This article is a bit heavy on jargon for data scientists. Still, it makes the interesting case that what we often call prediction is only making inferences, identifying trends in data, and interpreting them, not using them effectively to predict what is likely to happen next. The article also makes the point that prediction may not be the endpoint of machine learning but that providing prescriptions on what to do about likely future outcomes will become the standard soon. Be sure to read carefully through the box office, marketing, and industry trend examples to see how to apply the concepts in the article.
4. Applications from Entertainment
In my application domain,
entertainment, I have found the duality of prediction and inference to
be a useful consideration when developing strategy for a variety of
different business challenges. Our group develops and deploys methods to
model, understand, and influence consumer behavior and market systems
using techniques including natural language processing, Bayesian inference, image recognition, multi-modal deep learning,
matrix factorization, and more. Below, I will examine the problems of
box office projection and advertising attribution as instructive
examples of this duality.
4.1. Box Office Projection
The
task of "box office projection" is to model the consumer market that
generates revenue via ticket sales for the theatrical exhibitions of a
film in one or more territories or worldwide. The most common approach
to the task is to construct averages over the historical revenue
performance of comparable films identified heuristically based on
similarity of film content or production metadata. Model based
(regression) approaches are also frequently applied, with independent
variables including production characteristics (such as the production
budget of a film), talent characteristics (such as the "starpower" of an
actor or director as measured from past box office gross or awards),
the marketing support behind a film (such as the advertising expenditure
and features describing the ad campaign strategy), measures of audience
response (such as digital trailer views or volume of social media
conversation), and more. For at least the past three decades, a wealth
of literature on this task has been produced by the academic community, and many industry groups, including
film producers and distributors as well as independent vendors, have
invested in proprietary data collection and models for this task.
Consider
how the perspectives of §2 apply to this task. From the predictive
perspective, the goal of box office projection is to predict the revenue
generated by the theatrical release. This has value to help studios
anticipate the financial outcome of a film, model the expected financial
risk and return of their release portfolio, or analyze the strength of
their expected competition on a release weekend. From the inferential
perspective, the goal of box office projection is to understand the
structure and dynamics of the theatrical market. This enables studios to
articulate the properties of their film and the marketplace that
generates risk for a release and to reason about how to alter
production, marketing, and other factors under their control to optimize
the return from each product.
Both of these sets of outcomes
are of significant interest to studios. One modeling perspective's set
of outcomes is not inherently better than the other, but they are
different from each other. Yet the predictive orientation has been most
prominent in public interest and discussion. Near theatrical release
(within a few weeks of a film's debut), predictions of box office models
are routinely reported by the industry press. In this near-release
regime, progress has been made in engineering and integrating digital
signals from social and search platforms.
Moreover, online prediction market communities offer non-model based
mechanisms for anticipating performance.
Despite these advancements, variance in box office projections near the
time of release is notoriously high. Earlier in
the production lifecycle, typically years before the film's release, is
the critical "greenlighting" stage, when a studio decides whether or not
to invest in a film concept. The variance of possible outcomes during
that stage is much higher still. Fundamental production and marketing
variables may not have been set at that point and the future state of
the market is much more difficult to foresee. Predictive modeling during
greenlighting is therefore less common.
Given all this context, there is much to refer inference
as a high leverage goal of box office projection. Inference allows
studios to learn generalizable strategies for production that can be
relied upon even in regimes where the absolute predictive outputs of the
same model have high variance and limited utility for financial
applications. Predictive modeling is widespread near theatrical release,
but at this stage of the film lifecycle most production decisions have
already been executed. The actual predicted dollar value for the gross
output by a box office projection model near release is not highly
actionable. The most important outcomes from this modeling, from the
studio perspective, is the opportunity to adjust marketing and
distribution strategy based on inferences about how predicted gross
depends on factors such as audience awareness within different
territories and demographics. In the greenlighting phase, predictive
precision is highly degraded as described above, but inferences about
variation in box office performance by production characteristics such
as actor caliber, positioning (the genre framing of the film emphasized
to audiences), and sensitivity to audience reception can be highly
impactful for product development and release planning. Across all time
periods, an understanding of uncertainty–both in the predicted outcome
and its relationships with the independent variables–is critical given
the high variance inherent to the market and the portfolio management
and risk mitigation goals of studios. While it need not be so, analysis
of uncertainty is often absent from prediction-oriented modeling
approaches for box office projection, as in many of the examples cited
above.
4.2. Advertising Attribution
In advertising, the
multi-channel attribution modeling task is to allocate the value of a consumer conversion (a behavior
such as a product purchase or website visit) across the individual
"impressions" that causally contributed to that outcome. Impressions are
defined as advertisement exposures on different channels, such as
television and online social media, or "organic" interactions with a
brand such as word of mouth. This modeling enables measurement of the
effectiveness of each channel, or "platform," on influencing consumer
behavior.
However, rigorous classical causal attribution modeling
is not possible in the practical context of most advertising campaigns.
It is prevented by incomplete individual-level data on consumer
exposure across key online and offline platforms, a lack of consumer
conversion data (particularly for offline behaviors), a lack of
integration between exposure and conversion datasets when they are
available, and an inability to randomize exposure at the individual
level. In particular, in the U.S. film industry, the vast majority of
tickets are purchased at the brick and mortar box office, and hence not
associated with the consumer's identity by digital tracking; there is
little or no ability for studios to capture individual ad exposure logs
for many major advertising channels, including broadcast and cable
television and online social media. In practice, researchers generally
need to accept data that are missing by platform (introducing
substantial systematic errors associated with non-attributed platforms),
data that are missing by person at random (introducing substantial
sampling error depending on the number of observations achieved), and/or
data that are missing by person not at random (introducing systematic
errors based on demographic, platform usage, or other factors that
explain the missingness). It is common, for example, to only apply
attribution models to a small subset of available marketing channels
where data are more readily available or to a "panel" of consumers that
have opted in to more detailed tracking, which may have small sample
size and may not be representative of the general population.
Predictions
from attribution models for individual consumer behavior, or indeed
bulk predictive performance measures for attribution models, should
therefore not be taken at face value. They will depend sensitively on
the aforementioned systematic sources of error, and hence they may not
generalize well to real world scenarios. For example, an attribution
model incorporating the effect of web display and television ads may not
be a reliable predictor of the actual purchase behavior of a consumer
who is also influenced by social media ads, not to mention word of mouth
and other organic channels.
Nonetheless, the output of
attribution models can provide a critical input to other important
models in the marketing domain. Measurements of platform effectiveness
can be integrated with or provide comparisons for media mix models, which identify the optimal distribution of a
media budget across available advertising platforms, and models for bid
optimization, which identify the appropriate value of an individual
advertising impression.
In this way, attribution models can inform decisions made by advertisers
about aspects of campaigns they directly control, although the
dependent variable (individual consumer product purchasing choices) and
unobservable variables (platform effectiveness measures) of attribution
models themselves are not directly controllable. The accuracy of the
platform effectiveness measurements from the attribution model may be
independently validated by the predictive performance of these dependent
models.
One may view attribution modeling as inherently a
problem of statistical inference: the intent is to measure an
unobservable parameter (platform effectiveness). Indeed, Ji, Wang, and
Zhang and Lei, Sanders, and Dawson explicitly formulate
attribution modeling as a Bayesian inference task.
However, as in
all supervised learning tasks, inferences from attribution models must
be calibrated on the basis of their predictive performance on observed
outcomes. Because platform effectiveness is an unobservable
parameter, there is no ground truth to directly validate its inferences,
similar to the stellar physical parameters inferred from supernova
observations discussed in §2. Therefore, Ji et al., and Lei et
al. both assess inferences from models based on their predictive
performance on consumer behavioral data such as the AUC, F1-score, and
pointwise predictive density. While, as in the box office projection
case, the variance of these individual predictions may be high, a
rigorous inference procedure will assess the uncertainty of inferences
on quantities such as platform effectiveness measurements, characterize
their dependency on other model parameters and assumptions, and test
their sensitivity to model mis-specification related to issues like
platform coverage. In this way, advertisers can extract meaningful and
reliable information about advertising channels despite limitations in
predictive precision.
4.3. Industry Generalizations
Both
the examples in this section illustrate applications where neither a
predictive- or inference-oriented perspective by itself is adequate to
extract all the available value from data and modeling investments made
by businesses. The balanced perspective, able to extract information and
insights from the modeling process while also using predictive measures
to study the reliability and boundaries of those inferences, should be
preferred.
The examples in this section also showcase the role of
inference and prediction in different regimes of decision power. In
some circumstances, companies or other actors will have direct control
over an independent variable in a model, therefore providing indirect
decision power over the outcome from a system (modeled as the dependent
variable). An example would be the casting decisions in film production,
contributing to box office performance. In this domain, inferences
about the role of the independent variable in the system are directly
actionable as they can provide decision support for choices made about
that independent variable. In another regime, the actor may have much
more tenuous decision power over the dependent variable (or even none at
all). Examples would include models to predict macroeconomic trends or
attribution models applied to measure the latent effectiveness of media
platforms. In this regime, inferences from models of systems lacking
decision power can inform choices made in related contexts. For example,
inferences about the role of housing start rates in predicting
macroeconomic outcomes can support the use of housing starts as a
leading indicator in making investment or product release decisions, and
inferences about platform effectiveness are actionable because they
inform media mix models used to make decisions about media spending on
different platforms. Model design processes for data science in industry
should assess the actionability, e.g. the decision support role, of
both inferential and predictive aspects of models.