779–4874.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Tobias JL, Vytlacil E (2003) Simple estimators for treatment parameters in a latent-variable framework. Rev. Econom. Statist. 85(3):748–755.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitsch GJ, Misra S (2018) Heterogeneous treatment effects and optimal targeting policy evaluation. Preprint, submitted February 6, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3111957.Google Scholar
• Jacob D (2020) Group average treatment effects for observational studies. Preprint, submitted March 27, https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02688v5.Google Scholar
• Kumar V, Reinartz W (2018) Customer Relationship Management: Concept, Strategy, and Tools, Chapter 10, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin), 179–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee LF (1982) Some approaches to the correction of selectivity bias. Rev. Econom. Stud. 49(3):355–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mogstad M, Torgovitsky A (2018) Identification and extrapolation of causal effects with instrumental variables. Annual Rev. Econom. 10(1):577–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mogstad M, Santos A, Torgovitsky A (2018) Using instrumental variables for inference about policy relevant treatment parameters. Econometrica 86(5):1589–1619.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montoya R, Netzer O, Jedidi K (2010) Dynamic allocation of pharmaceutical detailing and sampling for long-term profitability. Marketing Sci. 29(5):909–924.Link, Google Scholar
• Narayanan S, Manchanda P (2009) Heterogeneous learning and the targeting of marketing communication for new products. Marketing Sci. 28(3):424–441.Link, Google Scholar
• Nelson L, Simester D, Sudhir K (2020) Introduction to the special issue on marketing science and field experiments. Marketing Sci. 39(6):1033–1038.Link, Google Scholar
• Noble SM, Lee KB, Zaretzki R, Autry C (2017) Coupon clipping by impoverished consumers: Linking demographics, basket size, and coupon redemption rates. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 34(2):553–571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearl J (2009) Causality, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powers S, Qian J, Jung K, Schuler A, Shah NH, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2018) Some methods for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation in high dimensions. Statist. Medicine 37(11):1767–1787.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Ed. Psych. 66(5):688–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shea J, Torgovitsky A (2021) ivmte: An R package for implementing marginal treatment effect methods. Preprint, submitted September 7, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3516114.Google Scholar
• Simester D, Timoshenko A, Zoumpoulis SI (2020a) Efficiently evaluating targeting policies: Improving on champion vs. challenger experiments. Management Sci. 66(8):3412–3424.Link, Google Scholar
• Simester D, Timoshenko A, Zoumpoulis SI (2020b) Targeting prospective customers robustness of machine-learning methods to typical data challenges. Management Sci. 66(6):2495–2522.Link, Google Scholar
• Tian L, Feinberg FM (2020) Optimizing price menus for duration discounts: A subscription selectivity field experiment. Marketing Sci. 39(6):1181–1198.Link, Google Scholar
• Torgovitsky A, Shea J (2021) ivmte: Instrumental variables: Extrapolation by marginal treatment effects, R package version 1.4.0. Accessed April 12, 2022, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ivmte.Google Scholar
• Venkatesan R, Farris PW (2012) Measuring and managing returns from retailer-customized coupon campaigns. J. Marketing 76(1):76–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Lewis M, Cryder C, Sprigg J (2016) Enduring effects of goal achievement and failure within customer loyalty programs: A large-scale field experiment. Marketing Sci. 35(4):565–575.Link, Google Scholar