System and method for determining object effectiveness

• US 20050027587A1
• Filed: 08/02/2004
• Published: 02/03/2005
• Est. Priority Date: 08/01/2003
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Dollars Com LLC
• Original Assignee: Dollars Com LLC
• Inventors: Blundell, Lance Michael, Latona, Richard Edward
• Application Number:
  US10/902,834
• Publication Number:
  US 20050027587A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/10
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/02 Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0217 involving input on products or services in exchange for incentives or rewards
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0242 Determining effectiveness of advertisements

Abstract

In general, the relative effectiveness of different objects may be determined by determining comparative values to be associated with a first and second object that has been rendered in an online environment, wherein the comparative values reflect user activity related to online interactions with the objects. An impression count may be determined for the objects that reflect a number of opportunities made available to users to perceive the objects within the online environment. Relative effectiveness measures for the first object and the second objects may be determined based at least in part on the comparative values and the impression counts to enable comparison of the relative effectiveness measures for the first and second objects.

Claims

1. A method of comparing the relative effectiveness of different objects, the method comprising:

determining a first comparative value to be associated with a first object that has been rendered in an online environment, wherein the first comparative value reflects user activity related to online interactions with the first object;

determining a first impression count for the first object that reflects a number of opportunities made available to users to perceive the first object within the online environment;

determining a second comparative value to be associated with a second object that has been rendered in an online environment, wherein the second comparative value reflects user activity related to online interactions with the second object;

determining a second impression count for the second object that reflects a number of opportunities made available to users to perceive the second object within the online environment;

determining a relative effectiveness measure for the first object based at least in part on the first comparative value and the first impression count;

determining a relative effectiveness measure for the second object based at least in part on the second comparative value and the second impression count; and

enabling comparison of the relative effectiveness measures for the first and second objects.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the relative effectiveness measures for the first and second objects includes determining an effectiveness measure per impression or an effectiveness measure per number of impressions.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the first comparative value or the second comparative value includes determining a revenue value realized through rendering the first object or the second object.

4. The method of claim 1 further comprising:

comparing the relative effectiveness of more than two objects related to a zone; and

selecting a subset of the objects related to the zone using the compared relative effectiveness of the objects.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the first comparative value includes:

placing the first object;

enabling user interaction with the first object;

monitoring one or more financial transactions resulting from user interaction with the first object; and

determining the first comparative value by aggregating metrics related to the financial transactions.

6. The method of claim 5 further comprising executing the financial transaction.

7. The method of claim 6 further comprising fulfilling a request resulting from the user interaction with the first object.

8. The method of claim 7 further comprising activating an online subscription for a user in response to executing the financial transaction for the user.

9. The method of claim 7 further comprising communicating information reflecting aspects of the financial transaction to enable fulfillment of the financial transaction.

10. The method of claim 6 further comprising shipping a product in response to executing the financial transaction for the user.

11. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the first comparative value includes adjusting the first comparative value to account for fraud, a change in a subscription plan, a refund, a return, or an additional purchase.

12. The method of claim 11 further comprising adjusting the relative effectiveness measure in response to adjusting the comparative value.

13. The method of claim 11 further comprising identifying revenue related to fraud.

14. The method of claim 13 further comprising adjusting the relative effectiveness measure based on identifying the revenue related to fraud.

15. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the first comparative value includes quantifying a value metric for a non-financial transaction.

16. The method of claim 15 wherein determining the first comparative value includes normalizing the non-financial transaction with respect to other value metrics for other non-financial transactions.

17. The method of claim 15 wherein determining the first comparative value includes normalizing the non-financial transaction with respect to financial transactions.

18. The method of claim 17 wherein enabling comparison of the relative effectiveness measures for the non-financial and the financial transactions includes comparing the relative effectiveness measures based at least in part on a comparison of aggregated value metrics for the non-financial transactions and aggregated value metrics for the financial transactions.

19. The method of claim 15 wherein quantifying the financial value for the non-financial transaction includes quantifying the financial value for participating in a survey, participating in a tour, or participating in a trial offer.

20. The method of claim 15 wherein quantifying the value metric includes quantifying a value metric for selecting on an object.

21. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the first comparative value includes quantifying a value metric for a financial transaction.

22. The method of claim 1 wherein comparing the relative effectiveness measures for the first and the second objects includes distinguishing between two different objects for an object that is offered at different price points.

23. The method of claim 22 wherein distinguishing between the first and second objects includes displaying the different relative effectiveness metrics for the first and the second objects.

24. The method of claim 1 wherein comparing the relative effectiveness measures for the first and the second objects includes distinguishing between two different objects for an object presented in two different sizes.

25. The method of claim 1 wherein comparing the relative effectiveness measures for the first and the second objects includes distinguishing between one object presented in two different pages of differing subject matter.

26. The method of claim 1 wherein comparing the relative effectiveness measures for the first and the second objects includes distinguishing between one object invoked from two different gateway pages.

27. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the first impression count includes tracking an impression metric that is incremented in response to providing the first object to a user that has not previously received the first object.

28. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the first impression count includes tracking an impression metric that tracks how many times a user has received the first object.

29. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the first impression count includes tracking an impression metric that is incremented upon providing the first object irrespective of whether a user has previously received the first object.

30. A method of calculating effectiveness of an object, the method comprising,

using a trusted payment processor code segment to determine a comparative value for an object, wherein the comparative value relates to revenues that are realized through one or more online interactions with the object;

determining an impression count for the object; and

determining an effectiveness of the object by relating the comparative value to the impression count.

31. A system that compares the relative effectiveness of different objects, the system comprising:

a first comparative code segment structured and arranged to determine a first comparative value to be associated with a first object that has been rendered in an online environment, wherein the first comparative value reflects user activity related to online interactions with the first object;

a first impression code segment structured and arranged to determine a first impression count for the first object that reflects a number of opportunities made available to users to perceive the first object within the online environment;

a second comparative code segment structured and arranged to determine a second comparative value to be associated with a second object that has been rendered in an online environment, wherein the second comparative value reflects user activity related to online interactions with the second object;

a second impression code segment structured and arranged to determine a second impression count for the second object that reflects a number of opportunities made available to users to perceive the second object within the online environment;

a first effectiveness code segment structure and arranged to determine a relative effectiveness measure for the first object based at least in part on the first comparative value and the first impression count;

a second effectiveness code segment structured and arranged to determine a relative effectiveness measure for the second object based at least in part on the second comparative value and the second impression count; and

a comparison code segment structured and arranged to enable comparison of the relative effectiveness measures for the first and second objects.

32. The system of claim 31 wherein the first and second effectiveness code segments are structured and arranged to determine an effectiveness measure per impression or an effectiveness measure per number of impressions.

33. The system of claim 31 wherein the first and second comparative code segments are structured and arranged to determine a revenue value realized through rendering the first object or the second object.

34. The system of claim 31 further comprising a zone management code segment structured and arranged to:

compare the relative effectiveness of more than two objects related to a zone; and

select a subset of the objects related to the zone using the compared relative effectiveness of the objects.

35. The system of claim 31 wherein the first comparative code segment is structured and arranged to:

place the first object;

enable user interaction with the first object;

monitor one or more financial transactions resulting from user interaction with the first object; and

determine the first comparative value by aggregating metrics related to the financial transactions.

36. The system of claim 35 further comprising a transaction code segment structured and arranged to execute the financial transaction.

37. The system of claim 36 further comprising a fulfillment code segment structured and arranged to fulfill a request resulting from the user interaction with the first object.

38. The system of claim 37 further comprising an activation code segment structured and arranged to activate an online subscription for a user in response to executing the financial transaction for the user.

39. The system of claim 37 further comprising a proxy code segment structured and arranged to communicate information reflecting aspects of the financial transaction to enable fulfillment of the financial transaction.

40. The system of claim 36 further comprising a shipping code segment structured and arranged to ship a product in response to executing the financial transaction for the user.

41. The system of claim 31 wherein the first comparative code segment is structured and arranged to adjust the first comparative value to account for fraud, a change in a subscription plan, a refund, a return, or an additional purchase.

42. The system of claim 41 further comprising an adjustment code segment structured and arranged to adjust the relative effectiveness measure in response to adjusting the comparative value.

43. The system of claim 41 further comprising a fraud correlation code segment structured and arranged to identify revenue related to fraud.

44. The system of claim 43 further comprising a fraud effectiveness adjustment code segment structured and arranged to adjust the relative effectiveness measure based on identifying the revenue related to fraud.

45. The system of claim 31 wherein the first comparative code segment is structured and arranged to quantify a value metric for a non-financial transaction.

46. The system of claim 45 wherein the first comparative code segment is structured and arranged to normalize the non-financial transaction with respect to other value metrics for other non-financial transactions.

47. The system of claim 45 wherein the first comparative code segment is structured and arranged to normalize the non-financial transaction with respect to financial transactions.

48. The system of claim 47 wherein the comparison code segment is structured and arranged to compare the relative effectiveness measures based at least in part on a comparison of aggregated value metrics for the non-financial transactions and aggregated value metrics for the financial transactions.

49. The system of claim 45 wherein the first comparative code segment is structured and arranged to quantify the financial value for participating in a survey, participating in a tour, or participating in a trial offer.

50. The system of claim 45 wherein the first comparative code segment is structured and arranged to quantify a value metric for selecting on an object.

51. The system of claim 31 wherein the first comparative code segment is structured and arranged to quantify a value metric for a financial transaction.

52. The system of claim 31 wherein the comparison code segment is structured and arranged to distinguish between two different objects for an object that is offered at different price points.

53. The system of claim 52 wherein the comparison code segment is structured and arranged to display the different relative effectiveness metrics for the first and the second objects.

54. The system of claim 31 wherein the comparison code segment is structured and arranged to distinguish between two different objects for an object presented in two different sizes.

55. The system of claim 31 wherein the comparison code segment is structured and arranged to distinguish between one object presented in two different pages of differing subject matter.

56. The system of claim 31 wherein the comparison code segment is structured and arranged to distinguish between one object invoked from two different gateway pages.

57. The system of claim 31 wherein the first impression code segment is structured and arranged to track an impression metric that is incremented in response to providing the first object to a user that has not previously received the first object.

58. The system of claim 31 wherein the first impression code segment is structured and arranged to track an impression metric that tracks how many times a user has received the first object.

59. The system of claim 31 wherein the first impression code segment is structured and arranged to track an impression metric that is incremented upon providing the first object irrespective of whether a user has previously received the first object.

60. A system that calculates effectiveness of an object, the system comprising:

a trusted payment processor code segment structured and arranged to determine a comparative value for an object, wherein the comparative value relates to revenues that are realized through one or more online interactions with the object;

an impression code segment structured and arranged to determine an impression count for the object; and

an effectiveness code segment structured and arranged to determine an effectiveness of the object by relating the comparative value to the impression count.

61. A system that compares the relative effectiveness of different objects, the system comprising,

means for determining a first comparative value to be associated with a first object that has been rendered in an online environment, wherein the first comparative value reflects user activity related to online interactions with the first object;

means for determining a first impression count for the first object that reflects a number of opportunities made available to users to perceive the first object within the online environment;

means for determining a second comparative value to be associated with a second object that has been rendered in an online environment, wherein the second comparative value reflects user activity related to online interactions with the second object;

means for determining a second impression count for the second object that reflects a number of opportunities made available to users to perceive the second object within the online environment;

means for determining a relative effectiveness measure for the first object based at least in part on the first comparative value and the first impression count;

means for determining a relative effectiveness measure for the second object based at least in part on the second comparative value and the second impression count; and

means for enabling comparison of the relative effectiveness measures for the first and second objects.

62. A system that calculates effectiveness of an object, the system comprising:

means for using a trusted payment processor code segment to determine a comparative value for an object, wherein the comparative value relates to revenues that are realized through one or more online interactions with the object;

means for determining an impression count for the object; and

means for determining an effectiveness of the object by relating the comparative value to the impression count.