  Advertisers in online ad auctions are increasingly using auto-bidding
mechanisms to bid into auctions instead of directly bidding their value
manually. One prominent auto-bidding format is the target cost-per-acquisition
(tCPA) which maximizes the volume of conversions subject to a
return-of-investment constraint. From an auction theoretic perspective however,
this trend seems to go against foundational results that postulate that for
profit-maximizing bidders, it is optimal to use a classic bidding system like
marginal CPA (mCPA) bidding rather than using strategies like tCPA.
  In this paper we rationalize the adoption of such seemingly sub-optimal
bidding within the canonical quasi-linear framework. The crux of the argument
lies in the notion of commitment. We consider a multi-stage game where first
the auctioneer declares the auction rules; then bidders select either the tCPA
or mCPA bidding format and then, if the auctioneer lacks commitment, it can
revisit the rules of the auction (e.g., may readjust reserve prices depending
on the observed bids). Our main result is that so long as a bidder believes
that the auctioneer lacks commitment to follow the rule of the declared auction
then the bidder will make a higher profit by choosing the tCPA format over the
mCPA format.
  We then explore the commitment consequences for the auctioneer. In a
simplified version of the model where there is only one bidder, we show that
the tCPA subgame admits a credible equilibrium while the mCPA format does not.
That is, when the bidder chooses the tCPA format the auctioneer can credibly
implement the auction rules announced at the beginning of the game. We also
show that, under some mild conditions, the auctioneer's revenue is larger when
the bidder uses the tCPA format rather than mCPA. We further quantify the value
for the auctioneer to be able to commit to the declared auction rules.
