US20130282518A1 - Method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers - Google Patents

Method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers Download PDF

Info

Publication number
US20130282518A1
US20130282518A1 US13/923,815 US201313923815A US2013282518A1 US 20130282518 A1 US20130282518 A1 US 20130282518A1 US 201313923815 A US201313923815 A US 201313923815A US 2013282518 A1 US2013282518 A1 US 2013282518A1
Authority
US
United States
Prior art keywords
consumer
song
scenario
songs
items
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Abandoned
Application number
US13/923,815
Inventor
Brett James Gronow
Keith David Deverell
Jonathan David Pak
Christopher Glendon Bates
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Someones Group Intellectual Property Holdings Pty Ltd
Original Assignee
Someones Group Intellectual Property Holdings Pty Ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Priority claimed from AU2009906294A external-priority patent/AU2009906294A0/en
Application filed by Someones Group Intellectual Property Holdings Pty Ltd filed Critical Someones Group Intellectual Property Holdings Pty Ltd
Priority to US13/923,815 priority Critical patent/US20130282518A1/en
Publication of US20130282518A1 publication Critical patent/US20130282518A1/en
Abandoned legal-status Critical Current

Links

Images

Classifications

    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06QINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce
    • G06Q30/06Buying, selling or leasing transactions
    • G06Q30/0601Electronic shopping [e-shopping]
    • G06Q30/0631Item recommendations
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06QINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06QINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce
    • G06Q30/02Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to a computerized method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers, in particular but not limited to recommending or providing access to media items to consumers.
  • Recommendation systems for matching goods and/or services to the preferences of consumers are well known and widely used in internet-based provision of media items.
  • Applications include books, songs, videos and other media items or non-media goods or services such as auctioning, introduction, cars, and houses.
  • Typically such systems rely on matching characteristics of available items with characteristics desired by the consumer.
  • the complexity of such recommendation systems varies widely, from simple search engines based on user specified tags to systems that match based on derived descriptors provided by examples.
  • the price is displayed as additional information and plays no part in the recommendation, other than possibly being selected as an allowable price range by the consumer.
  • a selection service recommending or providing access to goods or service items to a consumer, comprising the steps of:
  • the items comprise digital media items to be accessed over a network.
  • the item providers comprise authors, creators or producers of media items.
  • the consumers may pay a periodical fee to receive the access to media items.
  • the media item providers may be paid by the service on the basis of each consumer use of the media item.
  • the step of predicting a measure of likely enjoyment of each available item by the consumer comprises calculating a closeness of fit of each available item with example items or categories enjoyed by the consumer.
  • the example items or categories may be specified by the consumer or deduced by past consumer behaviour.
  • the method further comprises the step of adjusting a payment to be made per use of at least one of the available items so as to increase a total amount paid in respect of said item.
  • the items may be songs that access to which is provided by the service in a playlist.
  • a selection service to recommend or provide access to goods or service items to a consumer, comprising:
  • an available item identifier for identifying a set of available items at least some of which require payment to item providers for access
  • a value for money calculator for calculating a measure of value for money of each available item for each consumer
  • an access decider for recommending or providing access to items to the consumer that will represent good value for money.
  • a controller for enabling a selection service to recommend or provide access to media items to a consumer over an interface comprising:
  • an available item identifier for identifying a set of available items at least some of which require payment to item providers for access
  • a value for money calculator for calculating a measure of value for money of each available item for each consumer
  • an access decider for recommending or providing access to items to the consumer that will represent good value for money.
  • a computer readable medium comprising the program code of the fourth aspect of the invention.
  • a data signal comprising the computer program code of the fourth aspect of the invention.
  • FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example system of the current invention, applied to the provision of media items;
  • FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram for the method of current invention as applied to media items.
  • the system may take a number of different forms.
  • the system is provided on a server communicating with consumers and item providers over the internet.
  • the core components at the broadest level of the system 10 as applied to media items are a media selection controller 30 in communication with data memory 40 , all or part of which may be remotely located.
  • Media selection controller 30 is in data communication with media item providers 500 and at least one (most commonly many) consumers via each consumer's interface 20 .
  • Media selection controller 30 contains available media item identifier 310 for identifying a set of available media items at least some of which require payment to media item providers 500 for access, typically a price per play if the media item is a song.
  • Media item identifier may comprise for example a web interface where providers 500 may register their interest and their media items.
  • Media selection controller 30 also contains likely enjoyment predictor 320 that predicts a measure of likely enjoyment of each of the available media items by the or each consumer. This is performed by consulting consumer data table 424 which may contain examples of media items preferred by the or each consumer, and comparing those data with descriptor table 422 which contains characteristics of each media item held in the media item database 420 . Closeness of fit to the descriptors is used to predict the likely enjoyment. Many possible measures can be contemplated and trialled and are within the scope of the invention.
  • Media selection controller 30 also contains value for money calculator 330 which calculates a measure of value for money of each available media item for the or each consumer. This is typically performed calculating a monetary value for access to the media item from the measure of likely enjoyment and other parameters. Such other parameters may include reference to a total purchasing budget of the service and the total anticipated number of accesses that may need to be purchased by the service.
  • Media selection controller 30 also contains access decider 330 that finally decides which media items to provide or recommend to the consumer that will represent good value for money. This may include random selection with weighted probabilities depending on how much the value for money exceeds price.
  • the consumer pays a set periodical subscription fee per month for access to a music selection service.
  • the consumer can play songs from an internet-accessible library purchased by the service from music providers.
  • the consumer may be able to manually select songs but also is provided an automatically-generated playlist that is determined based on the consumer's preferences.
  • the service pays a price per play to each music provider.
  • the consumer can select a plurality of songs and the system can recommend similar music.
  • native qualities or a combination of native qualities and other consumer preferences are used to find similar music when the consumer clicks a button that says “find music like this”.
  • Both of these data indicates to the system a consumer rating for the played music.
  • each consumer defines an example “playlist” by selecting a number of songs similar to the one they wish to hear, and/or by specifying a number of parameters (genre, date of release etc). If the consumer defines examples of more than one playlist, each playlist is treated as if they came from separate consumers.
  • the recommendation system then rates all songs depending on how well they fit these parameters.
  • the recommendation algorithm may use native media descriptors and distil these descriptors down to a manageable set of about 30 descriptors using single value decomposition (SVD).
  • Example native media descriptors for images and audio are provided in the references section at the end of this description.
  • the recommendation algorithms may provide a rating that relates to a distance in the descriptor space between each available song and the group of example songs selected—such as the distance to the closest example song, or the average distance to all the example songs.
  • a high rating denotes items that are a small distance—i.e. a good fit; and a low rating denotes items that are a large distance—i.e. a poor fit.
  • the result is a rating matrix such as is shown below in Table 1. In this scenario there are 6 consumers and 10 songs available. This is for illustrative purposes only as in reality there will be multitudes of uses and available songs.
  • the system also knows in advance the quantity of songs required for each consumer, determined by past behavior trends.
  • Each song producer is allowed to set prices for their songs.
  • Song 10 is a special case and represents songs controlled by the Someones system. It is used as a form of monetary policy to ensure that the market does not go out of control and exceed the maximum expenditure as set by X. The method in which it achieves this operation will be detailed later in Scenario 2. In this scenario it is treated as though it were priced at a value of $1000 at which the system will not select it.
  • the system applies this to the Rating matrix by dividing the column vectors by the column totals, and then to make sure this matrix is comparable to future tables (which may have more items), the system multiplies the resulting table by the total number of songs, so that the total of each column is the number of available songs.
  • the system then subtracts the producer prices (P) from each column in the mean adjusted value table to V 2 to estimate whether each consumer would consider this price value for money, consistent with the amount available to spend overall.
  • P producer prices
  • the quantities in table 8 are used to generate the playlists. These are not whole numbers, and in fact when in typical situations there are many more valued songs available then likely total plays, the quantities will be mostly fractional.
  • the system adjusts by finding the Price of Song 10 (using a solver algorithm, as are well-known) such that the market clears (the sum of cost of provision of Songs 1 to 9 across all consumers equals X, where X equals 120). See Table 13.
  • This scenario deals with the case where certain consumers already own certain songs and we do not need to pay for provision of these songs on the playlists.
  • the system follows the same process except it does not count these songs when working out the cost of provision.
  • the system then subtracts the producer prices (P) from each column in the mean adjusted value table V 2 to estimate whether each consumer would consider this price value for money, except the highlighted songs. These can be provided for free so zero is subtracted.
  • the total cost of provision is the sum of all elements in this table, except those highlighted. In this case the cost of provision is $64.63, considerably less than $145.76 outlined in Scenario 1.
  • Scenario 4 will always favor songs on the on the consumers' playlist because they are free to provide and thus do not incur any monetary penalty to use. This may be appropriate for some consumers, who like to hear their favourite songs often.
  • the system may allow them to alter the parameters guiding the rating matrix by adding an extra parameter to their search result (find me songs that sound like X, but are new and not in my playlist).
  • An alternative method is to spend the maximum amount of money available. Given that consumers may already be paying a set subscription fee in order to use the service, they may prefer this result. Producers would also prefer this result as it ensures a more predictable income stream.
  • the system can accurately predict consumer consumption based on past data, it can also provide a service to producers in regards to helping them set a best possible price point in order to maximize their profits.
  • each producer is allowed to set prices for their songs, except in this case the producer of song 1 is attempting to maximize profits by using the revenue optimizer.

Abstract

Method, system, and a controller are provided for a selection service recommending or providing access to goods or service items to a consumer. A set of available items is identified, at least some of which require payment to item-providers for access. A measure of likely enjoyment of each available item by the consumer is predicted, and a measure of value for money of each available item for the consumer is calculated. Access to items is provided to the consumer that will represent good value for money.

Description

  • This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/321,822, filed Jan. 20, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,473,368, issued Jun. 25, 2013, which is a 371 of International Application No. PCT/AU2010/001744, filed Dec. 23, 2010, which claims the benefit of Australian Appln. No. 2009906294, filed Dec. 24, 2009, the contents of all incorporated herein by reference.
  • FIELD OF THE INVENTION
  • The present invention relates to a computerized method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers, in particular but not limited to recommending or providing access to media items to consumers.
  • BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
  • Recommendation systems for matching goods and/or services to the preferences of consumers are well known and widely used in internet-based provision of media items. Applications include books, songs, videos and other media items or non-media goods or services such as auctioning, introduction, cars, and houses. Typically such systems rely on matching characteristics of available items with characteristics desired by the consumer. The complexity of such recommendation systems varies widely, from simple search engines based on user specified tags to systems that match based on derived descriptors provided by examples.
  • Where items are offered at different prices, typically the price is displayed as additional information and plays no part in the recommendation, other than possibly being selected as an allowable price range by the consumer.
  • There is no account taken in prior art systems of the need to match consumers with items that will present value for money having regard to the preferences of the consumer.
  • SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
  • According to a first aspect of the invention there is provided a method of a selection service recommending or providing access to goods or service items to a consumer, comprising the steps of:
  • identifying a set of available items at least some of which require payment to item providers for access;
  • predicting a measure of likely enjoyment of each available item by the consumer;
  • calculating a measure of value for money of each available item for the consumer;
  • recommending or providing access to items to the consumer that will represent good value for money.
  • In one embodiment the items comprise digital media items to be accessed over a network.
  • In one embodiment the item providers comprise authors, creators or producers of media items.
  • In one embodiment there are a plurality of consumers, each of which pays the service to receive access to media items. The consumers may pay a periodical fee to receive the access to media items. The media item providers may be paid by the service on the basis of each consumer use of the media item.
  • In one embodiment the step of predicting a measure of likely enjoyment of each available item by the consumer comprises calculating a closeness of fit of each available item with example items or categories enjoyed by the consumer. The example items or categories may be specified by the consumer or deduced by past consumer behaviour.
  • In one embodiment the step of calculating a measure of value for money of each available item for each consumer comprises
  • calculating a value of each available item for each consumer at least on the basis of the measure of likely enjoyment; and
  • comparing the value with any said payment required for access.
  • In one embodiment the step of recommending or providing access to items to the consumer that will represent good value for money comprises:
  • selecting items whose value exceeds any said payment required for access;
  • recommending or providing access to the selected items on a per use frequency basis that depends on the excess value.
  • In one embodiment the method further comprises the step of adjusting a payment to be made per use of at least one of the available items so as to increase a total amount paid in respect of said item.
  • In some embodiments the items may be songs that access to which is provided by the service in a playlist.
  • According to a second aspect of the invention there is provided a system for enabling a selection service to recommend or provide access to goods or service items to a consumer, comprising:
  • an interface for the consumer to access the items;
  • an available item identifier for identifying a set of available items at least some of which require payment to item providers for access;
  • a likely enjoyment predictor for predicting a measure of likely enjoyment of each available item by the consumer;
  • a value for money calculator for calculating a measure of value for money of each available item for each consumer; and
  • an access decider for recommending or providing access to items to the consumer that will represent good value for money.
  • According to a third aspect of the invention there is provided a controller for enabling a selection service to recommend or provide access to media items to a consumer over an interface, comprising:
  • an available item identifier for identifying a set of available items at least some of which require payment to item providers for access;
  • a likely enjoyment predictor for predicting a measure of likely enjoyment of each available item by the consumer;
  • a value for money calculator for calculating a measure of value for money of each available item for each consumer; and
  • an access decider for recommending or providing access to items to the consumer that will represent good value for money.
  • According to a fourth aspect of the invention there is provided computer program code which when executed by a computing device causes the computing device to implement the method of the first aspect of the invention.
  • According to a fifth aspect of the invention there is provided a computer readable medium comprising the program code of the fourth aspect of the invention.
  • According to a sixth aspect of the invention there is provided a data signal comprising the computer program code of the fourth aspect of the invention.
  • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
  • FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example system of the current invention, applied to the provision of media items;
  • FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram for the method of current invention as applied to media items.
  • DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS
  • Referring to the drawings, there is shown various aspects of a system, controller and method according to an embodiment of the invention.
  • The system may take a number of different forms. In a preferred form, the system is provided on a server communicating with consumers and item providers over the internet.
  • Referring now to FIG. 1, the core components at the broadest level of the system 10 as applied to media items are a media selection controller 30 in communication with data memory 40, all or part of which may be remotely located. Media selection controller 30 is in data communication with media item providers 500 and at least one (most commonly many) consumers via each consumer's interface 20.
  • Media selection controller 30 contains available media item identifier 310 for identifying a set of available media items at least some of which require payment to media item providers 500 for access, typically a price per play if the media item is a song. Media item identifier may comprise for example a web interface where providers 500 may register their interest and their media items. Media selection controller 30 also contains likely enjoyment predictor 320 that predicts a measure of likely enjoyment of each of the available media items by the or each consumer. This is performed by consulting consumer data table 424 which may contain examples of media items preferred by the or each consumer, and comparing those data with descriptor table 422 which contains characteristics of each media item held in the media item database 420. Closeness of fit to the descriptors is used to predict the likely enjoyment. Many possible measures can be contemplated and trialled and are within the scope of the invention.
  • Media selection controller 30 also contains value for money calculator 330 which calculates a measure of value for money of each available media item for the or each consumer. This is typically performed calculating a monetary value for access to the media item from the measure of likely enjoyment and other parameters. Such other parameters may include reference to a total purchasing budget of the service and the total anticipated number of accesses that may need to be purchased by the service.
  • Media selection controller 30 also contains access decider 330 that finally decides which media items to provide or recommend to the consumer that will represent good value for money. This may include random selection with weighted probabilities depending on how much the value for money exceeds price.
  • Example Playlist System
  • In this example the consumer pays a set periodical subscription fee per month for access to a music selection service.
  • In return for the subscription fee the consumer can play songs from an internet-accessible library purchased by the service from music providers. The consumer may be able to manually select songs but also is provided an automatically-generated playlist that is determined based on the consumer's preferences. In this example, the service pays a price per play to each music provider.
  • As is known in the art, the consumer can select a plurality of songs and the system can recommend similar music.
  • Typically, such recommendations are based on accumulated data on the songs enjoyed by the consumer compared with the songs enjoyed by other consumers, resulting in a recommendation that “people who enjoyed this also enjoyed that”. Less commonly, predictions are made based on native audio qualities to find inherently similar music.
  • In the current example of the invention, native qualities or a combination of native qualities and other consumer preferences are used to find similar music when the consumer clicks a button that says “find music like this”.
  • When any music is played, the consumer has the option of clicking “more of this” or “less of this” buttons. If a song is played many times per month, it is assumed that the consumer currently prefers this song over others.
  • Both of these data indicates to the system a consumer rating for the played music.
  • Based on this information and other consumer behaviours it is possible to predict how many songs a consumer will listen to per month from the library, and across which kind of songs they typically are spread.
  • In the current example, we incorporate pricing into a recommendation system so that it can recommend media items that are good value for money as well as likely to appeal to the consumer.
  • In this example, each consumer defines an example “playlist” by selecting a number of songs similar to the one they wish to hear, and/or by specifying a number of parameters (genre, date of release etc). If the consumer defines examples of more than one playlist, each playlist is treated as if they came from separate consumers.
  • The recommendation system then rates all songs depending on how well they fit these parameters. In terms of example songs, the recommendation algorithm may use native media descriptors and distil these descriptors down to a manageable set of about 30 descriptors using single value decomposition (SVD). Example native media descriptors for images and audio are provided in the references section at the end of this description. The recommendation algorithms may provide a rating that relates to a distance in the descriptor space between each available song and the group of example songs selected—such as the distance to the closest example song, or the average distance to all the example songs. A high rating denotes items that are a small distance—i.e. a good fit; and a low rating denotes items that are a large distance—i.e. a poor fit. The result is a rating matrix such as is shown below in Table 1. In this scenario there are 6 consumers and 10 songs available. This is for illustrative purposes only as in reality there will be multitudes of uses and available songs.
  • TABLE 1
    Scenario 1, Ratings Matrix - R
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 3.69 1.45 3.40 2.26 3.36 3.80
    2 0.19 2.35 0.09 1.79 2.29 4.92
    3 3.34 3.95 4.79 3.90 0.27 0.78
    4 1.45 0.69 3.33 0.73 3.56 0.16
    5 1.68 4.85 0.35 3.94 2.92 0.75
    6 1.22 1.37 0.92 2.44 2.85 1.59
    7 0.49 0.47 0.31 1.86 3.80 3.05
    8 2.86 2.28 3.01 3.76 0.15 0.95
    9 4.65 4.08 3.26 3.22 1.44 0.54
    10  2.09 2.97 3.71 4.92 1.02 0.09
    Total 21.65 24.46 23.16 28.83 21.67 16.62
  • The system has a maximum amount of money that it can spend on the provision of playlists—X, in this scenario X=$150.
  • The system also knows in advance the quantity of songs required for each consumer, determined by past behavior trends.
  • TABLE 2
    Scenario 1, Quantity Vector - Q
    1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
    Quantity Required 10 20 19 17 20 10 96
  • Each song producer is allowed to set prices for their songs.
  • TABLE 3
    Scenario 1, Price Vector - P
    Song Price per Play
    1 1.70
    2 1.20
    3 1.24
    4 2.90
    5 1.94
    6. 1.61
    7 2.02
    8 1.51
    9 3.00
    10 1000.00
  • Song 10 is a special case and represents songs controlled by the Someones system. It is used as a form of monetary policy to ensure that the market does not go out of control and exceed the maximum expenditure as set by X. The method in which it achieves this operation will be detailed later in Scenario 2. In this scenario it is treated as though it were priced at a value of $1000 at which the system will not select it.
  • From the ratings table ‘R’ the system in this example of the invention approximates the value the song adds to the playlist by assuming that songs rated higher are also valued higher, e.g. Playlist 2, Song 2 is rated at 2.35 and Song 1 is rated 1.45, so for this playlist Song 2 is rated 1.62 times more than Song 1 (2.35/1.45)
  • The system applies this to the Rating matrix by dividing the column vectors by the column totals, and then to make sure this matrix is comparable to future tables (which may have more items), the system multiplies the resulting table by the total number of songs, so that the total of each column is the number of available songs.
  • TABLE 4
    Scenario 1, Inferred Value Table - V1
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 1.71 0.59 1.47 0.78 1.55 2.28
    2 0.09 0.96 0.04 0.62 1.06 2.96
    3 1.54 1.61 2.07 1.35 0.13 0.47
    4 0.67 0.28 1.44 0.25 1.65 0.09
    5 0.78 1.98 0.15 1.37 1.35 0.45
    6 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.85 1.32 0.96
    7 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.65 1.76 1.83
    8 1.32 0.93 1.30 1.30 0.07 0.57
    9 2.15 1.67 1.41 1.12 0.66 0.32
    10 0.96 1.21 1.60 1.71 0.47 0.05
    10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
  • If the value of each song in each playlist is supposed to be a reflection of the price each consumer was willing to pay to have the song in the playlist, this table assumes that the mean price for each song is equal to 1 (sum of the column divided by total number of songs). However, the system knows from X (the maximum amount we wish to spend −150) and the quantity vector Q (Table 2, Sum of Q=96) that the mean price available to spend across all songs is 1.563 (150/96). The system therefore adjusts the value table accordingly, so that the average of all the entries is the average price that is available to spend per play.
  • TABLE 5
    Scenario 1, Mean Adjusted Value Table - V2
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 2.66 0.93 2.29 1.23 2.42 3.57
    2 0.14 1.50 0.06 0.97 1.65 4.62
    3 2.41 2.52 3.23 2.11 0.20 0.73
    4 1.04 0.44 2.24 0.40 2.57 0.15
    5 1.22 3.10 0.24 2.14 2.11 0.71
    6 0.88 0.88 0.62 1.32 2.06 1.50
    7 0.35 0.30 0.21 1.01 2.74 2.86
    8 2.06 1.46 2.03 2.04 0.11 0.89
    9 3.36 2.60 2.20 1.75 1.04 0.51
    10 1.51 1.90 2.50 2.67 0.73 0.08
    15.63 15.63 15.63 15.63 15.63 15.63
  • The system then subtracts the producer prices (P) from each column in the mean adjusted value table to V2 to estimate whether each consumer would consider this price value for money, consistent with the amount available to spend overall. This represents the amount of consumer value surplus generated if a particular track is purchased. For example, if the song is valued at 2.5 for this consumer, and they manage to purchase the song for 1, then 1.5 value surplus is acquired.
  • TABLE 6
    Scenario 1, Consumer Surplus Table - S1
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 0.97 −0.77 0.59 −0.47 0.72 1.87
    2 −1.06 0.30 −1.14 −0.23 0.45 3.43
    3 1.17 1.28 1.99 0.88 −1.04 −0.50
    4 −1.86 −2.46 −0.66 −2.50 −0.33 −2.75
    5 −0.73 1.16 −1.70 0.20 0.17 −1.23
    6 −0.73 −0.73 −0.99 −0.29 0.44 −0.12
    7 −1.66 −1.72 −1.81 −1.01 0.73 0.85
    8 0.55 −0.06 0.52 0.52 −1.41 −0.62
    9 0.36 −0.40 −0.80 −1.25 −1.96 −2.49
    10 −998.49 −998.10 −997.50 −997.33 −999.27 −989.92
  • In this table, negative values are where consumers would not think the price represents good value for money.
  • These consumers would not purchase these items at such price points, if they were asked to make the purchase decision. Therefore, the system sets these values to zero, as shown in Table 8 below.
  • TABLE 7
    Scenario 1, Non-Negative Consumer Surplus Table - S2
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 0.97 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.72 1.87
    2 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.45 3.43
    3 1.17 1.28 1.99 0.88 0.00 0.00
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.20 0.17 0.00
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.85
    8 0.55 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.00
    9 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    Total 3.04 2.75 3.10 1.59 2.51 6.14
  • In order to maximize value for money (utility) each consumer would usually purchase whatever item presents the highest gain in consumer surplus. In this case, each consumer would only ever pick one song (the one with highest consumer surplus) and purchase as many copies of that song as possible. This rarely happens in the real world due to the fact that goods are rarely perfect substitutes (as assumed here). One way to account for this would be to use indifference curve analysis to calculate the nonlinear substitution effect. However, this is highly non-trivial and complicates the solution. A much easier method that approximates the indifference curve solution would be to use a pro-rata distribution. To perform the pro-rata distribution, we divide each element in the non-negative consumer surplus table with the column totals, and multiply by the quantity totals. This step assumes that distributing purchases in this manner optimizes utility as measured by consumer surplus, and that any other distribution would result in less consumer surplus.
  • TABLE 8
    Scenario 1, Optimized (Value for Money) Quantity Provision - Q2
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
    1 3.18 0.00 3.63 0.00 5.75 3.05 15.61
    2 0.00 2.21 0.00 0.00 3.61 5.58 11.39
    3 3.85 9.35 12.20 9.35 0.00 0.00 34.74
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 8.44 0.00 2.09 1.34 0.00 11.86
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.53 0.00 3.53
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.77 1.38 7.15
    8 1.80 0.00 3.17 5.57 0.00 0.00 10.54
    9 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17
    10  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    Total 10.00 20.00 19.00 17.00 20.00 10.00
  • Next we calculate cost of provision by multiplying the row totals of Q2 by the prices listed in the price table P.
  • TABLE 9
    Scenario 1, Cost of Provision - C
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
    1 5.40 0.00 6.17 0.00 9.77 5.17 26.51
    2 0.00 2.64 0.00 0.00 4.32 6.68 13.64
    3 4.76 11.57 15.10 11.57 0.00 0.00 43.00
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 16.38 0.00 4.05 2.59 0.00 23.02
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.70 0.00 5.70
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.64 2.78 14.42
    8 2.73 0.00 4.80 8.43 0.00 0.00 15.96
    9 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.52
    10  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    Total 16.40 30.60 26.07 24.05 34.02 14.63 145.76
  • From this table we can see that we have managed to produce an outcome that presents the optimal value for money for each consumer, for less than the maximum expenditure amount X (150). At this point the market clears and no further changes are required.
  • The quantities in table 8 are used to generate the playlists. These are not whole numbers, and in fact when in typical situations there are many more valued songs available then likely total plays, the quantities will be mostly fractional. The system uses these quantities to generate a playlist for each consumer according to a probability model. For example, for consumer 1, 10 songs will be played, and as each entry in the playlist is selected, a random number is used to decide which of the 10 available songs will be played, according to the probability 3.18/10=0.318 for song 1, zero for song 2, 3.85/10=0.385 for song 3, and so on. In this way, on average the predicted amount is spent overall and consumers are played songs that they would value the most above the price of acquisition, in proportion to the surplus value. The are many other ways of using table 8 to generate playlists, and this is just one example.
  • Scenario 2—Use of Monetary Policy when Market does not Clear
  • This scenario is the same as scenario 1 except X is now set to $120. Following the same methodology the system obtains the following Quantity and Cost of Provisions table, shown in Table 11. Note that changing the value of X changes the mean price, and thus changes the Mean Adjusted Value Table and thus changes the optimized quantity provision Q2. Table 12 is the new costs of provision table, and as can be seen from the bottom right corner, the cost exceeds the budget of $120.
  • TABLE 10
    Scenario 2, Optimized (Value for Money) Quantity Provision - Q2
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
    1 3.45 0.00 1.61 0.00 8.35 2.94 16.35
    2 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 4.32 6.36 10.73
    3 5.48 11.79 16.07 13.57 0.00 0.00 46.91
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 8.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.16
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 1.14
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 0.69 6.88
    8 1.07 0.00 1.32 3.43 0.00 0.00 5.82
    9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    Total 10.00 20.00 19.00 17.00 20.00 10.00
  • TABLE 11
    Scenario 2, Cost of Provision - C
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
    1 5.86 0.00 2.73 0.00 14.18 5.00 27.77
    2 0.00 0.06 0.00 00.0 5.17 7.62 12.85
    3 6.78 14.59 19.89 16.80 0.00 0.00 58.05
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 15.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.84
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.00 1.84
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.48 1.40 13.88
    8 1.63 0.00 2.00 5.19 0.00 0.00 8.82
    9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    Total 14.26 30.49 24.62 21.99 33.68 14.01 139.06
  • The system adjusts by finding the Price of Song 10 (using a solver algorithm, as are well-known) such that the market clears (the sum of cost of provision of Songs 1 to 9 across all consumers equals X, where X equals 120). See Table 13.
  • TABLE 12
    Scenario 2, Optimized Price Vector - P*
    Song Price per Play
    1 1.70
    2 1.20
    3 1.24
    4 2.90
    5 1.94
    6. 1.61
    7 2.02
    8 1.51
    9 3.00
    10 1.47
  • TABLE 13
    Scenario 2, Updated Quantity Table - Q2
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
    1 3.45 0.00 1.21 0.00 8.35 2.94 15.95
    2 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 4.32 6.36 10.73
    3 5.48 11.38 12.05 6.26 0.00 0.00 35.17
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 7.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.88
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 1.14
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 0.69 6.88
    8 1.07 0.00 0.99 1.58 0.00 0.00 3.65
    9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10  0.00 0.69 4.75 9.16 0.00 0.00 14.60
    Total 10.00 20.00 19.00 17.00 20.00 10.00 96.00
  • TABLE 14
    Scenario 2, Optimal Cost of Provision Table (Song 10 not counted) - C
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
    1 5.86 0.00 2.05 0.00 14.18 5.00 27.09
    2 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 5.17 7.62 12.84
    3 6.78 14.09 14.92 7.75 0.00 0.00 43.53
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 15.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.29
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.00 1.84
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.48 1.40 13.88
    8 1.63 0.00 1.50 2.39 0.00 0.00 5.52
    9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10  0.00 1.01 6.98 13.47 0.00 0.00 21.47
    Total 14.26 30.45 25.45 23.61 33.68 14.01 141.47
  • In this scenario, 120 units are spent on Songs 1 to 9. The cost of provision for Song 10 (21.47) is negated (provided for free). Song 10 could be owned by the service, and thus provided for free.
  • Scenario 3
  • In scenario 2, only one song was given away as part of the service. This scenario explores the possibility of giving away more than one song in order satisfy different tastes in playlists. To achieve this result, the inferred prices of the discounted songs can be assumed to be the same price.
  • Below is the outcome where both Song 9 and 10 are discounted and given away free of charge by the service.
  • TABLE 15
    Scenario 3, Optimized Price Table (with Song 9 and 10
    owned by service) - P
    Song Price per Play
    1 1.70
    2 1.20
    3 1.24
    4 2.90
    5 1.94
    6. 1.61
    7 2.02
    8 1.51
    9 1.86
    10 1.86
  • TABLE 16
    Scenario 3, Optimized Cost of Provision
    (Song 9 and 10 not counted) - C
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 3.54 0.00 2.52 0.00 14.18 5.00
    2 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.17 7.62
    3 4.10 12.51 18.30 11.37 0.00 0.00
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 13.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.00
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.48 1.40
    8 0.98 0.00 1.84 3.51 0.00 0.00
    9 7.37 5.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10 0.00 0.00 2.82 10.24 0.00 0.00
  • In this case Song 9 is provided to consumers 1 and 2, and Song 10 is provided to consumers 3 and 4. Compare this to the case where only Song 10 was controlled by the service, where Song 10 was provided to Consumer 2 in small quantities. In this case a better fit is achieved with consumer 2's ideal playlist by giving them Song 9 instead.
  • Scenario 4—Taking into Account Songs that Consumers Already Own
  • This scenario deals with the case where certain consumers already own certain songs and we do not need to pay for provision of these songs on the playlists. In this case the system follows the same process except it does not count these songs when working out the cost of provision.
  • Using the same Songs and prices as scenario 1, we have the ratings matrix R
  • TABLE 17
    Scenario 4, Ratings Matrix-R
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00001
  • This time songs already owned by consumers are highlighted. X is assumed to be $150. Q is assumed the same:
  • TABLE 18
    Scenario 4, Quantity Vector - Q
    1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
    Quantity Required 10 20 19 17 20 10 96
  • Again each producer is allowed to set prices for their songs.
  • TABLE 19
    Scenario 4 Price Vector - P
    Song Price per Play
    1 1.70
    2 1.20
    3 1.24
    4 2.90
    5 1.94
    6. 1.61
    7 2.02
    8 1.51
    9 3.00
    10 1000.00
  • As before, the system creates approximate values each song adds to the playlist using the ratings table to create V1 and V2. See Table 22 below
  • TABLE 20
    Scenario 4 Inferred Value Table-V1
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00002
  • TABLE 21
    Scenario 4 Mean Adjusted Value Table-V2
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00003
  • The system then subtracts the producer prices (P) from each column in the mean adjusted value table V2 to estimate whether each consumer would consider this price value for money, except the highlighted songs. These can be provided for free so zero is subtracted.
  • TABLE 22
    Scenario 4 consumer Surplus Table-S1
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00004
  • TABLE 23
    Scenario 4 Non-Negative Consumer Surplus Table-S2
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00005
  • The system as before then performs a pro-rata distribution:
  • TABLE 24
    Scenario 4 Optimized (Value for Money) Quantity Provision-Q2
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00006
  • Next the system calculates cost of provision by multiplying the quantity entries of Q2 by the prices listed in the price table P as shown in table 27 below.
  • TABLE 25
    Scenario 4 Optimized Cost of Provision-C
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00007
  • The total cost of provision is the sum of all elements in this table, except those highlighted. In this case the cost of provision is $64.63, considerably less than $145.76 outlined in Scenario 1.
  • Scenario 5
  • The result in Scenario 4 will always favor songs on the on the consumers' playlist because they are free to provide and thus do not incur any monetary penalty to use. This may be appropriate for some consumers, who like to hear their favourite songs often.
  • If the consumer does not like this, the system may allow them to alter the parameters guiding the rating matrix by adding an extra parameter to their search result (find me songs that sound like X, but are new and not in my playlist).
  • An alternative method is to spend the maximum amount of money available. Given that consumers may already be paying a set subscription fee in order to use the service, they may prefer this result. Producers would also prefer this result as it ensures a more predictable income stream.
  • This can be achieved by placing an inferred price on the consumer's own library. In Scenario 4, songs owned by the consumer are a source of large amount of consumer surplus, as they are provided for free. In Scenario 4, songs that provide a better fit to the ratings matrix are substituted for other songs that fit less well but are provided at a cheaper price (free). By placing an inferred price on these songs, this substitution effect is reduced, and these songs are replaced by songs that better fit the recommendation result but are more expensive. In effect, placing this inferred price allows consumers to increase the quality of the recommendation result at the expense of additional expenditure. Consider the consumer surplus table from Scenario 4.
  • TABLE 26
    Scenario 5 Original Consumer Surplus Table-S1
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00008
  • Instead of subtracting zero from highlighted elements, the system now subtracts a non zero price calculated using a solver so that the total cost of provision equals 120. In this case an inferred price of 1.8 on songs in the consumers' own library will achieve this result. See tables 29 to 32 below.
  • TABLE 27
    Scenario 5, Adjusted Consumer Surplus Table-S1
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00009
  • TABLE 28
    Scenario 5 Non Negative Consumer Surplus Table-S2
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00010
  • TABLE 29
    Scenario 5 Optimized (Value for Money) Quantity Provision-Q2.
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00011
  • TABLE 30
    Scenario 5 Optimized Cost of Provision-C
    Figure US20130282518A1-20131024-C00012
  • Total cost of provision in this table (the sum of all non-highlighted elements) is 120.
  • Scenario 6—Automatic Pricing
  • Given that the system can accurately predict consumer consumption based on past data, it can also provide a service to producers in regards to helping them set a best possible price point in order to maximize their profits.
  • The simplest predictive method for pricing would be to simply assume that all other competitors have fixed prices and set a price which maximizes revenue (price times quantity).
  • In this example we return to the original model.
  • TABLE 31
    Scenario 6 Ratings Matrix - R
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 3.69 1.45 3.40 2.26 3.36 3.80
    2 0.19 2.35 0.09 1.79 2.29 4.92
    3 3.34 3.95 4.79 3.90 0.27 0.78
    4 1.45 0.69 3.33 0.73 3.56 0.16
    5 1.68 4.85 0.35 3.94 2.92 0.75
    6 1.22 1.37 0.92 2.44 2.85 1.59
    7 0.49 0.47 0.31 1.86 3.80 3.05
    8 2.86 2.28 3.01 3.76 0.15 0.95
    9 4.65 4.08 3.26 3.22 1.44 0.54
    10  2.09 2.97 3.71 4.92 1.02 0.09
    Total 21.65 24.46 23.16 28.83 21.67 16.62
  • We have a maximum amount of money that we can spend on the provision of radios stations—X is $150 and Q is as before.
  • Again each producer is allowed to set prices for their songs, except in this case the producer of song 1 is attempting to maximize profits by using the revenue optimizer.
  • TABLE 32
    Scenario 6 Initial Price Vector - P
    Song Price per Play
    1 1.70
    2 1.20
    3 1.24
    4 2.90
    5 1.94
    6. 1.61
    7 2.02
    8 1.51
    9 3.00
    10 1000.00
  • As before in Scenario 1, we end up at the following Cost of Provision Table.
  • TABLE 33
    Scenario 6 Initial Cost of Provision Table - C
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 5.40 0.00 6.17 0.00 9.77 5.17 26.51
    2 0.00 2.64 0.00 0.00 4.32 6.68 13.64
    3 4.76 11.57 15.10 11.57 0.00 0.00 43.00
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 16.38 0.00 4.05 2.59 0.00 23.02
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.70 0.00 5.70
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.64 2.78 14.42
    8 2.73 0.00 4.80 8.43 0.00 0.00 15.96
    9 3.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.51
    10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    Total 145.76
  • From here we can see that total revenue for Song 1 is 26.51. The system can now set the price for Song 1 so that this revenue is maximized using an automated solver (in this case the same algorithm as provided in Excel™ Solver).
  • TABLE 34
    Scenario 6 Optimized Price Vector - P*
    Song Price per Play
    1 1.49
    2 1.20
    3 1.24
    4 2.90
    5 1.94
    6. 1.61
    7 2.02
    8 1.51
    9 3.00
    10 1000.00
  • TABLE 35
    Scenario 6 Optimized Cost of Provision Table - C
    Consumer
    Song 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 5.39 0.00 6.85 0.00 10.19 4.88 27.31
    2 0.00 2.64 0.00 0.00 4.00 6.46 13.10
    3 4.46 11.57 14.16 11.57 0.00 0.00 41.77
    4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    5 0.00 16.38 0.00 4.05 2.40 0.00 22.82
    6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.27 0.00 5.27
    7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.77 2.69 13.45
    8 2.56 0.00 4.50 8.43 0.00 0.00 15.49
    9 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.29
    10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    Total 142.52
  • From this table we can see that the producer of Song 1 has the opportunity to raise revenues from 26.51 to 27.31 by reduce the price of their music to 1.49 from 1.70.
  • Persons skilled in the art will also appreciate that many variations may be made to the invention without departing from the scope of the invention. In particular, although exemplified by provision of playlists of songs over the internet, the invention extends in its broadest form to the provision of any goods or services by any route.
  • In the claims which follow and in the preceding description of the invention, except where the context requires otherwise due to express language or necessary implication, the word “comprise” or variations such as “comprises” or “comprising” is used in an inclusive sense, i.e. to specify the presence of the stated features but not to preclude the presence or addition of further features in various embodiments of the invention.
  • Further, recitation of the method steps in a particular order does not imply serial performance unless the context requires.
  • It is to be understood that, if any prior art publication is referred to herein, such reference does not constitute an admission that the publication forms a part of the common general knowledge in the art, in Australia or any other country.
  • REFERENCES
    • 1. S. A. Chatzichristofis and Y. S. Boutalis, “CEDD: COLOR AND EDGE DIRECTIVITY DESCRIPTOR—A COMPACT DESCRIPTOR FOR IMAGE INDEXING AND RETRIEVAL.” <<6th International Conference in advanced research on Computer Vision Systems ICVS 2008>> Proceedings: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) pp. 312-322, May 12 to May 15, 2008, Santorini, Greece
    • 2. S. A. Chatzichristofis and Y. S. Boutalis, “FCTH: FUZZY COLOR AND TEXTURE HISTOGRAM—A LOW LEVEL FEATURE FOR ACCURATE IMAGE RETRIEVAL”, <<9th International Workshop on Image Analysis for Multimedia Interactive Services”, Proceedings: IEEE Computer Society pp. 191-196, May 7 to May 9, 2008, Klagenfurt, Austria
    • 3. McEnnis, D., C. McKay, I. Fujinaga, and P. Depalle. 2005. jAudio: A feature extraction library Proceedings of the International Conference on Music Information Retrieval. 600-3.

Claims (1)

1. A method of a selection service recommending or providing access to goods or service items to a consumer, comprising the steps of:
identifying a set of available items at least some of which require payment to item providers for access;
predicting a measure of likely enjoyment of each available item by the consumer; calculating a measure of value for money of each available item for the consumer;
recommending or providing access to items to the consumer that will represent good value for money.
US13/923,815 2009-12-24 2013-06-21 Method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers Abandoned US20130282518A1 (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US13/923,815 US20130282518A1 (en) 2009-12-24 2013-06-21 Method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers

Applications Claiming Priority (5)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU2009906294 2009-12-24
AU2009906294A AU2009906294A0 (en) 2009-12-24 Method, system and controller for providing goods and / or services to consumers
PCT/AU2010/001744 WO2011075792A1 (en) 2009-12-24 2010-12-23 Method, system and controller for providing goods and /or services to consumers
US201213321822A 2012-01-20 2012-01-20
US13/923,815 US20130282518A1 (en) 2009-12-24 2013-06-21 Method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers

Related Parent Applications (2)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US13/321,822 Continuation US8473368B2 (en) 2009-12-24 2010-12-23 Method, system and controller for providing goods and /or services to consumers
PCT/AU2010/001744 Continuation WO2011075792A1 (en) 2009-12-24 2010-12-23 Method, system and controller for providing goods and /or services to consumers

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
US20130282518A1 true US20130282518A1 (en) 2013-10-24

Family

ID=44194839

Family Applications (2)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US13/321,822 Active - Reinstated US8473368B2 (en) 2009-12-24 2010-12-23 Method, system and controller for providing goods and /or services to consumers
US13/923,815 Abandoned US20130282518A1 (en) 2009-12-24 2013-06-21 Method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers

Family Applications Before (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US13/321,822 Active - Reinstated US8473368B2 (en) 2009-12-24 2010-12-23 Method, system and controller for providing goods and /or services to consumers

Country Status (5)

Country Link
US (2) US8473368B2 (en)
JP (1) JP5710639B2 (en)
CN (1) CN102754117A (en)
AU (5) AU2010336035A1 (en)
WO (1) WO2011075792A1 (en)

Families Citing this family (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US9235867B2 (en) * 2012-06-04 2016-01-12 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Concurrent media delivery
WO2014144773A2 (en) * 2013-03-15 2014-09-18 The Echo Nest Corporation Systems, methods, and computer readable medium for generating playlists
US10380649B2 (en) 2014-03-03 2019-08-13 Spotify Ab System and method for logistic matrix factorization of implicit feedback data, and application to media environments
US10872110B2 (en) 2014-03-03 2020-12-22 Spotify Ab Systems, apparatuses, methods and computer-readable medium for automatically generating playlists based on taste profiles
US9798823B2 (en) 2015-11-17 2017-10-24 Spotify Ab System, methods and computer products for determining affinity to a content creator
US10860646B2 (en) 2016-08-18 2020-12-08 Spotify Ab Systems, methods, and computer-readable products for track selection
US20200074324A1 (en) * 2018-09-04 2020-03-05 The Toronto-Dominion Bank Noise contrastive estimation for collaborative filtering

Citations (8)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5410344A (en) * 1993-09-22 1995-04-25 Arrowsmith Technologies, Inc. Apparatus and method of selecting video programs based on viewers' preferences
US20040133526A1 (en) * 2001-03-20 2004-07-08 Oded Shmueli Negotiating platform
US20060106670A1 (en) * 2004-11-15 2006-05-18 Simin Cai System and method for interactively and progressively determining customer satisfaction within a networked community
US20080120363A1 (en) * 2006-11-21 2008-05-22 Damien Gerard Loveland System and method for facilitating property comparisons
US7512558B1 (en) * 2000-05-03 2009-03-31 Quantum Leap Research, Inc. Automated method and system for facilitating market transactions
US7617203B2 (en) * 2003-08-01 2009-11-10 Yahoo! Inc Listings optimization using a plurality of data sources
US7814029B1 (en) * 2005-01-18 2010-10-12 Amazon Technologies, Inc. Method and system for estimating consumer satisfaction
US8108246B2 (en) * 2007-10-22 2012-01-31 Customer Value, Inc. System and method for pricing a product

Family Cites Families (12)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US6012051A (en) * 1997-02-06 2000-01-04 America Online, Inc. Consumer profiling system with analytic decision processor
US6317722B1 (en) * 1998-09-18 2001-11-13 Amazon.Com, Inc. Use of electronic shopping carts to generate personal recommendations
US20010032123A1 (en) 2000-03-20 2001-10-18 Megan Burns Electronic commerce utilizing a value parameter
JP2003263545A (en) * 2002-03-11 2003-09-19 Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd Sales assistance server device
JP2004046575A (en) * 2002-07-12 2004-02-12 Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd Musical composition retrieval system, musical composition retrieval method and musical composition retrieval device
AU2003279115A1 (en) * 2002-10-03 2004-04-23 Whisperwire, Inc. System and method for bundling resources
US7627824B2 (en) * 2004-07-12 2009-12-01 Alcatel Lucent Personalized video entertainment system
US8180770B2 (en) * 2005-02-28 2012-05-15 Yahoo! Inc. System and method for creating a playlist
JP4682652B2 (en) * 2005-03-11 2011-05-11 ヤマハ株式会社 REPRODUCTION DEVICE, CONTENT REPRODUCTION SYSTEM, AND PROGRAM
US8121915B1 (en) * 2006-08-16 2012-02-21 Resource Consortium Limited Generating financial plans using a personal information aggregator
US9076148B2 (en) * 2006-12-22 2015-07-07 Yahoo! Inc. Dynamic pricing models for digital content
EP2101501A1 (en) * 2008-03-10 2009-09-16 Sony Corporation Method for recommendation of audio

Patent Citations (8)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5410344A (en) * 1993-09-22 1995-04-25 Arrowsmith Technologies, Inc. Apparatus and method of selecting video programs based on viewers' preferences
US7512558B1 (en) * 2000-05-03 2009-03-31 Quantum Leap Research, Inc. Automated method and system for facilitating market transactions
US20040133526A1 (en) * 2001-03-20 2004-07-08 Oded Shmueli Negotiating platform
US7617203B2 (en) * 2003-08-01 2009-11-10 Yahoo! Inc Listings optimization using a plurality of data sources
US20060106670A1 (en) * 2004-11-15 2006-05-18 Simin Cai System and method for interactively and progressively determining customer satisfaction within a networked community
US7814029B1 (en) * 2005-01-18 2010-10-12 Amazon Technologies, Inc. Method and system for estimating consumer satisfaction
US20080120363A1 (en) * 2006-11-21 2008-05-22 Damien Gerard Loveland System and method for facilitating property comparisons
US8108246B2 (en) * 2007-10-22 2012-01-31 Customer Value, Inc. System and method for pricing a product

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
US8473368B2 (en) 2013-06-25
JP2013515300A (en) 2013-05-02
WO2011075792A1 (en) 2011-06-30
CN102754117A (en) 2012-10-24
AU2022241556A1 (en) 2022-10-27
AU2016259355A1 (en) 2016-12-08
US20120136750A1 (en) 2012-05-31
AU2020244594A1 (en) 2020-11-05
JP5710639B2 (en) 2015-04-30
AU2018236702A1 (en) 2018-10-18
AU2010336035A1 (en) 2012-08-16

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
AU2018236702A1 (en) Method, system and controller for providing goods and/or services to consumers
US20060195443A1 (en) Information prioritisation system and method
US8090642B1 (en) Option computation for tangible depreciating items
KR101918319B1 (en) E-used digital assets and post-acquisition revenue
US8260657B1 (en) Dynamic pricing of electronic content
US20090144801A1 (en) Methods and systems for searching for secure file transmission
JP2009536397A (en) Distributed architecture for online advertising
CN101496403A (en) Associating advertisements with on-demand media content
Nakamura et al. Valuing'Free'Media in GDP: An Experimental Approach
US20070179933A1 (en) Method and system for providing information on article of commerce
RU2649304C2 (en) Method and system for effective compiling of media content elements for media platform upon request
WO2023217194A1 (en) Dynamic video cover generation method
Che et al. Leveraging uncertainty through backorder
Allenby et al. Calculating Reasonable Royalty Damages Using Conjoint Analysis
KR101050041B1 (en) Method and System for Providing Information on Article of Commerce
Ferreira et al. Welfare properties of recommender systems: Theory and results from a randomized experiment
US20130054450A1 (en) Monetization of Atomized Content
Guo Overage Charge or Loyalty Discount: When Should Extra Consumptions Be Penalized or Rewarded?
CN109300049A (en) Calculation method, terminal device and the medium of declaration form loan interest
JP5096513B2 (en) Sales support system, sales support method, and sales support program
KR20120009611A (en) An Online-AD System With Rewarding Grade and Method thereof
KR100363583B1 (en) System for offering charged information whose cost is decided by reaction of user of the information and the cost decision method thereof
KR101155680B1 (en) Method and system for billing of online advertisement
Roma et al. Factors influencing prices in the mobile apps’ store distribution model: An empirical study
KR20050050513A (en) A method for determining price of digital contents published on the internet and a system thereof

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
STCB Information on status: application discontinuation

Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION