WO2002019202A1

WO2002019202A1 - Method and apparatus for recommending modifications to unacceptable conditional purchase offers (cpos)

Info

Publication number: WO2002019202A1
Application number: PCT/US2000/023549
Authority: WO
Inventors: Jay S. Walker; Daniel E. Tedesco; Magdalena Mik; Keith Bemer
Original assignee: Priceline.Com Incorporated
Priority date: 2000-08-28
Filing date: 2000-08-28
Publication date: 2002-03-07
Also published as: AU2000274712A1

Abstract

A conditional purchase offer (CPO) management system is disclosed for processing CPOs received from one or more buyers for a product. The CPO management system initially evaluates received CPOs to identify those CPOs that are unlikely to be accepted by sellers (720). CPOs that are identified as being unlikely to be accepted are processed to (i) identify any reaseons why a given CPO is unlikely to be accepted (730); (ii) recommend modifications to the CPO based on the identified reasons that will make the CPO more likely to be accepted (740); and (iii) facilitate the submission of a modified CPO reflecting said recommended modifications (750). Each CPO generally includes a buyer-specified selection option for each condition associated with the CPO. Each condition associated with a given CPO, as well as each selection option, is ranked in terms of relative importance. The CPO management system recommends modifying the lowest ranking conditions and selection options such that the modified CPO is more likely to be accepted, yet minimally affects the perceived value of the qualifying products that satisfy the modified CPO.

Description

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RECOMMENDING MODD7ICATIONS TO UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONAL PURCHASE OFFERS (CPOs)

Cross Reference to Related Applications This application is related to U.S. Patent No. 5,794,207, issued August

11, 1998, entitled "Method and Apparatus for a Cryptographically Assisted Commercial Network System Designed to Facilitate Buyer-Driven Conditional Purchase Offers," U.S. Patent No. 6,085,169, entitled "Conditional Purchase Offer Management System," issued July 4, 2000, U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/205,824, filed December 4, 1998, entitled, "Dynamic Quality Control Conditional Purchase Offer (CPO) Management System," and United States Patent Application Serial Number 09/586,742, filed June 5, 2000, entitled "Systems and Methods for Facilitating a Transaction by Matching Seller Information and Buyer Information," each assigned to the assignee of the present invention and incorporated by referenced herein.

Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to a system for processing offers for the sale of a product and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus for processing purchase offers for the sale of a product, such as an airline ticket or automobile.

Background of the Invention

Most systems for processing the sale of products are seller-driven, whereby the seller prices, packages, configures and offers the product for sale, and the buyer decides whether or not to accept the seller's offer. In a buyer-driven system, however, the buyer dictates the terms of the offer and one or more sellers decide whether or not to accept the offer. A "help wanted" advertisement, for example, is a buyer-driven inquiry since the employer is looking to locate and buy the services of a qualified employee. The inquiry is advertised to a large number of potential employees, who may respond by submitting their resumes to the prospective employer. Priceline.com, Incorporated of Stamford, CT is a merchant that has successfully implemented a buyer-driven system for the sale of products, such as airline tickets and automobiles. Priceline.com utilizes a Conditional Purchase Offer (CPO) Management System, described, for example, in U.S. Patent No. 5,794,207, issued August 11, 1998, entitled "Method and Apparatus for a Cryptographically Assisted Commercial Network System Designed to Facilitate Buyer-Driven Conditional Purchase Offers," and U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/889,319, entitled "Conditional Purchase Offer Management System," filed July 8, 1997, each assigned to the assignee of the present invention and incorporated by referenced herein. The CPO Management System processes conditional purchase offers received from individual buyers. These conditional purchase offers contain one or more buyer-defined conditions for the purchase of goods or services, at a buyer-defined price. They are typically guaranteed by a general-purpose account, such as a debit or credit account, or another payment identifier, such as electronic currency, and thereby provide sellers with a mechanism for enforcing any agreement that may be reached with the buyer. The conditional purchase offers are provided by the CPO Management System to sellers, either directly or indirectly using seller-supplied rules, for individual sellers to either accept or reject. If a seller accepts a conditional purchase offer, either directly or by allowing the CPO Management System to accept on behalf of the seller, the CPO Management System binds the buyer on behalf of the accepting seller, to form a binding contract.

Thus, the CPO Management System empowers individual buyers to obtain goods and services at a price set by the buyer. The CPO Management System provides numerous commercial advantages to sellers as well. For example, the CPO Management System permits individual sellers to effectively sell excess capacity when actual demand fails to meet forecasted demand. In particular, the CPO Management System provides an effective mechanism for sellers to be confident that if they accept a buyer's offer, the buyer will purchase the requested goods or services at the agreed-upon price, and not just use the information to ascertain the seller's underlying level of price flexibility, which, if known to a seller's competitors or customers, could impact the seller's overall revenue structure.

For the vast majority of transactions, the CPO Management System will effectively complete transactions in this manner. Invariably, however, a percentage of buyers will submit purchase offers that are not acceptable to any seller, typically because the price offered by the buyer is too low or because a product does not exist that exactly matches the conditions specified by the buyer. Such unacceptable purchase offers represent failed demand. In addition to being a lost business opportunity, unacceptable conditional purchase offers require buyers and sellers to spend time submitting and reviewing such conditional purchase offers, respectively. While a purchase offer may not be acceptable as originally submitted, buyers and sellers alike would benefit if the purchase offer could be modified so that it is acceptable to at least one seller.

In addition, unacceptable purchase offers consume the resources of the CPO Management System itself. Furthermore, in an implementation where the CPO Management System obtains revenue only from transactions associated with accepted purchase offers, the resources of the CPO Management System may be consumed by unacceptable purchase offers that do not result in any revenue. This is particularly troublesome when a buyer submits a purchase offer that is recognized to have little, if any, chance of ever being accepted. Thus, the CPO Management System would also benefit if such a purchase offer could be modified so that it is acceptable to at least one seller. Thus, a need exists for a method and apparatus that facilitate the modification of CPOs, such that the modified CPO is more likely to be accepted by a seller.

Summary of the Invention

A conditional purchase offer (CPO) management system is disclosed for processing CPOs received from one or more buyers for a product. The CPO management system processes each received CPO to determine whether one or more sellers are willing to accept a given CPO. Generally, each CPO includes a buyer- specified value (referred to as a selection option) for each condition associated with the CPO. Each selection option is typically selected from a predefined list of selection options supplied by the CPO management system.

The CPO management system evaluates a received CPO to identify whether (i) the CPO is statistically unlikely to be accepted by at least one seller, (ii) the CPO has been expressly rejected by all possible sellers, or (iii) the CPO has not been accepted by any seller for a predefined period of time (hereinafter, a CPO satisfying any one of these three variations is referred to as being "unlikely to be accepted"). According to one aspect of the invention, a CPO that is unlikely to be accepted is processed to (i) identify any reasons why the CPO is unlikely to be accepted; (ii) recommend one or more modifications to the CPO that will make the CPO more likely to be accepted based on the identified reasons; and (iii) facilitate the submission of a modified CPO reflecting the recommended modifications.

While an objective of the present invention is to encourage and facilitate the modification of CPOs that are unlikely to be accepted, such that the modified CPO is more likely to be accepted by a seller, it is often also desirable to keep the modified CPO as similar as possible to the original CPO. In order to recommend modifications to the original CPO, such that the modified CPO is more likely to be accepted, yet remains similar to the original CPO, the present invention ranks each condition associated with a given CPO, as well as each possible selection option associated with one or more conditions of a CPO, in terms of relative importance. A product that matches each of the conditions of a CPO is said to be a "qualifying product." The selection options are ranked to facilitate the identification of qualifying products having a lower price and are thus more likely to be accepted at the buyer-specified price. In other words, each selection option is generally ranked according to the extent to which the selection option contributes to the overall cost of the product, relative to other possible selection options. Thus, more expensive selection options for a given condition are ranked higher than less expensive selection options. Likewise, the conditions associated with a given CPO are ranked such that the modification(s) to the CPO minimally affect(s) the perceived value (generally, to the buyer) of the qualifying products. In this manner, the CPO management system uses the rankings of each condition and selection option to recommend modifying less important (i.e., lower ranking) conditions and selection options such that the modified CPO (i) is more likely to be accepted by a seller, and (ii) minimally affects the perceived value (generally, to the buyer) of the qualifying products. An optimization routine is disclosed that assigns a score to each qualifying product having a minimum acceptable price that is less than or equal to the price specified by the buyer (or falls within a predetermined acceptable price range). A selection option for each condition (based on the selection option satisfied by the properties of the qualifying product) is determined for each qualifying product, such that the selection options determined for qualifying products can be compared to the corresponding selection options specified in the original CPO. The optimization routine assigns a score to each qualifying product that measures the extent to which each qualifying product deviates from the set of selection options specified in the original CPO.

The optimization routine identifies qualifying products, if any, having a minimum acceptable price that is equal to or less than the price named by the buyer (or falls within a pre-determined acceptable price range) and that most nearly match the conditions set forth in the original CPO. A predetermined number, N, of the qualifying products having the lowest assigned score can be provided to the buyer, generally in the form of recommended changes to the CPO. In other words, a set of modifications are suggested to the buyer, such that the top N qualifying products satisfy the conditions of the modified CPOs. In addition, the present invention facilitates the submission of a modified CPO from the buyer reflecting the recommended modifications. A more complete understanding of the present invention, as well as further features and advantages of the present invention, will be obtained by reference to the following detailed description and drawings.

Brief Description of the Drawings FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram illustrating a network environment in which a conditional purchase offer (CPO) management system in accordance with the present invention can operate;

FIG. 2 is a schematic block diagram of the exemplary CPO management system of FIG. 1; FIG. 3 illustrates a sample table from the buyer database of FIG. 2; FIG. 4 illustrates a sample table from a representative ranking database of

FIG. 2;

FIG. 5 illustrates a sample table from the CPO database of FIG. 2; FIG. 6 illustrates a sample table from the product database of FIG. 2; FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary CPO modification recommendation process implemented by the CPO management system of FIG. 2; and

FIG. 8 is a flowchart describing an exemplary unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine implemented by the CPO management system of FIG. 2.

Detailed Description

FIG. 1 shows a network environment 100 including a conditional purchase offer (CPO) management system 200, discussed further below in conjunction with FIG. 2, for receiving and processing CPOs for one or more goods or services. The CPOs are received from one or more buyers 110-1 through 110-N (or agents acting on behalf of buyers 110), hereinafter, collectively referred to as buyers 110. The CPO management system 200 determines whether one or more sellers 120-1 through 120-N, hereinafter, collectively referred to as sellers 120, are willing to accept a given CPO.

The CPO management system 200 initially evaluates received CPOs to identify those CPOs that are unlikely to be accepted by sellers, including those CPOs that (i) are statistically unlikely to be accepted by at least one seller, (ii) have been expressly rejected by all possible sellers, or (iii) have not been accepted by any seller for a predefined period of time. As discussed below, the CPO management system 200 thereafter evaluates CPOs that are unlikely to be accepted to (i) identify any reasons why a given CPO is not acceptable; (ii) recommend modifications to the CPO that will make the CPO more likely to be accepted, based on the identified reasons; and (iii) facilitate the submission of a modified CPO reflecting the recommended modifications.

In order to make profitable use of CPOs that are unlikely to be accepted by sellers, and thus transform the failed demand represented by such unacceptable CPOs into filled demand, the present invention contemplates identifying reasons why a given CPO is unlikely to be accepted. The identified reasons can then be communicated back to the buyer 110 in the hope that the buyer will submit another, modified CPO based on the identified reasons. To this end, the CPO Management System 200 executes a CPO modification recommendation process 800 and a related unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 900, discussed further below in conjunction with FIGS. 8 and 9, respectively, that determine which conditions should be modified by the buyer so as to render an unacceptable CPO more likely to be acceptable.

Generally, each CPO includes a buyer-specified value (referred to as a selection option) for each condition associated with the CPO. Typically, the buyer- specified selection option is selected from a predefined list of selection options supplied by the CPO management system 200. As discussed further below in conjunction with

FIG. 4, the present invention ranks each condition associated with a given CPO, as well as each of the possible selection options associated with one or more conditions, in terms of their relative importance, in order to recommend a modified CPO that is similar to the original CPO. Generally, each condition is ranked to facilitate the identification of a modified CPO that minimally affects the perceived value (generally, to the buyer) of the qualifying products. Likewise, the selection options are ranked to facilitate the identification of qualifying products having a lower price, thereby making a modified CPO containing the selection options more likely to be accepted at the buyer-specified price. In other words, each selection option for a given condition is generally ranked according to the extent to which the selection option contributes to the overall cost of the product, relative to other possible selection options. Thus, more expensive selection options for a given condition are ranked higher than less expensive selection options. In this manner, the CPO management system 200 uses the assigned rankings of each condition and selection option to recommend modifiying the less important (i.e., lowest ranking) conditions and selection options such that the modified CPO is more likely to be accepted by a seller, yet minimally affects the perceived value of the qualifying products to the buyer.

A CPO for a television, for example, may require the buyer to specify a selection option for each of three conditions: manufacturer, screen size and whether or not the television has a picture-in-picture option (yes/no). The screen size condition associated with a television may have, for example, three predefined selection option values from which the buyer may select: greater than or equal to 31 inches; 21 inches through 27 inches, or 13 inches through 19 inches. In another example, a CPO for an airline ticket may require the buyer to specify a selection option value for each of a number of conditions, including originating airport, destination airport, number of layovers and meal option. The originating airport condition associated with an airline ticket departing from New York City may have, for example, seven predefined selection option values from which the buyer may select: LGA; JFK; EWR; LGA or JFK; JFK or EWR; LGA or JFK or EWR. As indicated above, the various selection option values associated with a given condition are ranked according to their impact on the price of the product. It is noted that if a CPO is unacceptable, then the buyer-defined price is lower than the prices associated with qualifying products that match the conditions specified in the CPO. Thus, in order to render the CPO more acceptable, at least one condition must be modified such that at least one qualifying product for the modified CPO has an associated price that is less than or equal to the buyer-defined price. In other words, the modification to the CPO must result in identifying at least one qualifying product with a lower price. Thus, by ranking the selection option values associated with a given condition in terms of their relative contributions to the total price of a given product, the present invention can identify modifications to the original CPO that will more likely identify qualifying products having a lower price.

For example, the illustrative screen size condition for a television may have three different selection option values, each associated with a different screen size. Generally, larger televisions are more expensive than smaller televisions, and therefore the screen size selection option value "greater than or equal to 31 inches" is ranked higher than televisions having smaller screen sizes. In another example, the manufacturer condition, associated with a television may have three different selection option values, each associated with a different classification (or grouping) of manufacturers. The manufacturer classifications can be based, for example, on the quality of televisions provided by each manufacturer in the classification, since the price associated with a given television tends to vary according to the quality of the television. Thus, by identifying a manufacturer whose televisions tend to be of slightly lower quality, a manufacturer whose televisions tend to be of a slightly lower price are also identified. Again, by identifying a product having a lower price, the likelihood that the CPO will be acceptable is increased. The rankings of the various conditions and selection options for the illustrative television embodiment are discussed further below in conjunction with a CPO modification ranking database 400, shown in FIG. 4.

In the illustrative television example, the most important condition associated with a CPO for a television, based on the perceived value to the customer, may be the manufacturer, since the quality of a television may vary significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer and most customers perceive quality as the most important condition when purchasing a television. The second most important condition to a buyer purchasing a television might be the screen size, since many buyers firmly have in mind a particular size television to be purchased. In other words, buyers tend to highly value screen size. Thus, by giving the screen size condition a high rank, the present invention will attempt to modify other conditions first, in a manner discussed more fully below, so as not to affect the perceived value of the matching product to the customer. In an airline ticket example, the most important condition for an airline ticket may be the origin and destination (O and D) city pair, since the O and D pair dictates the location of the origin and destination. The second most important condition may be the times and dates of travel. Thus, the present invention will utilize a ranking of each condition and each possible selection option value associated with each condition, to make recommended modifications to the less important (i.e., lowest ranking) conditions and selection option values, such that the modified CPO becomes more likely to be accepted, yet minimally affects the perceived value of the qualifying products to the buyer.

EVALUATING A LIKELIHOOD OF ACCEPTANCE Each CPO includes data representing a price the buyer is willing to pay for a product that is consistent with the specified conditions. The CPO management system 200 evaluates the likelihood that a CPO will be accepted based on the selection options specified in the CPO and the price specified by the buyer. If the CPO management system 200 identifies a seller who is willing to sell a product that matches the conditions specified by the buyer, for the buyer-defined price, the CPO is then determined to be acceptable and the CPO is processed. If the CPO management system 200 cannot find such a seller or the CPO is otherwise deemed to be "unlikely to be accepted," then the CPO can be processed in accordance with the present invention to recommend modifications to the CPO such that the modified CPO is more likely to be accepted. There are a variety of methods utilized by the CPO management system 200 to match buyers with sellers, as disclosed in the CPO Management System patent applications, referenced above in the Background of the Invention section. For a more detailed discussion of various techniques for evaluating the likelihood of acceptance of a given CPO, see, for example, U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/205,824, filed December 4, 1998, entitled, "Dynamic Quality Control Conditional Purchase Offer (CPO) Management System," assigned to the assignee of the present invention and incorporated by reference herein.

The likelihood of acceptance can be obtained, for example, by analyzing historical, forecasted or actual purchase data. In addition, as previously indicated, the likelihood of acceptance can be based on actual processing of the CPO being considered (i.e, an express rejection is received from all potential sellers or no acceptance is received within a predefined period of time). In one illustrative implementation, a historical database is used to record information on CPOs that have been previously processed by the CPO management system 200. The CPO management system 200 uses the recorded historical information to statistically determine whether a received CPO is likely to be accepted by a seller. As discussed further below, the historical database(s) stores the conditions and offer price associated with processed CPOs, as well as the corresponding outcome (accepted, rejected or expired). Thus, as the historical offer database is updated over time with each new processed CPO, the recorded information becomes more statistically reliable in evaluating the likelihood of acceptance of subsequently submitted CPOs. In an alternate embodiment, the historical database stores information on historical retail prices, such as historical published fares in an airline implementation. In yet another variation, the likelihood of acceptance is obtained by analyzing actual sales data, such as current retail prices or the minimum acceptable price at which sellers have stated they will sell a given product.

In an alternate implementation, the likelihood of acceptance is based on a demand forecast that may be generated, for example, by a central reservation system (CRS) or the proprietary airline reservation systems (ARSs) of each airline in an airline implementation, as well as on historical acceptance information. The demand forecast can be based, for example, on historical or seasonal demand data, or on anticipated upcoming events or weather conditions. Thus, the thresholds utilized to determine whether a CPO is statistically likely to be accepted may be dynamically adjusted in accordance with changing market conditions.

In a further variation, the CPO management system 200 may generate an acceptability score representing the likelihood of acceptability of each CPO, with different acceptability scores triggering different system responses. For example, a buyer who submits a CPO that is, statistically, very likely to be accepted (and thus receives a high acceptability score) may receive an instant acceptance. In this embodiment, the operator of the CPO management system 200 takes the economic risk of guaranteeing that the offer will be accepted by a seller without actually consulting any of the sellers. If the offer is ultimately not accepted by a seller, the CPO management system 200 may be required to pay the difference between the offer price and the market price in order to complete the transaction. Likewise, CPOs that are, statistically, unlikely to be accepted (and thus receive low acceptability scores) may be processed in accordance with the present invention to (i) identify any reasons why theCPOs are not acceptable; (ii) recommend modifications to the CPOs to make them more likely to be accepted, based on the identified reasons; and (iii) facilitate the submission of modified CPOs based, at least in part, on the original CPOs and the identified reasons.

CPO TERMINOLOGY As used herein, the following terms are defined to mean: Agency-Based Seller - A seller who has delegated authority to the CPO management system operator to accept or reject a given CPO using seller-defined CPO Rules.

Binding Conditional Purchase Offer (Binding CPO) - A binding offer containing one or more conditions submitted by a buyer for the purchase of goods and/or services at a buyer-defined price. As compared to a CPO, a Binding CPO includes a payment guarantee, for example with a General Purpose Account, and authorization to debit the Account upon acceptance of the CPO.

Broadcast-Based Seller - A seller who has received a CPO from the CPO management system (directly or by, for example, access to an electronic posting) for evaluation.

Conditional Purchase Offer (CPO) - An offer containing one or more conditions submitted by a buyer for the purchase of a product (goods and/of services) at a buyer-defined price.

Conditional Purchase Offer (CPO) Rule - A restriction defined by an Agency-Based Seller under which the operator of the CPO management system may act as an agent to determine whether to fill a CPO for that Agency-Based Seller. CPO Management System - One or more controllers that receive and process CPOs for one or more goods or services, from one or more buyers, to determine if one or more sellers (Agency-Based or Broadcast-Base Sellers) are willing to accept a CPO.

General Purpose Account - Any account from which payment can be made, including a credit or debit account, or electronic cash (ecash).

Minimum Acceptable Price - The lowest price at which a seller is willing to sell a given product.

Product - Any good or service that is the subject of a Conditional Purchase Offer transaction. CPO MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The CPO management system 200 may provide a given CPO to selected sellers 120 based on predefined screening criteria, so that sellers only obtain CPOs that they may be interested in or are authorized to screen. Alternatively, the CPO system 200 may provide all CPOs to all sellers 120 for screening.

As discussed further below, each buyer 110 contacts the CPO management system 200 via a wire ore wireless communication network, such as, for example, telephone, facsimile, online access (e.g., the Internet), electronic mail, in- person contact or through an agent, and provides the CPO management system 200 with terms of a CPO. It is noted that each buyer 110 and seller 120 may employ a general- purpose computer for communicating with the CPO management system 200. The general-purpose computer may be comprised of a processing unit, a modem, memory means and any software required to communicate with the CPO management system 200. In one embodiment, the CPO management system 200 is configured as a web server, and conventional communications software, such as the Netscape Navigator™ web browser, may be used to transmit a CPO. Communications between buyers and sellers take place via an electronic network, with the CPO management system 200 acting as a web server. The CPO management system 200 has a web page on the World Wide Web (WWW), allowing the buyer to provide information through the interface of the conventional web browser software. In one embodiment, the buyer selects the subject of the products the buyer wishes to purchase by selecting from a list of possible subjects, including, for example, airline tickets, hotel rooms, rental cars, insurance, groceries, mortgages and clothing. After the subject is selected, a form is displayed on a video monitor of a buyer interface. This form is an electronic contract with a number of blanks to be filled out by the buyer, with each blank representing a condition of a CPO. The perceptory and economic influences that are applied to one or more condition selection(s) in accordance with the present invention may be indicated to the buyer on the electronic form. Once the influence is implemented on the electronic form, the buyer 110 may complete the CPO and the CPO may be processed by the CPO management system 200, in a manner described below.

The CPO management system 200, as well as any general-purpose computers utilized by buyers 110 or sellers 120 (collectively, the "nodes") transmit digitally encoded data and other information between one another. The communication links between the nodes can comprise, for example, a cable, fiber or wireless link on which electronic signals can propagate.

AGENCY AND BROADCAST-BASED SELLERS The CPO management system 200 optionally provides an optional agency feature that permits the CPO management system 200 to accept or reject a given CPO on behalf of certain agency-based sellers 120 who have delegated such authority to the CPO management system 200. Thus, the CPO management system 200 (i) evaluates CPOs on behalf of certain agency-based sellers 120 who have delegated authority to the CPO management system 200 to accept or reject a given CPO, and (ii) permits broadcast-based sellers 120 to evaluate CPOs independently.

Thus, the CPO management system 200 can optionally provide one or more CPOs to each broadcast-based seller 120, for the seller 120 to independently determine whether or not to accept a given CPO. It is noted that the CPO management system 200 can provide a CPO to each appropriate broadcast-based seller 120, for example, by means of a broadcast transmission, or by means of posting the CPO, for example, on an electronic bulletin board or secure Web site accessible by each broadcast-based seller 120. Alternatively, the CPO management system 200 can evaluate one or more CPOs against a number of CPO rules defined by one or more agency-based sellers 120, to decide on behalf of an agency-based seller 120 whether to accept or reject a given CPO. Thus, the CPO management system 200 can determine if one or more sellers 120 accepts a given CPO by providing the CPO to each seller 120 and receiving an acceptance or rejection, or by applying the CPO to the CPO rules to render a decision to either accept, reject or counter a CPO on behalf of a particular seller 120. As discussed further below, a CPO rule is a set of restrictions defined by an agency-based seller under which the operator of the CPO management system 200 may act as an agent to determine whether to fill a CPO for that agency-based seller. For a more detailed discussion of CPO rules, the manner in which they are generated, and related security issues, see U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/889,319, entitled "Conditional Purchase Offer Management System," filed July 8, 1997, assigned to the assignee of the present invention and incorporated by referenced herein. For a detailed discussion of a broadcast-based implementation of the present invention, see, for example, U.S. Patent No. 5,794,207, issued August 11, 1998, entitled "Method and Apparatus for a Cryptographically Assisted Commercial Network System Designed to Facilitate Buyer-Driven Conditional Purchase Offers," assigned to the assignee of the present invention and incorporated by reference herein.

A CPO can optionally contain one or more buyer-defined variable or flexible conditions, typically specified using a range. For example, the variable condition may be a date range within which the product may be delivered by the seller. Other variable conditions might include a price range, a performance range or a quality range. The seller may then choose a product to fill the buyer's flexible condition within the specified range. Such a variable condition may provide substantial assistance to the seller in filling the buyer's CPO. For example, with respect to an airline ticket, the seller may be able to be meet a buyer's specified price if the CPO permits the seller to select a flight within a range of times or days.

In a further variation, a buyer can submit a "continuous CPO" in which the CPO remains pending until a qualifying product is not found for a predefined period of time, such as until an indicated departure date. In such a continuous CPO embodiment, the modification techniques of the present invention may be deferred until the CPO management system 200 fails to find a qualifying product for a predefined period of time, or a predefined number of attempts. The CPO management system 200 may periodically reevaluate the acceptability of the CPO (since sellers can lower their acceptable minimum price). If a qualifying product is not identified within a predefined period of time, or after a predefined number of attempts, the modification techniques of the present invention can be implemented. For a more detailed discussion of a continuous CPO embodiment, see, for example, U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/261,322, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Processing Recurring Buyer Offers in a Demand Collection Commerce System," filed March 3, 1999, assigned to the assignee of the present invention and incorporated by referenced herein.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the architecture of an illustrative CPO management system 200. While the illustrative CPO management system 200 is shown in FIG. 2 using a centralized embodiment, the various features and functions of the illustrative CPO management system 200 can be distributed over the network environment 100, as would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The CPO management system 200 includes certain standard hardware components, such as a central processing unit (CPU) 205, a random access memory (RAM) 210, a read only memory (ROM) 220, a data storage device 230, and a communications port 240. The CPU 205 may be linked to each of the other listed elements, either by means of a shared data bus, or dedicated connections, as shown in FIG. 2. The communications port 240 connects the central controller 200 to each buyer 110 and seller 120 and optionally to remote credit processing servers (not shown). The commumcations port 240 may include multiple communication channels for simultaneously establishing a plurality of connections. The ROM 220 and/or data storage device 230 are operable to store one or more instructions, discussed further below in conjunction with FIGS. 8 and 9, which the CPU 205 is operable to retrieve, interpret and execute. For example, the ROM 220 and/or data storage device 230 may store processes to accomplish the transfer of required payments, charges and debits, between the sellers 120 and buyers 110. The processing of such accounting transactions may be secured in a conventional manner, for example, using well-known cryptographic techniques.

As discussed further below in conjunction with FIGS. 3 through 6, respectively, the data storage device 230 includes a buyer database 300, a CPO modification ranking database 400, a CPO database 500 and a product database 600. The buyer database 300 stores information on each buyer transacting business through the CPO management system 200, including identification information and billing information, such as a credit card number or another general-purpose payment identifier. The CPO modification ranking database 400 identifies and ranks each condition associated with a given CPO, as well as each possible selection option associated with each condition of the CPO, in terms of relative importance. The CPO database 500 contains a record for each CPO processed by the CPO management system 200, including the conditions associated with the CPO and the associated status. The historical information recorded in the offer database 500 can be used, among other things, to determine whether a received CPO is likely to be accepted by a seller. The product database 600 contains information relating to the products available for sale through the CPO management system 200, for the illustrative television embodiment, including an indication of the seller.

In addition, the data storage device 230 includes a CPO modification recommendation process 800 and an unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 900, discussed further below in conjunction with FIGS. 8 and 9, respectively. Generally, the CPO modification recommendation process 800 (i) processes each CPO received from a buyer 110, (ii) evaluates the likelihood of acceptance of the CPO , and (iii) makes recommendations to render CPOs that are initially unlikely to be accepted more acceptable. The unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 900 is a process executed by the CPO modification recommendation process 800 to analyze a given unacceptable CPO and to determine modifications to the CPO that will make the modified CPO more likely to be accepted.

DATABASES FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary buyer database 300 that stores information on each buyer transacting business through the CPO management system 200, including identification information and billing information, such as a credit card number or another general-purpose account identifier. The buyer database 300 maintains a plurality of records, such as records 305 and 310, each associated with a different buyer. For each buyer identifier listed in field 320, the buyer database 300 includes the corresponding buyer name and electronic mail (email) address for the buyer in fields 325 and 330, respectively, and a payment identifier in field 335. In addition, the buyer database 300 can optionally include the CPO tracking numbers associated with the buyer (not shown). The buyer identifier stored in field 320 may be utilized, for example, to index a historical database (not shown) of previous purchases and CPOs associated with the buyer.

FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary CPO modification ranking database 400 that identifies and ranks each condition associated with a given CPO, as well as each possible selection option associated with each condition of the CPO, in terms of relative importance. The CPO modification ranking database 400 is used to identify modifications to the original CPO, such that the modified CPO is as similar to the original CPO as possible. As previously indicated, each condition is ranked to facilitate the identification of a modified CPO that minimally affects the perceived value (generally, to the buyer) of the qualifying products, and each selection option is ranked to facilitate the identification of qualifying products having a lower price which are thus more likely to be accepted at the buyer-specified price.

The exemplary CPO modification ranking database 400 shown in FIG. 4 provides an illustrative mechanism for recording the conditions and corresponding selection options according to their respective rankings. Specifically, each column of the CPO modification ranking database 400 corresponds to a different condition in order of rank, with higher ranked conditions recorded in the left-most column. Similarly, each row of the CPO modification ranking database 400 corresponds to a different selection option associated with the corresponding condition in order of rank, with higher ranked (i.e., generally more expensive) selection options positioned on the top of the corresponding column. For example, each manufacturer grouping identified in field 450 is listed in order of the corresponding ranking, with the preferred manufacturers listed on top.

FIG. 5 illustrates a CPO database 500 that contains a record of each CPO processed by the CPO management system 200, including the conditions of each CPO and the associated status. The CPO database 500 maintains a plurality of records, such as records 505 and 510, each associated with a different CPO. For each CPO number listed in field 520, the CPO database 500 includes an identifier of the buyer associated with the CPO in field 525, as well as the selection options for each condition of the CPO in fields 530-540, respectively. In addition, the CPO database 500 may record the buyer-specified CPO price and current status in fields 545 and 550, respectively. The current status options recorded in field 550 include, for example, "pending," "accepted," "unacceptable," "rejected" or "expired." The selection options for the illustrative screen size and manufacturer conditions correspond to the rankings set forth in the CPO modification ranking database 400. The selection options for the picture-in-picture field can correspond to a binary notation where a binary value of one (1) indicates that the buyer desires the picture-in-picture feature and binary value of zero (0) indicates that the buyer does not desire the picture-in-picture feature. Alternatively, the selection options for the picture-in-picture field can correspond to a value of "yes" (Y) indicating that the buyer desires the picture-in-picture feature or a value of "no" (N) indicating that the buyer does not desire the picture-in-picture feature. The CPO database 500 stores the conditions and offer price associated with both pending and processed CPOs, as well as the corresponding outcomes (accepted, rejected or expired). Such historical information as recorded in the CPO database 500 may be used, among other things, to determine whether a received CPO is likely to be accepted by a seller. FIG. 6 illustrates a product database 600 that contains information relating to the products available for sale through the CPO management system 200, including the seller. The product database 600 maintains a plurality of records, such as records 610-620, each associated with a different product. For each product identified, for example by model or product code in field 630, the product database 600 stores information relating to the corresponding seller in field 635, as well as the ranked selection option associated with the product for each condition of a CPO in fields 640- 650, respectively (corresponding to the ranked categories provided, for example, in the CPO modification ranking database 400). A minimum selling price for each product is indicated in field 755 and the amount of each product that is available in inventory is set forth in field 760. PROCESSES

As discussed further below, the CPO management system 200 can execute a CPO modification recommendation process 700, shown in FIG. 7, to (i) process each CPO received from a buyer 110, (ii) evaluate the likelihood of acceptance of the CPO by a seller, and (iii) make recommendations for making unacceptable CPOs more likely to be accepted.

As shown in FIG. 7, the CPO modification recommendation process 700 initially receives a CPO during step 710 for a product, including, for example, an identifier of a general purpose account, such as a credit or debit card account, from which funds may be paid, and an authorization to charge such general purpose account. In this manner, the CPO is guaranteed with a general-purpose account, for example, using a line of credit on a credit card account. Appropriate legal language can be displayed or read to the buyer at the time the CPO is received, to form a binding CPO. It is noted that if the customer ultimately fails to purchase the requested product once a seller accepts the CPO, the customer can be charged a fee or a penalty. In this manner, the offer is guaranteed with the payment identifier. In addition, the CPO modification recommendation process 700 creates or updates a corresponding buyer record in the buyer database 300 and creates a record of the CPO in the CPO database 600 (not shown). A test is performed during step 720 to determine if the CPO is unlikely to be accepted. Several techniques for determining if a CPO is likely to be accepted were discussed above in a section entitled "Evaluating A Likelihood Of Acceptance." For example, the CPO modification recommendation process 700 may determine if a similar offer exists in the CPO database 500 (historical). Similar CPOs can be identified, for example, with well-known fuzzy logic techniques or with one or more thresholds that allow for a certain margin of departure from the conditions of the CPO, such as all CPOs for travel within a predefined period of time of the travel dates for a travel-related CPO. If one or more similar offers are identified, then the similar offers can be reviewed to determine whether previously processed CPOs containing similar conditions and offer prices were accepted or rejected. In a further variation, the received CPO can be compared against historical or published retail pricing data to determine if the received CPO is unlikely to be accepted.

If it is determined during step 720 that the CPO is not unlikely to be accepted then program control proceeds to step 725 to process the CPO in in accordance with the teachings of the CPO Management System patents referenced above and thereby determine if any seller actually accepts the CPO, in the manner described above. If, however, it is determined during step 720 that the CPO is unlikely to be accepted, then the CPO modification recommendation process 700 executes the unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 800, discussed further below in conjunction with FIG. 8 during step 730 to determine at least one reason why the CPO is acceptable. As previously indicated, the unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 800 is a process executed by the CPO modification recommendation process 700 that analyzes a given unacceptable CPO and returns modifications to the CPO, if any, that will make the CPO more likely to be accepted. Thereafter, the CPO modification recommendation process 700 communicates the modifications recommended by the unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 800 to the buyer 110 during step 740. In one embodiment, an electronic mail message is sent to the buyer 110 describing the suggested modification(s). If the buyer wishes to resubmit the CPO with the modification(s), the buyer 110 can simply reply to the e-mail, for example, by clicking a mouse pointer on a "reply" button in an e- mail program such as Outlook™, manufactured by Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, WA. If there are a plurality of modifications proposed, the buyer may, for example, "check off' the modifications he or she wishes to adopt by selectively clicking a mouse pointer on a check-off box next to the proposed modification. By replying to the email, the buyer in effect submits a new CPO, similar to the previously submitted CPO that was deemed unacceptable, but containing the proposed modifications agreed to by the buyer. The modified CPO is then processed.

In another embodiment, the e-mail sent to the buyer contains a link to a web page that displays the modifications proposed by the CPO management system 200. The buyer 110 then indicates which of the modification(s) he or she agrees to, for example, by selectively clicking a mouse pointer on a check box located next to the text describing a given modification. After indicating the accepted modifications, the buyer clicks a "submit" button on the web page, which in turn triggers the submission to the CPO management system 200 of a CPO that is similar to the original unacceptable CPO, but containing the accepted modifications. In a further variation, the buyer 110 can be deemed to have agreed to the proposed modifications if the buyer fails to dispute the modification within a stated period of time.

A modified CPO is received from the buyer 110 during step 750. The modified CPO is then processed during step 760, for example, by relaunching the CPO modification recommendation process 700. Program control of the CPO modification recommendation process 700 terminates during step 770.

As previously indicated, the CPO modification recommendation process 700 implements an unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 800 during step 730 to identify modifications, if any, that will make the original CPO more likely to be accepted. The unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 800, shown in FIG. 8, analyzes a CPO that is unlikely to be accepted and returns modifications, if any, to the original CPO that will make the CPO more likely to be accepted. The CPO analysis subroutine 800 initially identifies all potential products during step 805 having a minimum acceptable price that is less than or equal to the price specified by the buyer in the original CPO. Thereafter, for each product identified in the previous step, the CPO analysis subroutine 800 determines a selection option for each condition during step 810 (based on the selection options satisfied by the properties of each identified product).

A score is then computed during step 815 for each identified product that measures the extent to which the selection options determined for the identified products in the previous step differ from the set of selection options specified in the original CPO. Generally, each condition can be weighted with an inverse relationship to its rank. For example, in the illustrative television implementation, each condition can be weighted as follows: manufacturer equals 3, screen size equals 2 and picture-in-picture equals 1. Likewise, for a given product, each selection option can be scored based on the difference between the selection option assigned to the product and the selection option specified in the original CPO. In a preferred embodiment, if a product is assigned a selection option that has a higher rank as compared to the selection option specified in the original CPO, then the difference is ignored. Thus, the component score for a given condition is obtained by multiplying the difference between the selection option determined for the product and the selection option specified in the original CPO by the weighting factor assigned to the condition, as indicated above. The overall score for a given product is obtained by adding the individual component scores for each condition.

Finally, for a predetermined number, N, of identified products having the lowest overall score, the differences between the selection option determined for the product and the selection option specified in the original CPO, as identified during step 815, are used during step 820 to generate suggested modifications to the original CPO. The operation of the CPO analysis subroutine 800, and in particular, the execution of steps 810 through 815, is discussed further below in conjunction with the example that follows. The identified differences are returned to the CPO modification recommendation process 700 (for communication to the buyer) during step 830, before execution of the CPO analysis subroutine 800 terminates.

EXAMPLE Receive CPO #364 (FIG. 5) during step 710 (FIG. 7). Determine that CPO #364 is unlikely to be accepted during step 720

(FIG. 7) since no products in product database 600 satisfy the CPO. Products having a minimum acceptable price that is less than or equal to the price specified by the buyer in the CPO are identified during step 805 (FIG. 8): (product identifiers TV76, RF32, IK34, TV22, NH87, RT95 and BT34). A selection option is determined during step 810 (FIG. 8) for each condition (manufacturer, screen size, picture-in-picture) to each identified product: TV76 (232), RF32 (132), IK34 (132), TV22 (232), NH87 (332), RT95 (222) and BT34 (222).

An overall score is computed for each identified product measuring the extent to which the determined selection options differ from set of selection options specified in original CPO. The selection options specified in the original CPO are (221). As previously indicated, no products in the product database 600 satisfy the original CPO. Assume that the conditions are weighted with an inverse relationship to their rank as follows: manufacturer = 3, screen size =2 and picture-in-picture=l. Then each identified product is assigned the following assigned score during step 815:

Product Difference Values Component Scores O\ ^rerall Score (Difference Values x Weighting Factors)

TV76 (011) (021) 3

RF32 (011) (021) 3

IK34 (OH) (021) 3

TV22 (OH) (021) 3

RT95 (001) (001) 1

BT34 (001) (001) 1

Assuming the predetermined number, N, of identified products having the lowest overall score is two, products "RT95" and "BT34" are the two products having the lowest score. Thus, products "RT95" and "BT34" are used during step 820 (FIG. 8) to identify recommendations that will make the CPO more likely to be accepted. Since both products "RT95" and "BT34" differ from the original CPO only in the picture-in-picture option, the present invention can recommend that the buyer change the picture-in-picture condition to no longer require that the television has the picture-in-picture feature. In this manner, the modified CPO minimally affects the perceived value of the qualifying products to the buyer. It is noted that the present invention can incorporate a tie-breaker algorithm to select one recommended modification from among the modifications produced by the unacceptable CPO analysis subroutine 800, or the present invention can pass along all of the modifications for review by the buyer. In a further variation, the CPO modification recommendation process

700 can be used to change a CPO from an acceptable one that is less beneficial (e.g., less profitable) to the CPO management system 200 to one that is more beneficial (e.g., more profitable) to the CPO management system 200, as would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

It is to be understood that the embodiments and variations shown and described herein are merely illustrative of the principles of this invention and that various modifications may be implemented by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention.

Claims

We claim:

1. A method for processing an offer for a product, said offer having a plurality of associated conditions, at least one of said conditions havmg a plurality of selection options, comprising the steps of: receiving a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product; evaluating a likelihood of acceptance of said conditional purchase offer by one or more potential sellers of said product; determining a modification of at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted; and communicating said modification to said buyer.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein said likelihood of acceptance is obtained by comparing said conditional purchase offer to historical conditional purchase offer data.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said likelihood of acceptance is obtained by evaluating a demand forecast.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein said likelihood of acceptance is obtained by comparing said conditional purchase offer to sales information.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein said likelihood of acceptance is obtained by comparing said conditional purchase offer to estimated pricing information.

6. The method according to claim 1, wherein said likelihood of acceptance is obtained by comparing said conditional purchase offer to actual pricing information.

7. The method according to claim 1, wherein said step of determining a modification of at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted further comprises the step of ranking said conditions.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of processing a modified conditional purchase offer from said buyer for said product.

9. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of processing an acknowledgement from said buyer of said modification to said at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted.

10. The method according to claim 1, wherein said conditional purchase offer is a binding conditional purchase offer.

11. The method according to claim 1, wherein said selection options are ranked to facilitate the identification of qualifying products having a lower price and more likely to be accepted at the buyer-specified price.

12. The method according to claim 1, wherein said conditions are ranked to identify a modified conditional purchase offer that is similar to the original conditional purchase offer.

13. The method according to claim 1, wherein said conditions and selection options are ranked to modify lower ranking conditions and selection options.

14. The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of assigning a score to each qualifying product having a minimum acceptable price that is less than or equal to a price specified by the buyer.

15. The method according to claim 14, further comprising the step of determining a selection option for each condition for each qualifying product and comparing the determined selection options to the corresponding selection options specified in the original conditional purchase offer.

■ 16. The method according to claim 14, further comprising the step of selecting a predetermined number of qualifying products having the lowest score to determine said modifications.

17. A method for processing an offer for a product, comprising the steps of: receiving a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product, said conditional purchase offer containing at least one buyer-defined condition, said condition having a plurality of selection options; determining at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer unlikely to be accepted; recommending a modification to said purchase offer to make said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted; and processing a modified conditional purchase offer.

18. The method of claim 17, further comprising the step of processing an acknowledgement from said buyer of said modification to said at least one selection option making said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted.

19. The method according to claim 17, wherein said selection options are ranked to facilitate the identification of qualifying products having a lower price and are thus, more likely to be accepted at the buyer-specified price.

20. The method according to claim 17, wherein said conditions are ranked to identify a modified conditional purchase offer that is similar to the original conditional purchase offer.

21. The method according to claim 17, wherein said conditions and selection options are ranked to modify lower ranking conditions and selection options.

22. The method according to claim 17, further comprising the step of assigning a score to each qualifying product having a minimum acceptable price that is less than or equal to a price specified by the buyer.

23. The method according to claim 22, further comprising the step of assigning a selection option for each condition for each qualifying product and comparing the determined selection options to the corresponding selection options specified in the original conditional purchase offer.

24. The method according to claim 22, further comprising the step of selecting a predetermined number of qualifying products having the lowest score to determine said modifications.

25. A method for processing an offer for a product, said offer having a plurality of associated conditions, at least one of said conditions having a plurality of selection options, comprising the steps of: receiving a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product; determining at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer unlikely to be accepted; and recommending one or more modifications to said conditional purchase offer that will make said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted.

26. The method of claim 25, further comprising the step of processing an acknowledgement from said buyer of said one or more modifications to said conditional purchase offer making said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted.

27. The method according to claim 25, wherein said selection options are ranked to facilitate the identification of qualifying products having a lower price and are thus, more likely to be accepted at the buyer-specified price.

28. The method according to claim 25, wherein said conditions are ranked to identify a modified conditional purchase offer that is similar to the original conditional purchase offer.

29. The method according to claim 25, wherein said conditions and selection options are ranked to modify lower ranking conditions and selection options.

30. The method according to claim 25, further comprising the step of assigning a score to each qualifying product having a minimum acceptable price that is less than or equal to a price specified by the buyer.

31. The method according to claim 30, further comprising the step of assigning a selection option for each condition for each qualifying product and comparing the determined selection options to the corresponding selection options specified in the original conditional purchase offer.

32. The method according to claim 30, further comprising the step of selecting a predetermined number of qualifying products having the lowest score to determine said modifications.

33. A system for processing an offer for a product, said offer having a plurality of associated conditions, at least one of said conditions having a plurality of selection options, comprising: a memory for storing computer-readable code; and a processor operatively coupled to said memory, said processor configured to: receive a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product; evaluate a likelihood of acceptance of said conditional purchase offer by one or more potential sellers of said product; determine a modification of at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted; and communicate said modification to said buyer.

34. A system for processing an offer for a product, comprising: a memory for storing computer-readable code; and a processor operatively coupled to said memory, said processor configured to: receive a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product, said conditional purchase offer containing at least one buyer-defined condition, said condition having a plurality of selection options; determine at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer unlikely to be accepted; recommend a modification to said purchase offer to make said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted; and process a modified conditional purchase offer.

35. A system for processing an offer for a product, said offer having a plurality of associated conditions, at least one of said conditions having a plurality of selection options, comprising: a memory for storing computer-readable code; and a processor operatively coupled to said memory, said processor configured to: receive a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product; determine at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer unlikely to be accepted; and recommend one or more modifications to said conditional purchase offer that will make said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted.

36. An article of manufacture for processing an offer for a product, said offer having a plurality of associated conditions, at least one of said conditions having a plurality of selection options, comprising: a computer readable medium having computer readable code means embodied thereon, said computer readable program code means comprising: a step to receive a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product; a step to evaluate a likelihood of acceptance of said conditional purchase offer by one or more potential sellers of said product; a step to determine a modification of at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted; and a step to communicate said modification to said buyer.

37. An article of manufacture for processing an offer for a product, comprising: a computer readable medium having computer readable code means embodied thereon, said computer readable program code means comprising: a step to receive a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product, said conditional purchase offer containing at least one buyer-defined condition, said condition having a plurality of selection options; a step to determine at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer unlikely to be accepted; a step to recommend a modification to said purchase offer to make said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted; and a step to process a modified conditional purchase offer.

38. An article of manufacture for processing an offer for a product, said offer having a plurality of associated conditions, at least one of said conditions having a plurality of selection options, comprising: a computer readable medium having computer readable code means embodied thereon, said computer readable program code means comprising: a step to receive a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product; a step to determine at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer unlikely to be accepted; and a step to recommend one or more modifications to said conditional purchase offer that will make said conditional purchase offer more likely to be accepted.

39. A method for processing an offer for a product, said offer having a plurality of associated conditions, at least one of said conditions having a plurality of selection options, comprising the steps of: receiving a conditional purchase offer from a buyer for said product; evaluating a profitability of said conditional purchase offer; determining a modification of at least one selection option that makes said conditional purchase offer more profitable; and communicating said modification to said buyer.