Source: https://patents.justia.com/patent/8145527
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 01:58:21
Document Index: 458803696

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4']

US Patent for Governing the serving of advertisements based on a cost target Patent (Patent # 8,145,527 issued March 27, 2012) - Justia Patents Search
Justia Patents Calculate Past, Present, Or Future RevenueUS Patent for Governing the serving of advertisements based on a cost target Patent (Patent # 8,145,527)
Governing the serving of advertisements based on a cost target
Jul 11, 2011 - Google
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/885,460 (referred to as “the '460 application” and incorporated herein by reference), filed on Sep. 18, 2010 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,991,642, titled “GOVERNING THE SERVING OF ADVERTISEMENTS BASED ON A COST TARGET,” and listing Eric Veach as the inventor, the '460 application being a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/340,553 (referred to as “the '553 application” and incorporated herein by reference), filed on Jan. 10, 2003, titled “GOVERNING THE SERVING OF ADVERTISEMENTS BASED ON A COST TARGET,” listing Eric Veach as the inventor (the '553 application issuing as U.S. Pat. No. 7,818,207 on Oct. 19, 2010).
In the following, environments in which the present invention may operate are described in §4.1. Then, exemplary embodiments of the present invention are described in §4.2. Thereafter, an example of operations in an exemplary embodiment is provided in §4.3 Finally, some conclusions regarding the present invention are set forth in §4.3.
The search engine may combine the search results with one or more of the advertisements provided by the system 120. This combined information including the search results and advertisement(s) is then forwarded towards the user that requested the content, for presentation to the user. For example, FIG. 3 is an abstract illustration of a display page 310 that may be provided by the search engine. The outline 320 depicted with dashed lines corresponds to a portion of the display page 310 that may be viewed on a typical personal computer display screen at a typical resolution. The exemplary display page 310 may include header information 312 (e.g., the name of search engine host), trailer information 316 (e.g., copyright, navigational hypertext links, etc.), a plurality of search results 314 and a plurality of ads 318a, 318b, and 318c. The search results 314 are maintained as distinct from the ads 318, so as not to confuse the user between paid advertisements and presumably neutral search results. Although FIG. 3 shows only three ads 318, embodiments consistent with the principles of the present invention may have more or less ads. For example, ten search results combined with ten ads has been found to be effective.
§4.2.1 Exemplary Method
§4.2.2 Exemplary Apparatus and Data Structures
§4.3 Example Illustrating Operation of an Exemplary Embodiment
∑ i = 1 n ⁢ cost i ≤ n · ( period ⁢ ⁢ budget ) where ⁢ ⁢ n ≡ the ⁢ ⁢ number ⁢ ⁢ of ⁢ ⁢ periods ⁢ ⁢ in ⁢ ⁢ the ⁢ ⁢ campaign
If the above relationship is violated, it may be desired to have the ad delivery entity absorb the extra costs. However, it is desirable to ensure that the relationship is not violated.
Referring now to FIG. 7, suppose at time t0 that the ad may (e.g., based on its relevancy to a query) be served. At this time, there will be no actual data for the second day. (Recall, e.g., the left branch from decision block 610.) The expected total cost may simply be estimated based on various factors. For example, keywords associated with the ad may be used to estimate how may times the ad would be served (if its delivery were not governed) in the period as well as the cost. Suppose that the expected total cost for the second day is $2500.00. Since this is greater than the daily budget of $1000.00, a governing policy is applied. Suppose the governing policy is expressed as the following rule-based functions:
If period is in the first half of the campaign, then deliver ad every x times, where
x = expected ⁢ ⁢ cost ( target ⁢ ⁢ cost - deficits + surpluses ) · ( 0.5 · time ⁢ ⁢ remaining ⁢ ⁢ in ⁢ ⁢ period total ⁢ ⁢ time ⁢ ⁢ of ⁢ ⁢ period + 1 ) ;
If period is in the last half of the campaign, but not in the final period, then deliver ad every x times, where
x = expected ⁢ ⁢ cost ( target ⁢ ⁢ cost - deficits + surpluses ) · ( 0.2 · time ⁢ ⁢ remaining ⁢ ⁢ in ⁢ ⁢ period total ⁢ ⁢ time ⁢ ⁢ of ⁢ ⁢ period + 1 ) ;
x = expected ⁢ ⁢ cost ( target ⁢ ⁢ cost - deficits + surpluses )
Under such a policy, at time t0, the ad would be delivered once every
1.85 ⁢ ( = 2500 ( 1000 - 100 + 0 ) · ( 0.5 ⁢ ( 1 ⁢ P 1 ⁢ P ) + 1 ) )
times that it would have been if no budget were applied.
At time t1, suppose that the ad to be served has already been served a number of times, but that there is no information on the actual performance of the ad (e.g., whether or not the ad was clicked). (Recall, e.g., lower branch from decision block 630.) Here assume that 2000 impressions have been served and that t1 is one sixth (⅙) of the way through the second day. The expected total cost may be 2000 impressions x 6×0.10 clicks/impression x $1.20/click=$1440.00. Since this expected cost is greater than the daily budget of $1000.00, the delivery governing policy is applied. Under the exemplary policy, at time t1, the ad would be delivered once every
1.129 ⁢ ( = 1440 ( 1000 - 100 + 0 ) · ( 0.5 ⁢ ( 5 / 6 ⁢ P 6 / 6 ⁢ P ) + 1 ) )
At time t2, suppose that actual performance information becomes available. (Recall, e.g., the left branch from decision block 630.) For example, in the context of a distributed ad serving system, real-time feedback of performance might not be possible. Suppose that actual performance information is returned halfway through the period and that there were 650 clicks at that time. Suppose further that there were 3220 impressions since then and t2 is three quarters (¾) of the way through the second day. The expected total cost may be (650 clicks×$1.20/click)+(3220 impressions×2×0.10 clicks/impression×$1.20/click), where the first part corresponds to actual costs accrued based on actual clicks and the second part is expected costs for the rest of the second day. Here, the expected total cost would be $780.00+$772.00=$1552.00. Since this expected cost is greater than the daily budget of $1,000.00, the delivery governing policy is applied. Under the exemplary policy, at time t2, the ad would be delivered once every
1.532 ⁢ ( = 1552 ( 1000 - 100 + 0 ) · ( 0.5 ⁢ ( 1 / 4 ⁢ P 4 / 4 ⁢ P ) + 1 ) )
1. A computer-implemented method for governing delivery of an advertisement, the computer-implemented method comprising:
a) receiving, using a computer system including one or more computers, an advertiser-specified budget value for a defined budget time period within an advertising campaign that includes a plurality of budget time periods, wherein a target cost for the advertisement during the defined time period is derived from the advertiser-specified budget value;
b) determining, using the computer system, an expected total cost associated with delivering multiple impressions of the advertisement, not subject to budget constraints, over the defined time period, wherein a budget constraint is a maximum cost for a given time period; and
c) when the expected total cost exceeds the target cost, iteratively determining a degree by which to reduce delivery of the advertisement over the time period, wherein the degree is iteratively determined based at least in part on an amount of time remaining in the time period and an amount of time remaining in the advertising campaign.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the degree is further based at least in part on at least one of (A) a budget deficit from a past budget time period, or (B) a budget surplus from a past budget time period.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the degree is iteratively determined such that a rate of delivery of impressions of the advertisement is not constant.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the degree is iteratively determined such that more delivery of the advertisement is made earlier in the advertising campaign than later in the advertising campaign.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the budget time period is one of a day, a week, a month, three months, or a year.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein an actual cost associated with delivering multiple impressions of the advertisement, not subject to budget constraints, over the defined time period, is unknown at the start of the time period.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the act of iteratively determining a degree by which to reduce delivery of the advertisement over the time period when the expected total cost exceeds the target cost, avoids a violation of the advertiser-specified budget value.
8. Apparatus for governing delivery of an advertisement over a specified time period, the apparatus comprising:
b) at least one storage device storing processor executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method for governing delivery of an advertisement, the method including: 1) receiving an advertiser-specified budget value for a defined budget time period within an advertising campaign that includes a plurality of budget time periods, wherein a target cost for the advertisement during the defined time period is derived from the advertiser-specified budget value, 2) determining an expected total cost associated with delivering multiple impressions of the advertisement, not subject to budget constraints, over the defined time period, wherein a budget constraint is a maximum cost for a given time period; and 3) when the expected total cost exceeds the target cost, iteratively determining a degree by which to reduce delivery of the advertisement over the time period, wherein the degree is iteratively determined based at least in part on an amount of time remaining in the time period and an amount of time remaining in the advertising campaign.
9. The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the degree is further based at least in part on at least one of (A) a budget deficit from a past budget time period, or (B) a budget surplus from a past budget time period.
10. The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the degree is iteratively determined such that a rate of delivery of impressions of the advertisement is not constant.
11. The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the degree is iteratively determined such that more delivery of the advertisement is made earlier in the advertising campaign than later in the advertising campaign.
12. The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the budget time period is one of a day, a week, a month, three months, or a year.
13. The apparatus of claim 8 wherein an actual cost associated with delivering multiple impressions of the advertisement, not subject to budget constraints, over the defined time period, is unknown at the start of the time period.
14. The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the act of iteratively determining a degree by which to reduce delivery of the advertisement over the time period when the expected total cost exceeds the target cost, avoids a violation of the advertiser-specified budget value.
15. A non-transitory storage device storing processor executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method for governing delivery of an advertisement, the method including:
a) receiving, using a computer system including the at least one processor, an advertiser-specified budget value for a defined budget time period within an advertising campaign that includes a plurality of budget time periods, wherein a target cost for the advertisement during the defined time period is derived from the advertiser-specified budget value;
16. The storage device of claim 15 wherein the degree is further based at least in part on at least one of (A) a budget deficit from a past budget time period, or (B) a budget surplus from a past budget time period.
17. The storage device of claim 15 wherein the degree is iteratively determined such that a rate of delivery of impressions of the advertisement is not constant.
18. The storage device of claim 15 wherein the degree is iteratively determined such that more delivery of the advertisement is made earlier in the advertising campaign than later in the advertising campaign.
19. The storage device of claim 15 wherein the budget time period is one of a day, a week, a month, three months, or a year.
20. The storage device of claim 15 wherein the act of iteratively determining a degree by which to reduce delivery of the advertisement over the time period when the expected total cost exceeds the target cost, avoids a violation of the advertiser-specified budget value.
7818207 October 19, 2010 Veach
20020133397 September 19, 2002 Wilkins
“Standard Terms and Conditions for Internet Advertising for Media Buys One Year or Less”, version 2.0, downloaded Jun. 8, 2010 from http://www.iab.net/media/file/standards—termsandcond2.pdf.
AOL Ad Specs Terms and Conditions, downloaded Dec. 7, 2010 from http://www.platform-a.com/ad-specs/terms-conditions/current-terms-conditions/aol-advertising-inc-/-iab-standard-terms-and-cond.
Bloomquist, Randall, “Recent Radio Format Overhauls Keep Local Media Buyers on Their Toes”, The Business Review (Vienna, VA , US ), Aug. 4, 1986, V 11 N 31 s 1 p. 42.
Patent number: 8145527
Patent Publication Number: 20110270675
Inventor: Eric Veach (Mountain View, CA)
Application Number: 13/180,370
Current U.S. Class: Calculate Past, Present, Or Future Revenue (705/14.46); Based Upon Budget Or Funds (705/14.48); Fee For Advertisement (705/14.69); Online Advertisement (705/14.73)