Automated Linguistic Personalization of Targeted Marketing Messages Mining User-Generated Text on Social Media

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9042)


Personalizing marketing messages for specific audience segments is vital for increasing user engagement with advertisements, but it becomes very resource-intensive when the marketer has to deal with multiple segments, products or campaigns. In this research, we take the first steps towards automating message personalization by algorithmically inserting adjectives and adverbs that have been found to evoke positive sentiment in specific audience segments, into basic versions of ad messages. First, we build language models representative of linguistic styles from user-generated textual content on social media for each segment. Next, we mine product-specific adjectives and adverbs from content associated with positive sentiment. Finally, we insert extracted words into the basic version using the language models to enrich the message for each target segment, after statistically checking in-context readability. Decreased cross-entropy values from the basic to the transformed messages show that we are able to approach the linguistic style of the target segments. Crowdsourced experiments verify that our personalized messages are almost indistinguishable from similar human compositions. Social network data processed for this research has been made publicly available for community use.


Language Model Noun Phrase Sentiment Analysis Inverse Document Frequency Input Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gunsch, M.A., Brownlow, S., Haynes, S.E., Mabe, Z.: Differential forms linguistic content of various of political advertising. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 44, 27–42 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kitis, E.: Ads - Part of our lives: Linguistic awareness of powerful advertising. Word and Image 13, 304–313 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kover, A.J.: Copywriters’ Implicit Theories of Communication: An Exploration. Journal of Consumer Research 21, 596–611 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lowrey, T.M.: The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7, 187–206 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwartz, H.A., Eichstaedt, J.C., Kern, M.L., Dziurzynski, L., Ramones, S.M., Agrawal, M., Shah, A., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., Seligman, M.E.P., Ungar, L.H.: Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE 8, e73791 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furuta, R., Plaisant, C., Shneiderman, B.: Automatically transforming regularly structured linear documents into hypertext. Electron. Publ. Origin. Dissem. Des. 2, 211–229 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thuy, P.T.T., Lee, Y.K., Lee, S.Y.: DTD2OWL: Automatic Transforming XML Documents into OWL Ontology. In: ICIS 2009, pp. 125–131 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu, F., Weng, F., Wang, B., Liu, Y.: Insertion, deletion, or substitution?: Normalizing text messages without pre-categorization nor supervision. In: HLT 2011, pp. 71–76 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barzilay, R., Elhadad, M.: Using lexical chains for text summarization. In: Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, pp. 111–121 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burstein, J., Shore, J., Sabatini, J., Lee, Y.W., Ventura, M.: The automated text adaptation tool. In: NAACL Demonstrations 2007, pp. 3–4 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chandrasekar, R., Doran, C., Srinivas, B.: Motivations and methods for text simplification. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 1996, vol. 2, pp. 1041–1044. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Belder, J., Moens, M.F.: Text simplification for children. In: Proceedings of the SIGIR Workshop on Accessible Search Systems, pp. 19–26 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feng, L., Jansche, M., Huenerfauth, M., Elhadad, N.: A comparison of features for automatic readability assessment. In: COLING 2010, pp. 276–284 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tausczik, Y.R., Pennebaker, J.W.: The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29, 24–54 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tan, C., Lee, L., Pang, B.: The effect of wording on message propagation: Topic- and author-controlled natural experiments on Twitter. In: ACL 2014, pp. 175–185 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bryden, J., Funk, S., Jansen, V.: Word usage mirrors community structure in the online social network twitter. EPJ Data Science 2 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., West, R., Jurafsky, D., Leskovec, J., Potts, C.: No country for old members: User lifecycle and linguistic change in online communities. In: WWW 2013, pp. 307–318 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hu, Y., Talamadupula, K., Kambhampati, S.: Dude, srsly?: The Surprisingly Formal Nature of Twitter’s Language. In: ICWSM 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C.D., Singer, Y.: Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In: NAACL 2003, pp. 173–180 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Socher, R., Bauer, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y.: Parsing with compositional vector grammars. In: ACL 2013, pp. 455–465 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhai, C., Lafferty, J.: A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to ad hoc information retrieval. In: SIGIR 2001, pp. 334–342 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abney, S.P.: Parsing by chunks. In: Principle-Based Parsing, pp. 257–278. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bird, S., Klein, E., Loper, E.: Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O’Reilly, Beijing (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Smedt, T., Daelemans, W.: Pattern for Python. JMLR 13, 2063–2067 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fleiss, J.L.: Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76, 378–382 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Big Data Intelligence Lab, Adobe ResearchBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Computer Science and EngineeringIIT MadrasChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Computer Science and EngineeringIIT BombayMumbaiIndia
  4. 4.PrecogIIIT DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations