In an era where ratings and reviews shape consumer behavior and business reputation, the format in which performance scores are presented can dramatically alter how they are perceived. Firms like Uber, Amazon, and TripAdvisor present scores in a variety of formats: incremental (a raw score per occurrence), cumulative (updated average scores), or a combination thereof. A recent Journal of Marketing Research article examines the impact of incremental scores versus cumulative averages on judgments and why these matter for managers, platform designers, and policymakers.

It demonstrates that the presentation of performance scores—whether as cumulative averages, individual (incremental) scores, or a combination—can significantly influence how people evaluate products, services, or individuals. The authors find that when a generally well-performing entity receives a negative score, people view it as less damaging when the information is presented in a cumulative format. This presentation reduces negativity bias and helps prevent overreactions such as customer churn. However, incremental formats make single bad scores stand out more strongly, which could be helpful in contexts where managers want to stress accountability or encourage improvement.

The implications are far-reaching. For example, a restaurant with fluctuating quality may benefit from incremental formats that highlight recent improvements, while a ride-sharing app might prefer cumulative scores to maintain a stable reputation. The study also reveals that when both formats are presented together, users tend to focus more on the most extreme score—especially if it is negative—suggesting that hybrid formats may not provide the balance designers expect.

Managers can use these insights to tailor score presentation formats to different user segments. Novices may benefit from incremental feedback that encourages progress, while experts prefer cumulative scores that reflect long-term performance. The authors also suggest that dynamically switching formats could help platforms manage user expectations and behavior, though this approach may introduce confusion if not carefully designed.

Ultimately, this research highlights a subtle yet powerful lever for influencing consumer judgment. By rethinking how scores are presented, organizations can more effectively manage perceptions, foster trust, and achieve desired outcomes.

We had a chance to connect with one of the authors to learn more about their study and gain additional insights:

Q: Your research examines how the presentation format of quantitative scores affects decision makers’ evaluations. Did you have any observations that sparked your interest in reviewing the phenomenon closely and studying its consequences?

A: Yes, my two coauthors, Arne and Jeroen, are typically incredibly observant of the marketplace. Also, for this project, I actually learned it from them. They noticed that platforms like Uber, at the time, were using cumulative rating formats, while another app, Lyft, was using incremental formats. Building on that observation, we also looked at discussions on Reddit to see what people were saying about these differences. These different formats might have effects, and it became a nice combination of marketplace observation and psychological inquiry. We began asking: what kind of things vary in the marketplace? Do companies differ in their approaches, and could that have an impact?

If different companies are using various formats, there may be a reason behind it. Sometimes, companies haven’t thought it through, but in other cases, especially with tech companies, they have very deliberate reasons for their choices. From a psychological perspective, that makes it especially interesting to delve deeper. That was the starting point of this research.

Q: The research indicates that the presentation format has a significant impact on decision making when scores deviate. How do you suspect these findings would hold (or differ) in the context where performance expectations are less standardized and tend to be more subjective, such as creative services?

A: That is a good question. We haven’t thoroughly examined subjective domains, and several factors may be at play here. One thing to consider is that when it comes to highly subjective matters, people sometimes have strong preexisting preferences. For example, if I like the paintings of a particular artist, I will still appreciate them regardless of the score. In such cases, when people have strong preferences, ratings don’t matter much, and so the rating format likely won’t matter either.

On the other hand, in situations where people don’t have firm preexisting opinions, such as wine tasting, ratings can serve as a crucial cue. Many people lack in-depth expertise (strong preexisting opinions) in wine, so they tend to rely more on ratings (e.g., on an app like Vivino), whereas experts tend to depend less on them. Therefore, it can go either way, depending on how strong people’s preexisting preferences are.

It may also depend on the decision environment. When buying online without direct access to the product, ratings become more influential. If we do have direct access or if rich visual information is available, heavy reliance on ratings decreases. However, on many online platforms, ratings are among the primary pieces of information that influence purchase decisions.

Q: Among the many interesting findings in your study, were there any results that surprised you? If so, could you share which aspects stood out to you the most?

A: Yes, two findings were astonishing. Based on initial observations, one might have predicted that the combined format—which shows both cumulative and incremental ratings—would produce evaluations somewhere in between the two. For instance, if people see a negative score alongside a positive overall average, one might expect them to weigh both pieces of information and arrive at a more moderate judgment. However, consistent with theory on sensitivity to extremes, we found that evaluations in the combined format aligned entirely with the incremental presentation. When they encounter a negative score, it is challenging to ignore, and it strongly pulls down their overall evaluation.

Equally surprising was the strength of this effect. The effect sizes were much larger than we anticipated. To illustrate, in one of our studies, we asked participants to consider a product with an average rating of 4.2 based on five scores, four of which were maximum ratings. When asked to infer the missing score, many participants still significantly overestimated it. Instead of recognizing that the missing score must have been 1, participants often assumed it was a 2 or 3. In other words, the overall average of 4.2 seemed to “pull” their inference upward, making the extreme negative observation less salient than it genuinely was. People may systematically misestimate underlying scores, even in cases where the math is simple.

Q: Did you observe or imagine any unintended downsides to using cumulative formats, for instance, situations where critical problems might be masked rather than addressed? Can managers detect or avoid sweeping serious negative feedback under the rug in an average-based system?

A: Yes, this is a very real concern. One situation we examined was how cumulative formats can obscure recent performance issues, particularly in contexts such as app evaluations. For example, a local TV station had an app that initially received decent ratings. However, after a significant update, the app’s performance declined. Despite this, the cumulative score remained relatively high, masking the recent problems. In such cases, managers need to look beyond the overall average and examine incremental scores to understand what’s happening in the present.

This issue is not limited to apps. Service contexts such as restaurants, for instance, can vary significantly in quality over time. A place might have been excellent in the past but could be struggling now. If customers only see the cumulative score, they might miss these recent dips in quality. On the other hand, some services are inherently variable, experiencing random hiccups that aren’t sustained. In those cases, a cumulative score might be more representative of the overall experience.

Therefore, yes, cumulative formats can mask critical problems, and managers should exercise caution. They need to monitor recent feedback and not rely solely on averages, and they should actively do so. Otherwise, they risk overlooking serious issues that could impact customer satisfaction and retention.

Q: Can you envision a system where different user groups (novice/experts, high-value/low-value customers) would benefit from tailored score presentation formats? How might platforms segment their audience or dynamically switch formats to maximize desired behavioral outcomes?

A: Absolutely. The format of score presentation should align with the platform’s goals and the characteristics of its users. For example, if the goal is to encourage users to get started or continue engaging with a service, incremental formats can be more motivating. Imagine a course where the scores are 2, 3, 3, and then a sudden 5. Seeing the incremental progress might encourage someone to keep going. In contrast, a cumulative score might make the journey seem steep or discouraging, despite a recent maximum score.

There may also be the psychological impact of losing a perfect score. For instance, if someone has a cumulative score of 5 and then receives a 4, they may feel as though they’ve lost something valuable. This is a real issue: Some people react strongly to losing a perfect rating, as seen in platforms like Uber. Although we haven’t directly tested these scenarios, they are interesting and relevant.

Different users respond differently to feedback. Some are encouraged by seeing improvement, while others might be discouraged by a dip in their average. Platforms could segment users based on their behavior or preferences and present scores in a format that best supports their engagement. This kind of dynamic tailoring could be a powerful tool for influencing user behavior and satisfaction.

Q: If you could extend this research in any direction, which new context or type of platform would you benefit most from experimenting with score presentation formats, and why?

A: A promising direction would be to explore the dynamic switching of formats, where platforms change how scores are presented based on user behavior or context. For example, if a user receives a series of high scores (say, five 5s) and then gets a 1, the platform might switch to a cumulative format to soften the impact. However, if the user improves again, it may revert to an incremental format. However, this kind of switching can be confusing. Users may not understand why the format changed or what it means for their performance.

Cumulative formats are challenging for users to interpret. They require users to understand that they need to improve to increase their score consistently. This can feel like a slow climb, especially after a setback. The interplay between shifting formats, user expectations, and the pursuit of a perfect score creates a complex psychological landscape.

We’ve only studied one or two sequences that could realistically occur in the real world, but there’s a lot more to explore. Platforms like ride-sharing apps, educational tools, and fitness trackers could benefit from experimenting with different formats. Understanding how users respond to these changes can help platforms design more effective feedback systems that support motivation, satisfaction, and long-term engagement.

Source: Christophe Lembregts, Jeroen Schepers, and Arne De Keyser (2023), “Is It as Bad as It Looks? Judgments of Quantitative Scores Depend on Their Presentation Format,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (5), 937–54. doi:10.1177/00222437231193343.

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post The Psychology of Feedback Design: How the Same Ratings Look Better (or Worse) Depending on Format appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Atlanta has always known a little something about influence.

It’s the city where culture and commerce meet on Peachtree Street, where creators become movements, and where local pride shapes global trends. From trap music to tech startups, what starts in this city doesn’t stay here – it travels.

And that’s the lesson some marketers miss: local isn’t small. It’s powerful.

In a world obsessed with scale, the most meaningful growth still begins at the street level. Because influence isn’t built by algorithms. It’s earned through credibility, community, and connection, through the places and people that give a city its soul.

This isn’t a new playbook. It’s a return to what works.

Lesson 1: Relevance Starts Where Culture Lives

Marketers love data, but real connection starts with context. If you want to reach people, you have to understand how they live.

Relevance doesn’t come from geotargeting; it comes from understanding why high school football feels like religion on a Friday night in Georgia, or why the Atlanta BeltLine has become both a gathering place and a brand statement.

When brands show up in ways that respect that rhythm – from community partnerships to neighborhood storytelling – they stop advertising and start belonging.

Take The Atlanta Falcons and Delta’s hometown storytelling or Nike’s support of local rec leagues. These aren’t “local activations.” They’re local affirmations – proof that a brand sees its audience for who they are, not just where they are.

The takeaway? Stop targeting places and start understanding people.

Lesson 2: Credibility Is a Bridge, Not a Billboard

Trust is the most valuable currency in marketing today. Audiences crave authenticity and they can spot inauthenticity faster than ever.

That’s why credible partnerships matter. They build the bridge between what a brand wants to say and what a community is willing to hear.

We see this play out every day across Georgia. When a brand aligns with a trusted local voice – whether that’s a journalist, a creator, or a long-standing institution – it borrows trust that’s already been earned.

In our recent Brandweek Group Chat, we talked about how top brands use that bridge to scale impact from neighborhood to nationwide. The pattern is clear: credibility travels further than media spend.

Because when you’re trusted locally, your message carries globally.

Lesson 3: Influence Without Intention Is Just Noise

Atlanta is loud in the best way. But here’s the truth: volume isn’t influence.

Every brand can make noise. Few can make meaning.

The most effective marketers understand the why behind their campaigns. Are you trying to mobilize a community? Spark conversation? Shift perception? Without clarity, even the boldest ideas fade.

At AJC Ads, we’ve seen what happens when credibility, culture, and intention align. A message stops being a campaign and becomes a catalyst. That’s when people stop scrolling and start caring.

The Atlanta Lesson

Atlanta has always been a study in duality: old and new, rooted and rising, tradition and innovation. That’s what makes it the perfect metaphor for modern marketing.

The future of influence won’t belong to whoever shouts the loudest. It will belong to the brands that listen, that invest in the communities they serve, and that understand what it means to show up where credibility meets culture.

Because when a brand shows up with intention, earns trust, and moves people where they live, that’s not marketing. That’s legacy.

And that’s influence where it matters.

Photo Credits:

Header image- https://www.pexels.com/photo/close-up-photo-of-mural-on-the-wall-10757126/

Body image 2- https://www.pexels.com/photo/street-in-atlanta-12891221/

Body image 3- https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-with-shopping-cart-at-rustic-bus-stop-33637033/

The post Where Credibility Meets Culture: The Future of Local Influence appeared first on American Marketing Association.

We uncover a powerful insight: the key to increasing AI adoption lies not in technical sophistication but in emotional engagement. When AI feels magical, it inspires curiosity, excitement, and trust. Harnessing this emotional response can unlock new opportunities for innovation and growth across industries.

This sense of wonder drives a willingness to adopt AI, even though these users often perceive AI as less capable or ethical than those with greater AI literacy.

In contrast, consumers with higher AI literacy take a more critical view of AI, focusing on its technical limitations and ethical concerns. This group is less likely to see AI as magical and, as a result, is slower to adopt new tools or products.

Implications for Marketers and Product Designers

This gap in adoption behavior has significant implications for marketers, product developers, and policymakers. It challenges the common assumption that tech-savvy consumers are the leading edge of AI adoption. Instead, businesses targeting lower-literacy audiences can emphasize AI’s awe-inspiring potential to drive engagement and usage.

For example, marketing campaigns showcasing AI’s ability to generate lifelike images, analyze complex patterns, or offer empathetic care can resonate deeply with consumers who view these capabilities as extraordinary. By focusing on the “magic” of AI, brands can tap into the sense of wonder that drives adoption.

Marketing campaigns showcasing AI’s ability to generate lifelike images, analyze complex patterns, or offer empathetic care can resonate deeply with consumers who view these capabilities as extraordinary.

Balancing Wonder and Responsibility

This approach comes with a caution. Although lower AI literacy fosters adoption through magical thinking, it may also leave these consumers vulnerable to misuse or misrepresentation. For instance, users may overestimate AI’s capabilities or fail to recognize its limitations, leading to ethical and practical challenges.

Marketers and policymakers must strike a balance between highlighting AI’s potential and promoting informed usage. Clear messaging about AI’s capabilities and boundaries can help prevent misunderstandings while maintaining the sense of wonder that encourages adoption.

Another key challenge involves the role of education. As AI literacy increases, the perception of AI as magical diminishes. While education is crucial for fostering responsible use, it may inadvertently dampen adoption by reducing the sense of awe that motivates initial engagement. Policymakers and educators need to design programs that enhance understanding without eroding the excitement that drives consumers to explore new technologies.

Tailoring Strategies to Audience Perceptions

The study also highlights the broader implications of consumer perceptions for AI integration. Businesses should consider how AI is positioned within their offerings, ensuring that messaging aligns with the target audience’s level of understanding and emotional response.

For example, companies developing AI-powered tools for creative industries might focus on the “magic” of artistic generation, appealing to less tech-savvy consumers. Meanwhile, brands targeting professionals or experts might emphasize transparency and accuracy, addressing the more critical lens through which these audiences view AI.

Ultimately, the findings suggest that marketers and product developers must tailor their strategies to different segments of the population. By understanding how consumers perceive and interact with AI, businesses can create products and campaigns that resonate more effectively with their audiences.

Source: Stephanie Tully, Chiara Longoni, and Gil Appel, “Lower Artificial Intelligence Literacy Predicts Greater AI Receptivity,” Journal of Marketing, 89 (5), 1–20.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Those Who Know Less About AI are More Likely to Adopt It appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Discover the most comprehensive affiliate marketing study powered by real Instagram affiliate data. This report reveals 15 top insights every e-commerce brand should know, from the rise of social commerce to optimizing content mix, tracking performance, and understanding how always-on creator programs can drive sales. You’ll find practical takeaways on market dynamics, platform strategy, creator collaborations, content formats, partnership models, and performance KPIs. Explore how leading brands shape their influencer content, which industries are setting the pace, and the metrics that truly drive sales. Whether you’re a VP of Marketing, an Influencer Partnerships Manager, or a Brand Owner, this report will help refine your 2026 strategy and turn creator impact into measurable growth.

The post 15 Influencer Marketing Trends to double your Affiliate Sales appeared first on American Marketing Association.

In today’s media landscape, the dual threats of AI-generated content and plagiarism are eroding audience trust and creating financial and legal risks for media and publishing companies.

Download the new guide from Copyleaks to explore:

• How to combat the rising challenges of content authenticity
• Protecting intellectual property and revenue streams from AI misuse and piracy
• Why content verification is a strategic investment that safeguards your brand’s reputation
• An enterprise-ready solution for AI and plagiarism detection at scale

The post How AI and Plagiarism Threaten Media Integrity and Profitability appeared first on American Marketing Association.

A recent Journal of Marketing Research study by Katherine L. Christensen and Suzanne B. Shu explores exactly this phenomenon. They call it the heritage discount: the tendency for sellers of sentimental or heritage goods to accept lower prices from buyers who share a meaningful connection to the goods’ past. Surprisingly, this happens even when sellers believe the buyer would have been willing to pay more.

They call it the heritage discount: the tendency for sellers of sentimental or heritage goods to accept lower prices from buyers who share a meaningful connection to the goods’ past. Surprisingly, this happens even when sellers believe the buyer would have been willing to pay more.

How the Heritage Discount Affects Markets

The implications of this research extend far beyond individual sales, shaping outcomes for consumers, marketers, and policymakers alike. Heritage value plays a role in massive industries—from the $58 billion self-storage market and the $43 trillion U.S. housing market to the $200 billion secondhand sector and the $450 billion collectibles market.

For marketers, these insights open the door to designing new products and experiences that help consumers maintain a connection to their heritage, whether through family heirlooms, brand storytelling, or collaborations like 23andMe’s partnership with Airbnb’s heritage travel. Such efforts can create offerings that resonate across generations.

Heritage framing also carries weight in the policy sphere. Conservationists, for example, may increase support for protecting natural resources by highlighting their ties to past generations, reducing the public’s willingness to lease or sell them for short-term gain.

Curious about the bigger picture, we asked the authors to share additional takeaways from their study:

Q: Your research uncovers a surprising “heritage discount,” whereby sellers are willing to accept lower prices from buyers with shared heritage. What emotional or psychological dynamics might explain this? Were there any reactions or patterns that genuinely surprised you during your studies?

Dr. Shu: From a more theory-driven perspective, I’ve done other work on the endowment effect and psychological ownership. What intrigued me about this project and what Kate brought into it was that you usually put more value on it when you own something. That’s the endowment effect.

But with heritage, we were proposing something different: you might be willing to accept a lower price. That’s the opposite of the endowment effect, and that flip was fascinating. I’m always curious when a well-established finding in the literature is robust across many studies but then you discover a specific context where it reverses.

In this case, the heritage discount shows up when you sell to someone who can continue the story and respect that heritage. For instance, if Kate were selling her teacups to a collector who didn’t care about continuing the heritage, she would ask for a higher price. But if the buyer valued the teacup’s heritage and wanted to keep it alive, she’d be willing to accept less.

To me, that’s the most interesting part: the heritage discount only applies when the buyer is someone who will keep the story and the heritage alive.

Q: How might the concept of heritage connection help brands support sustainability goals, such as encouraging product longevity, reducing waste, or fostering intergenerational value?

Dr. Christensen: One of the significant trends we’re seeing right now is the rise of vintage. While our paper primarily focuses on transactions, we define heritage goods as goods linked to the past, whether historically or symbolically.

The idea that the past carries symbolic value can increase how much heritage buyers value a product. This is particularly relevant when people use vintage items, such as fashion inspired by the ’90s or ’70s. By wearing these pieces, people aren’t just dressing themselves—they are bringing a piece of their past into the present and sharing it with others. This act becomes a “gift,” offering a glimpse into a different world.

If sellers believe that the past carries value, they may also be more willing to sell. The past can be defined in many ways: an era, a community’s history, even a nation’s identity. That’s why we see a rise in vintage fashion and, in some cases, a rise in nationalism. Both are ways people try to connect to the past.

This concept plays out in sustainability and the environment, too. Think about how people connect to the human past and are tied to the land (in meaningful ways). For example, I recently learned that my uncle’s family were Adirondack guides who once took Theodore Roosevelt through the Adirondacks. When I return to those mountains, I experience them differently—I feel connected to that history, which increases the value of the place for me.

Q: How can environmental organizations and policymakers leverage your findings that framing natural resources as shared heritage reduces public support for exploitation?

Dr. Christensen: National parks provide one of the easiest examples of an intergenerational tie to the land. For me, that’s also my tie to the Adirondack Mountains. I was just there recently, and I had this powerful feeling that the trees were changing, connecting me back to my grandmother, even though she’s no longer here. That is why the natural landscape holds tremendous value to me.

I think that’s something you see often in regional marketing: how it ties people to the past. You also see it in the national parks. Their retro branding, for instance, emphasizes the idea of connecting to your ancestors. In a way, the parks themselves are marketed as a type of heritage good.

There’s also this initiative where fourth graders get a free national parks pass for a year, and their whole family can enjoy it. That’s positioned almost like a gift parents can give their kids—something that connects to what they did as children while creating new memories for the next generation.

So, the parks are marketed as timeless destinations, where parents, children, and even grandparents can share a sense of continuity and connection across generations

Q: Your research touches on the power of heritage in shaping value, but heritage can also be a sensitive area, especially regarding things like Indigenous crafts, national symbols, or traditional foods. What can marketers learn from your findings about why some communities push back against the commercialization of culturally significant goods?

Dr. Christensen: If you look at almost any nation’s history, there’s usually an original group that owned it, and then there was a loss of ownership. So, when another group comes in, and it’s not the original group, not the Indigenous group in your example, it can feel like a massive loss of heritage connection. If the transaction is viewed as purely about money, then that sense of loss and disutility is very high.

Often, when we see cultural trends that borrow from historically disempowered groups, there’s a sense that the practice isn’t really connected to the past. It’s just being used as a visual signifier. And that disconnect leads to tremendous backlash.

One of the most interesting examples I’ve seen in the work of some wonderful colleagues, focuses on restoring heritage to people who have lost that connection. The forced relocation of many Indigenous communities has had a lasting impact. In their new locations, these communities often lose traditional access to vital resources, such as water needed for growing crops. Unlike those who were not forcibly moved, they may lack the resources or the ability to maintain a connection to their ancestral lands and history.

Rebuilding that connection strengthens the whole ecosystem. It’s not just the consumer. The producer makes the food and knows how to cook it, and then the consumer eats it. When all those layers feel connected to heritage, I hypothesize that the value increases for the end user and everyone along the line. Everyone who opts in wants to maintain that link to the past.

But it also matters who is doing it. Sometimes, groups want to separate from others’ histories because, in a sense, it’s not theirs, and that creates complications. Heritage can become competitive, and tensions around commercialization often emerge.

Q: In today’s digital world, consumers express their identities through social media memories, digital collectibles, and even AI-generated family stories. Do you see a heritage connection evolving in these virtual spaces?

Dr. Christensen: The growing digital world may increase our need to connect to the past. In terms of how it happens technically, social media makes it much faster and easier. Right now, you can create a virtual person or save your mom’s phone messages from the human desire to preserve memories. As people contemplate how to connect with and share their own memories, they find value in these digital artifacts. These things give us value as human beings, and I believe we’re losing some of that, which is why I think there’s a growing need for heritage in the digital world. It’s now easier to create products that resurface those connections. For example, how do we bring back memories from childhood? They’re there, just buried.

Do we want to preserve the ideas of our grandparents? For some, that might feel weird or even like a violation. But for others, it’s a powerful sense of connection to the past, something they’d likely pay more for not just for themselves but to pass on to future generations. I think that at moments when the future becomes present, the past becomes especially valuable. For example, that intergenerational link suddenly comes alive when you have a child. You’re both giving something to the future and wanting to preserve the past.

Q: How might this shift influence how people assign value or feel a sense of ownership over digital goods, and what could this mean for brands trying to build emotional connections online?

Dr. Shu: For some reason, my social media feeds have been filled lately with stories about people doing DNA testing and trying to trace their ancestors. It’s fascinating how technology makes it so easy now. People say, “I have a grandparent I know nothing about, and I don’t know how to trace them,” but DNA testing opens that door and gives them access. They can then do a bit more searching and find previously impossible connections.

That ability to rediscover heritage is powerful. It also opens space for brands to build emotional and heritage connections. Kate had a great example, but it didn’t make it into the paper, of Airbnb offering heritage-based vacations. Imagine someone whose family was originally from Turkey but lived elsewhere for generations. A descendant might say, “I wish I understood my connection to Turkey.” A trip could then be designed to take them back to their ancestral hometown.

We live in a society where people move around much more than in the past, when several generations might have stayed in the same small town. Today, companies can help people reconnect with their roots and their history. That’s something consumers respond to. They lack that connection and search for it, and brands can help fill that gap.

Source: Katherine L. Christensen and Suzanne B. Shu (2024), “The Role of Heritage Connection in Consumer Valuation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (3), 571–86. doi:10.1177/00222437231182434.

References

Absolute Reports (2023), “7.5% Growth in Self Storage Market by 2023−2028: Exploring the Growing Trend Regional Analysis Competitive Scenario,” GlobeNewswire (March 14), https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2023/03/14/2626474/0/en/7-5-Growth-in-Self-Storage-Market-by-2023-2028-Exploring-the-Growing-Trend-Regional-Analysis-CompetitiveScenario.html.

Credit Suisse (2020), “Collectibles: An Integral Part of Wealth,” research report, Credit Suisse Research Institute and Deloitte (October).

Market Decipher (2023), “Collectibles Market Size, Statistics, Growth Trend Analysis and Forecast Report, 2023-2033,” https://marketdecipher.com/report/collectibles-market.

ThredUp (2023), “Resale Report,” (accessed August 9, 2023), https://www.thredup.com/resale.

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post The Heritage Discount: The Story Behind the Price appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Melissa Bublitz is the Liz Kramer Professor of Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the School of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her research focuses on understanding and influencing behavior to promote the well-being of individuals and the communities where they live and work. Investigating topics such as food and nutrition security, sustainability, and grassroots social change, her research is characterized by a strong commitment to creating real-world impact and is often conducted in partnership with community organizations. She was part of a research team whose paper won the 2022 Thomas C. Kinnear/Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Award. She has been an associate editor at the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing since 2019 and at the Journal of Consumer Psychology since 2021.

Stacey Finkelstein is Professor of Marketing at the College of Business, Stony Brook University. She earned her PhD and MBA at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her research explores factors impacting food choices, health care access and utilization, and vaccine hesitancy. In her ongoing projects, she identifies areas of opportunity and challenges for the use of emerging technologies in health care settings, centering patient needs, preferences, and concerns. In recognition of her research, she received the AMA Marketing and Society Special Interest Group (MASSIG) early career award in 2019 and a best paper award from the Journal of Consumer Affairs in 2021. She has served as the chair of MASSIG from 2023–2025 and as an associate editor at the Journal of Business Research and Journal of Consumer Affairs.

The current editorial team, Jeremy Kees and Beth Vallen, are working with the new team to enable a smooth transition. Bublitz and Finkelstein will begin processing new submissions on April 1, 2026. Kees and Vallen will continue to handle submissions sent out for review or invited for revision prior to April 1.

–JPP&M Editor Selection Committee (Roland Rust [chair], Ron Hill, Linda Alkire, Kelly Martin, Joshua Dorsey, Jeff Inman, and Marilyn Stone)

• Journal of Public Policy & Marketing | Associate Editors
• Journal of Public Policy & Marketing | Editorial Review Board

The post New Editors at the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Simon Blanchard is the Dean’s Professor and Professor of Marketing at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. His research spans a broad range of consumer behavior and marketing research methods. He is currently an Associate Editor (AE) at JMR, and has also served as an AE at Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, and International Journal of Research in Marketing.

Bryan Bollinger is Professor of Marketing and Economic Policy at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business. His interdisciplinary research portfolio aims to understand the causal effects of marketing and policy decisions and the interdependent reactions by consumers and firms. He is currently an AE at JMR, and he has also served as an AE at Journal of Marketing and Quantitative Marketing and Economics.

Elea McDonnell Feit is Professor of Marketing at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business. Her research develops data-driven solutions to critical marketing decisions, including measuring ad performance, planning A/B tests, and designing new products. She is currently an AE at JMR, and she has also served as an AE at Management Science and Marketing Science.

Katrijn Gielens is Professor of Marketing at Tilburg University’s School of Economics and Management. Her research bridges marketing strategy, retailing, and quantitative modeling to uncover how firms create and sustain advantage through branding, channel design, and retail innovation. She has served as Editor in Chief of the Journal of Retailing and as an AE at Journal of Marketing.

Manoj Thomas is the Sabanci Professor of Management and Marketing and Associate Dean on NYC Initiatives at Cornell University’s SC Johnson College of Business. A behavioral scientist, he conducts experiments to understand how human psychology and marketing actions shape perceptions of economic value. He has served as an AE at JMR, Journal of Consumer Research, and Journal of Consumer Psychology.

The new editorial team will begin processing new manuscripts on April 1, 2026. The current editorial team (Hamilton, Gordon, Iyengar, Tuli, and Winterich) will continue to handle all revisions until the end of the review process for these papers.

–JMR Editor Selection Committee (Roland Rust [chair], Rajdeep Grewal, Amber Epp, Jeff Inman, Anja Lambrecht, Renana Peres, Steve Shugan, and Marilyn Stone)

• Journal of Marketing Research | Associate Editors
• Journal of Marketing Research | Editorial Review Board

The post Journal of Marketing Research Welcomes New Editorial Team for 2026–2029 appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Marketers appear to be facing a crisis of confidence. In the AMA and Kantar’s recent survey of marketers,[2] respondents’ confidence that their marketing team is doing the right things to drive growth is at its lowest point in the last five years (see Exhibit 1), and only half believe their organization has a clear strategy in place.

Many marketers and strategists consider segmentation to be the foundation of customer-driven (marketing) strategy, and it is often seen as one of the key tools to build a more customer-centric organization. However, while 72% of marketers agree segmentation is pivotal for truly understanding customers, the use of segmentation is often limited to the execution of strategy (messaging/communications, media planning) rather than being a key driver of the strategy itself (see Exhibit 2).

At their best, segmentations provide a single source of truth about the customer, what demand looks like, what customers need, and which needs are not being met. It should drive strategy through coordinated and synchronized execution across the entire organization. Without this unified view of the customer, organizations run the risk that personal biases distort decision making and that decisions across different parts of the organization are not aligned or, worse, conflict with one another. This misalignment will result in poor prioritization and inefficient investment across the organization, further eroding institutional trust in the marketing function.

So what should organizations do to ensure their investment in segmentation delivers broad impact? Our research identified three key principles:

1. Clarify the use cases
2. Look beyond the market today
3. Create new behaviors, not just new learnings

Clarify the Use Cases

Best-in-class segmentations are designed to inform specific use cases and specific commercial objectives so that their impact can be targeted and measured. These use cases can and should go further than solely marketing, powering decisions across product, sales, innovation, and M&A. Similarly, setting clear commercial objectives for the segmentation to feed into is a vital but often overlooked part of the project: When rushed, expectations can be misaligned, leading to the wrong program. Without complete clarity on its intended purpose, the design of the program is often muddled and generic, leading to disappointment:

• 37% of respondents indicate that specific design choices were made to answer precisely the intended use cases.
• 36% of respondents indicate that they are using the segmentation for all its intended purposes.

To solve this, it’s essential to get the input of a broader set of functions beyond just marketing (and especially insights/market research teams) before the program even starts. Understanding the needs of other teams and various levels in the organization is essential: Knowing how they make decisions and how the segmentation will be used is essential to creating the right tool and elevating it from a marketing execution tool to something driving broader organizational strategy and execution.

In those collaborative, multifunctional design discussions, however, it is crucial to be transparent about what the segmentation will and will not do. The best segmentations are deep, rich, multifaceted views of the marketplace rather than shallow catch-all datasets. Few respondents (23%; see Exhibit 3) indicate that stakeholders across teams were aware of what the segmentation would answer. Ensuring clarity from the start means expectations will be aligned, making it easier to embed the framework in the organization’s ways of working.

Look Beyond the Market Today

Businesses need to think beyond the current state of the market with their segmentations or risk missing huge opportunities to leverage them as a central strategic tool in future planning.

Many organizations are not using their segmentation to plan further than a year ahead (41% are only using them for short-term planning). The key pitfalls of this are:

1. The segmentation is not future-proofed in any way.
2. The focus is too narrow, aimed only at where the business plays today.

Segmentations are often unfairly maligned as a static snapshot in time. Great segmentation programs are dynamic, adaptable, and forward-looking. They are smartly designed to:

• Embed key customer and category trends into the program to arm teams with a better understanding of where change could be most profound.
• Integrate into other insight tools (such as tracker studies, social data, or panel data) to ensure an ongoing understanding of what is changing in the market.

Ensuring that the segmentation covers a market that is not too narrowly defined is equally critical. Too often, the segmentation captures a narrow scope, limited to the current (sub)categories the organization operates in, with the belief that a narrower focus means greater efficacy. Additionally, some teams take shortcuts by leveraging approaches that lack credible market sizing, essential for broader business buy-in. Not surprisingly, a mere 8% of respondents say their segmentation improved decisions on expansion opportunities. Broadening the aperture with provocative thinking about adjacent categories and shared consumer needs is critical to avoid missing the potential stretch and white-space opportunities the organization could go after.

Create New Behaviors, Not Just New Learnings

Segmentations are a key tool to drive consumer-centricity across businesses, but a tool alone won’t make change happen. To have an entire organization embrace it, extensive efforts need to be made to properly embed it within each team and integrate it into their ways of working. Many programs fall short on delivering this.

The reason is that embedding is often an afterthought: Only 1 in 3 give embedding significant thought during the design phase. One-off briefing meetings are by far the most common medium for sharing the results of the segmentation. Not surprisingly, only 15% of teams feel more motivated and energized by this approach. This reveals a telling misalignment in how organizations think of segmentations, treating them as a research project aimed at uncovering new insight, not an organizational change project where the goal is establishing powerful new behaviors. The outcome is then very predictable and disappointing, with a lack of understanding and use (see Exhibit 4).

Providing learning programs and inspiration tailored to each use case and reinforced with multiple touchpoints can help teams adopt meaningful changes in their ways of working and unlock significant value for organizations.

Conclusion

With turbulent market conditions and uncertainty likely to remain a key challenge in times ahead, joined-up thinking across teams and clear strategy has never been more important. Segmentations are uniquely placed to meet this challenge, but to do so, there needs to be a shift. They should no longer by viewed solely as an insights project but should be considered an organizational transformation initiative where a consistent and compelling view of the customer is fully ingrained across teams and functions, from business planning to execution.

To deliver this, segmentation must be:

• Forward-looking in terms of both the decisions it needs to drive and the market it will cover.
• More clearly tied to business outcomes rather than research outcomes, integrated as part of key KPIs and commercial objectives.
• Supported beyond the completion of the initial project with an engaging learning plan guiding teams to integrate it as a crucial part of their planning cycle and day-to-day processes.

Segmentations can unlock strategic clarity and drive growth—they just need to evolve.

[1] Segmentation here includes any demand or segmentation framework. For example, it can feature people, occasions, needs, or demand spaces.

[2] Survey among members of the American Marketing Association in May–June 2025; sample size N = 182.

The post Reinventing Segmentation: Moving Beyond Communications to Driving Impactful Strategy appeared first on American Marketing Association.

A new Journal of Marketing study finds that the first like on a social ad has a profound impact, significantly boosting both clicks and likes. However, as the number of likes increases, their influence on clicks diminishes. The research reveals two key forms of social influence at play: normative and informational. Normative influence encourages users to conform to social norms, leading them to like an ad simply because others have done so. Informational influence, on the other hand, drives meaningful actions like clicking on an ad when users perceive it as credible or relevant.

This dual effect of likes provides critical insights for marketers and platforms aiming to optimize ad performance and user engagement.

Key Findings: How Likes Shape User Behavior

• Initial Likes Are Critical: The first like on an ad acts as a powerful social cue, boosting both clicks and likes. It serves as a signal of credibility, encouraging users to engage with the content.
• Normative vs. Informational Influence: While the first like generates both normative and informational influence, additional likes primarily encourage conformity rather than meaningful engagement. This results in more users liking the ad but fewer clicking through to learn more.
• Plateau in Engagement: As the number of likes grows, their ability to drive clicks diminishes. This suggests that showing too many likes can dilute their informational value, leading to a plateau in meaningful engagement.

The first like is a critical moment for engagement. It signals to users that the content is worth their attention, encouraging both likes and clicks. However, as likes accumulate, their role shifts. Instead of driving deeper interactions, they primarily serve to reinforce conformity, leading users to simply like the ad without taking further action.

Practical Insights for Marketers

For marketers, these findings offer actionable strategies to enhance the effectiveness of social media ad campaigns:

• Optimize for Click-Through Campaigns: Campaigns designed to drive clicks should display only a few likes to preserve the informational value of the first like. This strategy helps maintain the ad’s perceived credibility, encouraging users to take action.
• Boost Brand Awareness: For campaigns focused on building brand awareness, showing higher like counts can leverage normative influence to make the ad appear more popular and widely accepted. This approach enhances brand perception and visibility.
• Tailor Social Cues to Campaign Goals: Marketers should carefully consider the type of engagement they aim to achieve. Balancing normative and informational influences can help design campaigns that maximize both likes and clicks.

By aligning the visibility of likes with campaign objectives, brands can optimize their return on investment.

Implications for Social Media Platforms

The study also has significant implications for social media platforms. Platforms like Instagram and Facebook continuously experiment with the visibility of likes, as seen in Instagram’s recent tests on hiding like counts. These decisions impact user behavior and advertiser outcomes, making it critical for platforms to strike the right balance.

Platforms can use these insights to refine how they display likes in ads. For click-through campaigns, limiting the visibility of likes can preserve the informational value of the first like, driving deeper engagement. For awareness campaigns, showing higher like counts can enhance normative influence, boosting surface-level engagement and brand visibility.

Platforms must consider how their design choices influence both user behavior and advertiser performance.

Challenges and Considerations

While likes are a powerful tool for driving engagement, their effects are not universal. Campaigns that rely too heavily on normative influence may fail to drive meaningful actions like clicks or purchases. Similarly, campaigns that prioritize clicks without considering the role of social cues risk missing opportunities to build brand awareness.

Another challenge lies in balancing authenticity with strategy. Overemphasizing likes as a metric of success can lead to inauthentic interactions, where users engage with content superficially rather than meaningfully. Platforms and marketers must work together to ensure that social cues are used in ways that enhance user experience and drive real value.

A Vision for the Future of Social Advertising

This study offers a framework for leveraging likes as a tool for both engagement and action. By recognizing the dual role of likes, marketers and platforms can design campaigns that deliver better results for advertisers while maintaining user trust.

In a world where attention is increasingly scarce, the ability to understand and harness the dynamics of social influence offers a competitive edge. Whether the goal is to drive clicks, increase likes, or boost brand awareness, leveraging the power of social cues is key to creating impactful campaigns.

Source: Song Lin and Shan Huang, “Do More ‘Likes’ Lead to More Clicks? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Social Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 89 (5), 88–110.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Do More Likes Lead to More Clicks? Evidence from a Social Advertising Field Experiment appeared first on American Marketing Association.