Evaluating Intervention Targeting with Causal Feature Selection in Retail Loyalty Programs

Authors

  • Ruben Van Vliet Informatics Institute, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands Author
  • Pieter De Jong Informatics Institute, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands Author

Keywords:

Intervention Targeting, Field Experiment, Retail Loyalty Programs, Customer Relationship Management, Causal Feature Selection

Abstract

Retail loyalty programs generate vast amounts of consumer data, presenting significant opportunities for targeted marketing interventions. However, traditional predictive models often conflate correlation with causation, leading to suboptimal allocation of promotional resources. This paper investigates the efficacy of causal feature selection in improving intervention targeting within a large-scale retail environment. Through a randomized field experiment involving hundreds of thousands of active loyalty program members, we evaluate the impact of isolating variables that genuinely drive behavioral change in response to promotional stimuli, as opposed to variables that merely predict baseline purchasing behavior. The study utilizes advanced uplift modeling techniques adapted for high-dimensional data, focusing on the identification and validation of causal features that differentiate treatment responders from non-responders. Our findings demonstrate that interventions targeted via causal feature selection significantly outperform those relying on standard predictive targeting or blanket promotions, yielding substantial improvements in incremental revenue and campaign return on investment. Furthermore, the results highlight the critical importance of distinguishing between inherent customer loyalty and treatment-induced loyalty. This research contributes to the growing body of literature on causal inference in marketing analytics, providing actionable frameworks for practitioners seeking to optimize customer relationship management strategies in resource-constrained environments.

References

1. Smith, P.; House, J.I.; Bustamante, M.; Sobocká, J.; Harper, R.; Pan, G.; West, P.C.; Clark, J.M.; Adhya, T.; Rumpel, C.; et al. Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Glob. Change Biol. 2015, 22, 1008–1028.

2. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32.

3. Goehry, B.; Yan, H.; Goude, Y.; Massart, P.; Poggi, J.M. Random forests for time series. Revstat-Stat. J. 2023, 21, 283–302.

4. Virk, S.; Tucker, M.; Harris, G.; Smith, A.; Levi, M.; Lessl, J. Efficacy and Economics of Different Soil Sampling Grid Sizes for Site-Specific Nutrient Management in Southeastern USA. Agronomy 2025, 15, 903.

5. Yousuf, K.; Feng, Y. Targeting predictors via partial distance correlation with applications to financial forecasting. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 2022, 40, 1007–1019.

6. Dabirian, S.; Panchabikesan, K.; Eicker, U. Occupant-Centric Urban Building Energy Modeling: Approaches, Inputs, and Data Sources—A Review. Energy Build. 2022, 257, 111809.

7. Chandran, A.; Santhosh, A.; Pistidda, C.; Jerabek, P.; Aydin, R.C.; Cyron, C.J. TiAlNb Alloy Interatomic Potentials: Comparing Passive and Active Machine Learning Techniques with MTP and DeePMD. Front. Mater. 2025, 12, 1591955.

8. Xiao, X.; He, Q.; Ma, S.; Liu, J.; Sun, W.; Lin, Y.; Yi, R. Environmental variables improve the accuracy of remote sensing estimation of soil organic carbon content. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 18964.

9. Athey, S.; Bayati, M.; Imbens, G.; Qu, Z. Ensemble methods for causal effects in panel data settings. AEA Pap. Proc. 2019, 109, 65–70.

10. Building Energy Codes Program. Prototype Building Models. Available online: https://www.energycodes.gov/prototype-building-models#Residential (accessed on 16 December 2024).

11. Fan, J.; Lv, J. Sure independence screening for ultrahigh dimensional feature space. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Stat. Methodol.) 2008, 70, 849–911.

12. Prokhorenkova, L.; Gusev, G.; Vorobev, A.; Dorogush, A.V.; Gulin, A. CatBoost: Unbiased boosting with categorical features. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1706.09516.

13. Bulligan, G.; Marcellino, M.; Venditti, F. Forecasting economic activity with targeted predictors. Int. J. Forecast. 2015, 31, 188–206.

14. Shvachko, K.; Kuang, H.; Radia, S.; Chansler, R. The hadoop distributed file system. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 26th Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST), Incline Village, NV, USA, 3–7 May 2010; pp. 1–10.

15. Conant, R.T.; Ryan, M.G.; Ågren, G.I.; Birge, H.E.; Davidson, E.A.; Eliasson, P.E.; Evans, S.E.; Frey, S.D.; Giardina, C.P.; Hopkins, F.M.; et al. Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates—Synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob. Change Biol. 2011, 17, 3392–3404.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-24

Issue

Section

Articles