Abstract:
The disclosed system allows a credit or charge card issuer to provide its card members with a list of merchants, products, services, vacation destinations or other offerings that might be of interest based on the purchases of similar card members. In one instance, this process looks at all card members that made purchases at a merchant and then it identifies all other merchants in the same category where those card members also made purchases. The associated merchants are ranked based on largest number of shared card members and the top results may be shared with card members or merchants in order to enhance promotions, card use and marketing.

Description:
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
       [0001]    This application is a continuation of, and claims priority to, U.S. Ser. No. 11/315,262 filed on Dec. 23, 2005 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Collaborative Filtering of Card Member Transactions.” The &#39;262 application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/639,472, filed Dec. 28, 2004. All of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. 
     
    
     BACKGROUND 
       [0002]    1. Field of the Invention 
         [0003]    This invention generally relates to financial data processing, and in particular it relates to incentive and promotional programs. 
         [0004]    2. Related Art 
         [0005]    Consumers are constantly searching for information on products and services that may be of interest to them, but with which they have no actual experience. They typically seek independent information before making certain purchases. Various sources provide reports on products and services to satisfy this consumer demand for information. For example, ZAGATS provides ratings on restaurants and CONSUMER REPORTS provides detailed listings on product quality and customer satisfaction. When making a purchase of a selected product on web sites such as AMAZON.COM, information is typically provided about other products purchased by customers who have also purchased the selected product. 
         [0006]    Consumers frequently use credit, debit, stored value or charge cards (collectively referred to herein as credit instruments) in transactions with various merchants. This data is collected and processed en mass by credit providers for billing purposes and the like. However, little has been done to harness such card member transaction details for marketing purposes. 
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION 
       [0007]    Accordingly, the present disclosure introduces a system for processing financial transaction data, referred to herein as collaborative filtering, in which transaction data between card members and merchants is captured and analyzed for marketing purposes. 
         [0008]    According to various embodiments of the disclosed processes, a plurality of merchants having transactions with card members are grouped based on an industry code and their geographic location. For each merchant, the system determines its total number of financial transactions involving card members over a period of time. The system then selects a first merchant from the group and identifies all card members that have had at least one financial transaction with the first merchant over the period of time. The system next determines, for each remaining merchant in the group, the number of card members having at least one financial transaction with both the first merchant and the remaining merchant over the period of time. The system then ranks each remaining merchant based on a ratio of: (i) the number of card members having at least one financial transaction with both the first merchant and the remaining merchant over the period of time; to (ii) the number of financial transactions involving card members over the period of time. A corrective factor may be introduced to eliminate merchants having relatively few card member transactions. The system then reports one or more of the highest-ranked remaining merchants in which card members have had at least one financial transaction with both merchants over the period of time. The ranking of merchants may then be provided to card members or interested merchants for marketing purposes. 
         [0009]    In various examples, the processes disclosed herein are particularly useful for identifying restaurants or vacation destinations that may be of interest to card members, but may be applied to any of a variety of products, services and offerings. 
         [0010]    Further features and advantages of the present invention as well as the structure and operation of various embodiments of the present invention are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0011]    The features of the present invention will become more apparent from the detailed description set forth below when taken in conjunction with the drawings. The left-most digit of a reference number identifies the drawing in which the reference number first appears. 
           [0012]      FIG. 1  is a block diagram of an exemplary computer network over which the processes of the present disclosure may be performed. 
           [0013]      FIG. 2  is a flowchart of an exemplary collaborative filtering process performed over the network of  FIG. 1 . 
           [0014]      FIG. 3  is a diagram of an exemplary collaborative filtering database for use with the process of  FIG. 2 . 
           [0015]      FIG. 4  is a diagram of exemplary ranking results using the collaborative filtering process of  FIG. 2 . 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0016]    Overview 
         [0017]    The collaborative filtering processes now introduced allows a credit, debit, stored value or charge card provider, such as AMERICAN EXPRESS, to analyze financial transaction data involving its card members (i.e., holders of a particular brand of credit instrument) that is typically used only for billing purposes. The system also harnesses such information in order to assist consumers in making other purchases at merchants that have appealed to other (similarly-situated) card members. According to such processes, merchants who accept a particular brand of credit instrument are grouped by location and industry code. Financial transactions between card members and the various merchants within one or more groups are analyzed to identify those merchants with common card member patronage, and to further rank merchants within a group that have had common patronage among card members. The ranking of similar merchants may be reported to card members who have made at least one purchase from a merchant within the group in order to assist the card members in making their purchases at similar merchants. Such reporting may be accompanied by discounts on purchases at such other merchants, if desired. The ranking of merchants may also be communicated to the merchants themselves (in a manner such that card member privacy without is not violated), who may then properly use such information for their marketing purposes. 
       Exemplary Systems and Processes 
       [0018]    Referring now to  FIGS. 1-4 , wherein similar components of the present disclosure are referenced in like manner, and wherein various embodiments of a method and system for collaborative filtering of card member transactions are disclosed. 
         [0019]    Turning to  FIG. 1 , there is depicted an exemplary computer network  100  over which the transmission of financial transaction data as described herein may be accomplished, using any of a variety of available computing components for processing such data. Such components may include a credit provider server  102 , which may be a computer, such as an enterprise server of the type commonly manufactured by SUN MICROSYSTEMS. The credit provider server  102  has appropriate internal hardware, software, processing, memory and network communication components, which enables it to perform the functions described herein. General software applications may include the SOLARIS operating system and SYBASE IQ data management and analysis tools. The credit provider server  102  stores financial transaction data in appropriate memory and processes the same according to the processes described herein using programming instructions that may be provided in any of a variety of useful machine programming languages. It should be readily apparent that any number of other computing systems and software may be used to accomplish the processes described herein. 
         [0020]    The credit provider server  102  may, in turn, be in operative communication with any number of other external servers  104 , which may be computers or servers of similar or compatible functional configuration. These external servers  104  may gather and provide financial transactions data, as described herein, and transmit the same for processing and analysis by the credit provider server  102 . Such data transmissions may occur for example over the Internet or by any other known communications infrastructure, such as a local area network, a wide area network, a wireless network, a fiber-optic network, or any combination or interconnection of the same. Such communications may also be transmitted in an encrypted or otherwise secure format, in any of a wide variety of known manners. Each of the external servers  104  may be operated by either common or independent entities, and in certain embodiment may represent point-of-sale terminals where card member transactions are initiated, or may be servers operated by credit card clearinghouses that typically process credit transactions. 
         [0021]    Turning now to  FIG. 2 , therein is depicted an exemplary collaborative filtering process  200  performed by the credit provider server  102  using the financial transaction data obtained by and transmitted from the external servers  104 . 
         [0022]    The process  200  commences with the capture of financial transaction data involving a plurality of card members and merchants over a period of time (step  202 ). Such financial transaction data may include, but is not limited to, an identification of the card member (such as by name and/or account number), an identification of the merchant (such as by name or merchant identification number), a financial amount of the transaction, and the date of the transaction. The period of time may be for example a month, a quarter, a year or any other desired period of time. The credit provider server  102  may store such received data in a suitable database format for analysis as described herein. 
         [0023]    Next, the credit provider server  102  groups similar merchants having transactions with card members according to their geographic location and an applicable industry code (step  204 ). The grouping of the merchants by geographic location may be accomplished according to the zip code, street address, city, metropolitan area (MSA) or county in which the merchants reside, which is typically readily available to credit providers. The grouping by geographic location ensures that card members who have frequented a merchant in that location may be amenable to visiting other merchants in the same location. 
         [0024]    The further grouping of merchants by industry code ensures that the merchants within the group offer similar products and services. The industry code may be a Standard Industry Classification (SIC) code that may be assigned to merchants by a government agency. The industry code may further be a proprietary classification code assigned by a credit provider, issuer, or acquiror to a class of merchants to uniquely identify the products or services offered by such merchants. 
         [0025]    Next, at step  206 , a group of merchants is selected for analysis wherein the number of financial transactions with card members is determined and stored for each merchant in the group. This information may then be stored by the credit provider server  102  in a database, such as database  300  described below with respect to  FIG. 3 . 
         [0026]    Next, at step  208 , a merchant is selected from the group, and each card member having at least one transaction with that merchant is identified from the stored financial transaction data. 
         [0027]    Next, at step  210 , it is determined whether any other merchants within that group have had transaction with any of the card members identified in step  208  above. Those merchants having transactions with common card members are identified and ranked based on a ratio of the number of number of transactions with common card members to the total number of transactions with all card members determined in step  206  above. 
         [0028]    One exemplary method for ranking merchants will now be described with reference to  FIG. 3  wherein an exemplary merchant ranking database  300  used by the collaborative filtering process  200  is depicted. The database  300  has a number of fields represented by columns in  FIG. 3  and a number of database records, represented as rows within  FIG. 3 . This database  300  may include: (i) a first merchant identifier field  302  for storing an identification of a first merchant being analyzed by the collaborative filtering process  200 ; (ii) a second merchant identifier field  200  for storing an identification of similar merchants having transactions with common cardholders; (iii) a number of common card members field  306  for storing a number of card members who have frequented both the merchants identified in fields  302  and  304 ; a number of total transactions field  308  for storing the total number of card member transactions involving the second merchant identified in field  304 ; a ratio field  310  for storing the ratio of the value stored in field  306  to the value stored in field  308 ; and a ranking field that stores the result of a ranking applied to the data in fields  306 - 308 . 
         [0029]    A problem exists with simply using the ratio value  310  to directly rank similar merchants within a group. This problem becomes apparent when the number of shared card members is low, or is close to the total number of transactions at the second merchant. Either scenario, or a combination of the two, would result in a ratio of nearly 1:1. However, particularly in the case where there are few shared card member transactions, simply using the highest ratios may not be representative of a true correlation between the patronage of the first and second merchants. 
         [0030]    Accordingly, a mathematical solution may be applied that discounts such problematic data. One such solution may be expressed as follows: 
         [0000]        C=A+ (10* B* ( A −3))
 
         [0031]    where: 
         [0032]    C is the value stored in field  312 ; 
         [0033]    A is the value stored in field  306 ; 
         [0034]    B is the ratio value stored in field  310 , obtained by dividing the value stored in field  306  by the value stored in field  308 ; and 
         [0035]    the value of (A−3) is set to zero if it results in zero or a negative number. 
         [0036]    It should be noted that, in one embodiment, the corrective factor 10*B*(A−3) has been incorporated to discount coincidences from merchants having relatively few numbers of common card member transactions, and add weight to those with higher ratios and numbers of common transactions. The variables in the corrective factor were determined to be suitable based on experimental data and may be altered or adjusted based on empirical data resulting from actual use of the collaborative filtering processes. Other suitable corrective factors may also be applied. 
         [0037]    Returning to the process  200 , upon completion of the analysis in step  210  above, each of the remaining merchants within the group are ranked according to the value stored in field  312  for them, wherein the highest-ranked second merchant has the highest ranking value and the lowest-ranked second merchant has the lowest ranking value. The credit provider server may rank only a threshold number of second merchants, such as the top five merchants. 
         [0038]    These merchants may then be stored in a merchant ranking database  400  shown in  FIG. 4 . An exemplary merchant ranking database  400  includes the following fields: (i) a primary merchant field  402  for storing an identification of a first merchant in a group; (ii) a highest ranked merchant field  404  for storing the highest ranked merchant in the group based on its ranking; (iii) a second-highest ranked merchant field  404  for storing an identification of the second highest ranked merchant in the group; and (iv) third though fifth highest-ranked merchant fields  408 - 412  for storing the respective appropriate merchant identifications. 
         [0039]    The merchant rankings stored in database  400  may be reported to card members in any of a variety of manners. In one example, the collaborative filtering processes could be used to identify restaurants that a card member may wish to try. Suppose Card member A recently ate at a Sushi Restaurant in Manhattan. The collaborative filtering process  200  could be used to identify and report the highest-ranked restaurants (based on similar industry codes, and therefore, similar services) where other card members who have dined at the Sushi Restaurant have also dined. Based on Card member A′s patronage of the Sushi Restaurant, a report of these highest ranked restaurants may be provided with Card member A′s billing statement or otherwise communicated to the card member by, for example, a separate mailing, electronic means (e.g., e-mail) or telemarketing means. 
         [0040]    In another example of the collaborative filtering process, card members who are identified as having vacationed in a certain destination could be informed of other top vacation destinations by other card members who have also vacationed at that destination. Such vacation destinations may or may not be grouped by similar geographic location or similar merchants, but instead may simply be based on overall card member preferences. 
         [0041]    In one embodiment, the ranking information produced by the collaborative filtering process described herein may be provided to merchants themselves. For example, a restaurateur may learn that many customers of a competing restaurant also tend to frequent their establishment. The restaurateur may then offer to accept coupons from that competitor in order to attract new customers. 
         [0042]    The disclosed collaborative filtering processes solve several problems by allowing a credit provider and merchants to customize promotions or marketing offers, while at the same time providing a value-added benefit for card members, by providing them with meaningful information about merchants they may want to patronize due to patronage from other (presumably similarly-situated) card members who carry and utilize the same particular brand of credit instrument. The process leverages the ability to personalize information based on purchases already made by card members. By providing such personalized information to card members, a credit provider can expect to experience an increase in revenues due to transactions that are encouraged by the collaborative filtering process. 
       CONCLUSION 
       [0043]    While various embodiments of the present invention have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example, and not limitation. It will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant art(s) that various changes in form and detail can be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention (e.g., packaging and activation of other transaction cards and/or use of batch activation processes). Thus, the present invention should not be limited by any of the above described exemplary embodiments, but should be defined only in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents. 
         [0044]    In addition, it should be understood that the figures and screen shots illustrated in the attachments, which highlight the functionality and advantages of the present invention, are presented for example purposes only. The architecture of the present invention is sufficiently flexible and configurable, such that it may be utilized (and navigated) in ways other than that shown in the accompanying figures. 
         [0045]    Further, the purpose of the following Abstract is to enable the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the public generally, and especially the scientists, engineers and practitioners in the art who are not familiar with patent or legal terms or phraseology, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and essence of the technical disclosure of the application. The Abstract is not intended to be limiting as to the scope of the present invention in any way.