Would you like to review more for top marketing journals? This interactive, in-person workshop will help you learn how to write fair, thorough, and constructive reviews. You’ll write a review prior to attending the session, and then you’ll work with other attendees during the session to identify key strengths and weaknesses of the paper and priorities for moving forward in the review process. A plenary discussion with current editors of JMR, JM, and IJRM will highlight the benefits of serving as a reviewer and provide tips for writing effective and constructive reviews.

The workshop is targeted at early career scholars (assistant professors, post-docs, research fellows, PhD students in their last year), and the ideal participant would have submitted at least one paper to a leading marketing journal.

��������� Event Policies

The post 2026 Reviewer Workshop—Advice from the Editors appeared first on ���������.

Chicago, IL—The ��������� (���������) and the ��������� Foundation are pleased to recognize this year’s marketing award winners who were celebrated at the 2025 ��������� Summer Academic Conference held in Chicago, Illinois, August 22-24, 2025.

“The transformative marketing research being done has the potential to drive positive economic change on a global scale. Our scholars are harnessing data in ways that will define new methods, theories and collaborations across diverse disciplines,” said ��������� CEO, Bennie F. Johnson. “It was an honor to congratulate and celebrate all of this year’s awardees for their research and scholarship in the marketing profession. The future of marketing is dynamic thanks to the incredible and impactful work of the ��������� community.”

Thanks to our 2025 conference Co-Chairs:Colleen Harmeling, Florida State University; Tonya Bradford, University of California, Irvine; and Adithya B Pattabhiramaiah, Georgia Tech University.

This year’s winners are:

• Best Paper in Conference | “Navigating Brand Relationships with Bereaved Consumers: The Intensified Case of Mothers Experiencing Baby Loss” by Carissa Colligan, Elizabeth Minton, Cindy Wang, and Alexa Fox
• Valuing Diversity PhD Scholarship |
  • Vannesia Darby, Digital Marketing Director at Shondaland and is a Ph.D. candidate pursuing a degree in Business Administration with a marketing concentration at Kennesaw State University
  • Donovan Gordan, 4th Year Marketing Ph.D. Candidate at The University of Mississippi
• Robert J. Lavidge Global Marketing Research Award | Eric Schwartz, Associate Professor of Marketing at University of Michigan Ross School of Business
• Williams-Qualls-Spratlen Multicultural Mentoring Award of Excellence | Kevin D. Bradford, Professor of Teaching at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine
• ���������-EBSCO-RRBM Annual Award for Responsible Research in Marketing |��

Distinguished Winners

• Maura L. Scott, Sterling Bone, Glenn Christensen, Anneliese Lederer, Martin Mende, Brandon Christensen, and Marina Cozac, “” | Journal of Marketing Research
• Lynn Sudbury-Riley, Philippa Hunter-Jones, Ahmed Al-Abdin, and Michael Haenlein, “” | Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Winners

• Leonard Berry, Tracey Danaher, Timothy Keiningham, Lerzan Aksoy, and Tor W. Andreassen, “” | Journal of Marketing
• Ximena Garcia-Rada, Mary Steffel, Elanor F. Williams, and Michael I. Norton, “” | Journal of Consumer Research
• Arjen van Lin, Aylin Aydinli, Marco Bertini, Erica van Herpen, and Julia von Schuckmann, “” | Journal of Consumer Research
• Courtney Nations Azzari, Laurel Anderson, Martin Mende, Josephine Go Jefferies, Hilary Downey, Amy L. Ostrom, and Jelena Spanjol, “” | Journal of Service Research

Finalists

• Chuck Howard, David Hardisty, Abigail Sussman, and Marcel Lukas, ” | Journal of Marketing Research
• Edlira Shehu, Besarta Veseli, Michel Clement, and Karen Page Winterich, “” | Journal of Service Research

• Charles Coolidge Parlin Marketing Research Award | Pradeep K. Chintagunta, University of Chicago
• Thomas C. Kinnear / Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Award | Carlos Diaz Ruiz and Tomas Nilsson, “,” (Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, January 2023)
• S. Tamer Cavusgil Award (Journal of International Marketing Award) | Mark Cleveland, “,” (Journal of International Marketing, June 2024)
• Hans B. Thorelli Award (Journal of International Marketing Award) | Hugh M. Cannon and Attila Yaprak, “,” (Journal of International Marketing, December 2002)
• Paul E. Green Award / Vithala R. Rao Award (Journal of Marketing Research Award) | Szu-chi Huang, Michal Maimaran, and Daniella Kupor, “,” (Journal of Marketing Research, December 2024)
• Weitz-Winer-O’Dell Award (Journal of Marketing Research Award) | Yiyi Li and Ying Xie, “,” (Journal of Marketing Research, February 2020)
• Journal of Interactive Marketing Best Paper |
  • Winners: German Zenetti and Koen Pauwels, “,” (Journal of Interactive Marketing, November 2024)
  • Honorable Mention: Fotis Efthymiou, Christian Hildebrand, Emanuel de Bellis, and William H. Hampton, “,” (Journal of Interactive Marketing, May 2024)
• Shelby D. Hunt / Harold H. Maynard Award (Journal of Marketing Award) | Bastian Kindermann, Daniel Wentzel, David Antons, and Torsten-Oliver Salge, “”�� (Journal of Marketing, May 2024)
• Sheth Foundation / Journal of Marketing Award | Jonah Berger, Ashlee Humphreys, Stephan Ludwig, Wendy W. Moe, Oded Netzer, and David A. Schweidel, “” (Journal of Marketing, January 2020)
• ��������� / Marketing Science Institute/H. Paul Root Award (Journal of Marketing Award) | Maximilian Beichert, Andreas Bayerl, Jacob Goldenberg, and Andreas Lanz, “” (Journal of Marketing, July 2024)
• ��Louis W. Stern Award | Brett Josephson, Ju-Yeon Lee, Babu Mariadoss, and Jean Johnson, “,” (Journal of Marketing, January 2019)

Learn more about the winners and awards:

• Valuing PhD Scholarship: In partnership with the PhD Project and the ��������� Academic Council, the Valuing Diversity PhD Scholarship seeks to widen opportunities for underrepresented populations to attend marketing doctoral programs.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
• Robert J. Lavidge Global Marketing Research Award: The Robert J. Lavidge Global Marketing Research Award recognizes a marketing practitioner or educator who has devised and successfully implemented a research/insight procedure that has practical implications for use by others.
• Williams-Qualls-Spratlen Multicultural Mentoring Award of Excellence: This award recognizes world class marketing scholars and mentors of people of color while carrying on the legacy of Jerome Williams, Bill Qualls, and Thaddeus Spratlen.
• ���������-EBSCO-RRBM Annual Award for Responsible Research in Marketing: The purpose of this award is to recognize already-published responsible research in marketing where responsible research is defined as work that produces both useful and credible knowledge.��
• Charles Coolidge Parlin Marketing Research Award: The Charles Coolidge Parlin Marketing Research Award is the oldest and most distinguished award in the field.�� This award is given to leading scholars and practitioners in honor of Charles Coolidge Parlin who is considered the pioneer of marketing research.
• Thomas C. Kinnear/Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Award: Named after Journal of Public Policy & Marketing’s founding editor, Thomas C. Kinnear, the award honors articles that make the most significant contribution to the understanding of marketing and public policy issues within a three-year time period.����
• S. Tamer Cavusgil Award: Each year, the Editorial Board of Journal of International Marketing honors the article published in the calendar year that has the most significant contribution to the advancement and practice of international marketing management.
• Hans B. Thorelli Award: This award honors an article that has made the most significant and long-term contribution to international marketing theory or practice.
• Paul E. Green Award: This award honors the best Journal of Marketing Research article published within the last calendar year.
• Weitz-Winer-O’Dell Award: This award recognizes Journal of Marketing Research articles that have made the most significant long-term contribution to marketing theory, methodology, and/or practice.
• Journal of Interactive Marketing Best Paper Award: This award honors the best Journal of Interactive Marketing article published in a given calendar year.
• Shelby D. Hunt / Harold H. Maynard Award: Established in 1974 under the leadership of Journal of Marketing editor in chief Edward W. Cundiff, the Harold H. Maynard Award was established to honor the best Journal of Marketing article on marketing theory. The award was renamed the Shelby D. Hunt/Harold H. Maynard Award in 2015 to honor three-time award recipient Shelby D. Hunt, who led the establishment of an endowment to secure the award in perpetuity. This annual award continues to recognize articles published in the Journal of Marketing that make the most significant contributions to marketing theory in a given calendar year.
• ��������� / Marketing Science Institute / H. Paul Root Award: This annual award is given to the Journal of Marketing article that has made the most significant contribution to the advancement of the practice of marketing in a calendar year.����
• Louis W. Stern Award: This award recognizes outstanding articles in widely recognized and highly respected refereed journals that have made a significant contribution to the literature on marketing and channels of distribution.

###

���������t the ��������� (���������)

As the leading global professional marketing association, the ��������� is the essential community for marketers. From students and practitioners to executives and academics, we aim to elevate the profession, deepen knowledge, and make a lasting impact. The ��������� is home to five premiere scholarly journals including: Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Journal of International Marketing, and Journal of Interactive Marketing. Our industry-leading training events and conferences define future forward practices, while our professional development and PCM® professional certification advance knowledge. With 70 chapters and a presence on 350 college campuses across North America, the ��������� fosters a vibrant community of marketers. The association’s philanthropic arm, the ���������’s Foundation, is inspiring a more diverse industry and ensuring marketing research impacts public good. 

��������� views marketing as the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. You can learn more about ���������’s learning programs and certifications, conferences and events, and scholarly journals at ���������.org. 

The post ��������� and the Foundation Celebrate Marketing Scholars and Professionals Innovating Marketing’s Future appeared first on ���������.

Submission Window: August 1–October 31, 2026

Manuscripts are currently being solicited for an upcoming special issue of the Journal of International Marketing (JIM) dedicated to Global Endorsers (Influencers, Celebrities, and Opinion Leaders) in Marketing.

Background

Globally, expenditure on influencer marketing have exploded, increasing from US$1.2 billion in 2006 to $33 billion in 2025 (Statista 2025). According to a report issued by Allied Market Research (2023), global growth in the influencer market will average 28.6% over the next seven years, making it a $199.6 billion industry. In conjunction with this growth, there has been a high volume of research on influencer marketing that has investigated a wide range of factors related to its effectiveness (Fowler and Thomas 2023; Hudders and Lou 2023). While there have been several studies of social media marketing strategies for global influencers (Kara et al. 2021) and for brands (e.g., Wahid et al. 2023), relatively little academic work has focused on the global and cultural aspects of the influencer phenomenon.

Numerous influencers have massive social media followings, including some who can be regarded as global endorsers, as their appeal cuts across national boundaries. From a marketing standpoint, there are important distinctions between global, regional, and local influencers, yet relatively little is known about influencers who have global followings and what distinguishes them from those who do not. There are also political leaders who can be considered narrowband influencers and global icons (Peres et al. 2020). “Extant research has found that there are “distinct associations attached to global vs. local brands” (Sayin et al. 2024, p. 1) that potentially impact consumer expectations and consumer responses in different contexts, but similar frameworks have not been applied to better understand influencer marketing on a global level.

By the same token, the role of world-famous celebrities as global endorsers is increasingly important in marketing. Global celebrities with the largest number of followers include Cristiano Ronaldo (1.02 billion followers), Selena Gomez (683.9 million followers), and Justin Bieber (596.3 million followers) (Duarte 2025). Celebrities with large followings are not restricted to the Western world; several Chinese celebrities having large followings (Sun et al. 2022), and Korean pop acts such as BTS have fandoms that extend beyond their home country market. While there is much literature on factors associated with celebrity endorsement success, our knowledge is limited to a local context (e.g., Bergkvist and Zhou 2016). Few studies have focused on global campaigns using celebrities whose appeal transcends national boundaries (e.g., Shah, Olya, and Monkhouse 2023), on celebrities in emerging markets (e.g., Roy et al. 2019) or on cultural nuances and celebrities (Winterich, Gangwar, and Grewal 2018).

Opinion leaders are another group of global endorsers. They are consumers with higher expertise and/or willingness to spend effort to understand products and propagate their recommendations to other consumers (Kuksov and Liao 2019). Opinion leaders differ from influencers because they do not necessarily hold positions of power and/or prestige, and they may not have vast number of followers. Yet, compared with the literature on influencers and celebrities, research on the role of opinion leaders in international marketing and global branding is far less developed.

Collectively, global influencers, celebrities, and opinion leaders can be viewed as global endorsers in international marketing. There is a need for studies from the branding, consumer, and firm perspectives in terms of evaluation of and reaction to global endorsers. From a branding perspective, concepts of global brands (Özsomer, Batra, and Steenkamp 2024), perceived brand globalness (Liu et al. 2021), and self-identification with global consumer culture (Cleveland and Laroche 2006)—among others—may help unpack multiple questions: What leads to global endorsers’ cross-border audience? What attributes associated with these endorsers lead to higher effectiveness (with some consumer groups) and, ultimately, whether and how global endorsers can contribute to glocal branding strategy outcomes (Schmidt-Devlin, Özsomer, and Newmeyer 2022)?

From a consumer perspective, global consumer culture theory suggests that there is a sizeable group of consumers, especially those who highly identify with global consumer culture, for whom perceived brand globalness is important in purchase decisions. Yet, antiglobalization forces have called into question the degree to which global brands have an advantage (e.g., Davvetas et al. 2023).  As a result, more insight into perceptions of global, regional, and local endorsers and their effectiveness is needed. Some recent studies of brand choice that have conceptualized globalness and localness as a product attribute (Davvetas et al. 2023; Steenkamp 2014) may provide a useful framework for such analyses, in addition to those that have focused on global versus local brand choice (e.g., Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015).

From a firm perspective, the selection, evaluation, and retention of global endorsers is a critical task. Frameworks, decision tools, and road maps that can assist in these processes are needed and are welcome for this special issue. The role of recent developments such as generative AI, deepfakes, large language models, and others are also ripe for investigation.

Topics

We welcome studies that address the topic of global endorsers from the diverse angles explained above, including new developments, theories, models, methods, and frameworks. Single-country and single-study papers will not be considered. Multidisciplinary collaboration between international marketing scholars and scholars from other business disciplines is encouraged. We are also open to a wide variety of methods, including experiments, surveys, qualitative methods, conceptual development, meta-analysis, bibliographic study, and text mining, among others.

Potential research questions that may be addressed include (but are not limited to):

Defining and Understanding the Appeal of Global Endorsers

• Who are global endorsers? How can we define them? What kind of roles do they play in global branding and global brand management?
• How and why do global endorsers attract consumers and influence their behavior?
• What are the effects of global endorsers, both positive and negative (the dark side of global endorsers) on brand reputation, values, and trust?

Global Endorser Effectiveness

• How are global endorsers best employed in global promotional programs?
• How do global endorsers become effective brand ambassadors, icons, etc.?

Global Endorser Scope and Reach

• How do global endorsers navigate across regions/markets in terms of standardization/adaptation/glocalization of their messages, execution, and delivery?
• What types of adaptation are effective, and under which circumstances?
• What kind of relationships do followers build with global endorsers (e.g., parasocial)?
• How does the size of audience, the reach, and the nature of the endorser (global/regional/local) affect these relationships?
• Are there differences in the perceived authenticity of an endorsement for local/global brands based on whether the endorser is global/local?

Trends and Regulatory Factors Affecting Global Endorsement

• Are antiglobalization forces creating more demand for local endorsers in some context?
• What are the institutional (legal, regulatory) issues such as privacy laws (e.g., General Data Protection Regulation, California Consumer Privacy Act) that influence the ability to effectively employ global endorsers? What are best and worst institutional settings for global endorsers?

Differences in Endorser Strategy Based on Country or Level of Economic Development

• Are there differences in the way in which endorsers from some markets (e.g., China, the U.S., Germany, Brazil) are portrayed when used globally in comparison to others?
• Are global endorsers perceived differently in emerging versus advanced markets and, if so, should they be used in different ways as part of promotional programs?

Submission Guidelines

Submissions should follow . The manuscript length should be no greater than 50 pages, properly formatted and inclusive of title, abstract, keywords, text, references, tables, figures, footnotes, and print appendices (web appendices do not count toward the page limit).

The submission window is August 1, 2026 through October 31, 2026

• Authors should select “Special Issue” as their “Manuscript Type.” Please also note in the cover letter that the submission is for the special issue on Global Endorsers.

• All articles will undergo double-anonymized peer review process.

• Authors will be notified the first round of decision on their manuscript by January 31, 2027.

• The anticipated publication date for the special issue is in late 2027 or early 2028, depending on revision times.

• For additional information regarding the special issue, please contact the guest editors at jimSIglobalEndorsers@gmail.com.

References

Allied Market Research (2023), “Influencer Marketing Market to Reach $199.6 Billion, Globally, by 2032 at 28.6% CAGR: Allied Market Research,” PR Newswire (November 14), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/influencer-marketing-market-to-reach-199-6-billion-globally-by-2032-at-28-6-cagr-allied-market-research-301987451.html.

Bentley, Kara, Charlene Chu, Cristina Nistor, Ekin Pehlivan, and Taylan Yalcin (2021), “Social Media Engagement for Global Influencers.” Journal of Global Marketing 34 (3), 205–19.

Bergkvist, Lars and Kris Q. Zhou (2016), “Celebrity Endorsements: A Literature Review and Research Agenda.” International Journal of Advertising, 35 (4), 642–63.

Cleveland, Mark and Michel Laroche (2006), “Acculturaton to the Global Consumer Culture: Scale Development and Research Paradigm, Journal of Business Research, 60 (3), 249-259.

Davvetas, Vasileios, Christina Sichtmann, Charalampos (Babis) Saridakis, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2023), “The Global/Local Product Attribute: Decomposition, Trivialization, and Price Trade-Offs in Emerging and Developed Markets,” Journal of International Marketing, 31 (3), 19–40.

Duarte, Fabio (2025), “Most Followed Accounts on Social Media (2025),” Exploding Topics (July 8), .

Fowler, Kendra, and Veronica L. Thomas (2023), “Influencer Marketing: A Scoping Review and a Look Ahead,” Journal of Marketing Management, 39 (11–12), 933–64.

Hudders, Liselot and Chen Lou (2022), “The Rosy World of Influencer Marketing? Its Bright and Dark Sides, and Future Research Recommendations,” International Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 151–61.

Kuksov, Dmitri, and Chenxi Liao (2019), “Opinion Leaders and Product Variety,” Marketing Science, 38 (5), 812–34.

Liu, Hao, Klaus Schoefer, Fernando Fastoso, and Efstathia Tzemou (2021), “Perceived Brand Globalness/Localness: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Directions for Further Research,” Journal of International Marketing, 29 (1), 77–94.

Özsomer, Ayşegül, Rajeev Batra, and Jan-Benedict EM Steenkamp (2024), “Brands and Branding around the World,” Journal of International Marketing, 32 (3), 1–4.

Peres, Renana, Sunali Talwar, Liav Alter, Michal Elhanan, and Yuval Friedmann (2020), “Narrowband Influencers and Global Icons: Universality and Media Compatibility in the Communication Patterns of Political Leaders Worldwide,” Journal of International Marketing, 28 (1), 48–65.

Roy, Subhadip, Abhijit Guha, Abhijit Biswas, and Druv Grewal (2019), “Celebrity Endorsements in Emerging Markets: Align Endorsers with Brands or with Consumers?” Journal of International Business Studies, 50 (1), 295–317.

Sayin, E., Nilüfer Aydınoğlu, Ayşegül Özsomer, and Zeynep Gürhan-Canlı (2024), “Shifting Standards in Consumer Evaluations of Global and Local Brands After Product-Harm Crises,” Journal of International Marketing, 32 (3), 83–100.

Schmidt-Devlin, Ellen, Ayşegül Özsomer, and Casey E. Newmeyer (2022), “How to Go GloCal: Omni-Brand Orientation Framework,” Journal of International Marketing, 30 (4), 1–20.

Shah, Zarhrah, Hossain Olya, and Lien Le Monkhouse (2023), “Developing Strategies for International Celebrity Branding: A Comparative Analysis Between Western and South Asian Cultures,” International Marketing Review, 40 (1), 102–26.

Statista (2025), “Influencer Marketing Market Size Worldwide from 2015 to 2025,” (accessed February 6, 2025), .

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2014), “How Global Brands Create Firm Value: The 4V Model,” International Marketing Review, 31 (1), 5–29.

Sun, Yan, Rachel Wang, Dongbei Cao, and Rouyi Lee (2022), “Who Are Social Media Influencers for Luxury Fashion Consumption of the Chinese Gen Z? Categorisation and Empirical Examination,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 26 (4), 603–21.

Wahid, Risqo, Heikki Karjaluoto, Kimmo Taiminen and Diah Isnaini Asiati (2023), “Becoming TikTok Famous: Strategies for Global Brands to Engage Consumers in an Emerging Market,” Journal of International Marketing, 31 (1), 106–23.

Winterich, Karen Page, Manish Gangwar, and Rajdeep Grewal (2018), “When Celebrities Count: Power Distance Beliefs and Celebrity Endorsements,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (3), 70–86.

Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015), “An Extended Model of Preference Formation Between Global and Local Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and Affect,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 50–71.

Special Issue Editors

Charles R. Taylor is the Charles R. “Ray” Taylor is the John A. Murphy Professor of Marketing at Villanova University and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Marketing and Consumer Insights. He currently served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Advertising.  Taylor has published more than 125 peer-reviewed journal articles in leading marketing and advertising journals in addition to several books and book chapters. Professor Taylor is a Past-President of the President of the American Academy of Advertising.  He is the recipient of the Ivan L. Preston Award for Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Advertising Research from the American Academy of Advertising and the Flemming Hansen Award for Outstanding Contribution to Advertising from the European Advertising Academy.  His work has also received the Hans B. Thorelli Award from the Journal of International Marketing, two Best Paper Awards from the Journal of Advertising, and the Charles Slater Award.  Taylor is also a Senior Contributor to Forbes.com.

Shintaro Okazaki is Chair in Marketing at King’s Business School, King’s College London, UK. He is a former Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Advertising, and currently serve as an Associate Editor of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. He has published more than 100 articles in leading marketing and advertising journals. Okazaki is a Past-President of the European Advertising Academy. His awards include the Best Paper Award of the Journal of Advertising, Charles R. Goeldner Article of Excellence Award of the Journal of Travel Research, the Best Reviewer Award of the International Journal of Advertising, the Best Researcher Award of the KDD Foundation, and Best Academic of the Year of the Mobile Marketing Association. Before entering academia, he has worked in the industry for more than 20 years, holding a managerial position at a multinational corporation in Tokyo.

Chen Lou is an Associate Professor in the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research focuses on the effects of influencer advertising, social media advertising, content marketing, and cross-cultural advertising, and consumer behavior. She is a recipient of the American Academy of Advertising’s (AAA) Mary Alice Shaver Promising Professor Award, which honors an early-career researcher who has demonstrated excellence in advertising research and education. She also gained the Best Article Awards from the Journal of Advertising, Journal of Interactive Advertising, and Mass Communication and Society as well as other research awards in conferences. She serves as an Associate Editor in the International Journal of Advertising and the Journal of Interactive Advertising.

Aysegül Özsomer is Professor of Marketing at Koç University, Istanbul, Türkiye. Her research focuses on global branding, brands from emerging marketing and marketing mix across economic cycles. She has published in top marketing journals such as Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, IJRM, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of International Marketing, among others. Her papers have received several awards, such as the S. Tamer Cavusgil Award for the best Journal of International Marketing article in 2023 and 2013, and the Gerald E. Hills Best Paper Award in 2011 for the 10-year impact made to research on entrepreneurial marketing and market orientation.  She is the coauthor of the book “The New Emerging Market Multinationals: Four Strategies for Disrupting Markets and Building Brands” published by McGraw-Hill (2012). Currently, she serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Journal of International Marketing.

The post Call for Papers | Journal of International Marketing:��Global Endorsers in Marketing appeared first on ���������.

This event occurs on Friday, August 22 at the 2025 ��������� Summer Academic Conference.

Key Benefits for Doctoral Students

• Mentorship Opportunities: Intimate sessions led by experienced faculty covering challenges in both early and later stages of a PhD program.
• Networking & Peer Community: Dedicated time to connect with fellow doctoral students and established scholars in an informal, supportive atmosphere.
• Research Feedback from Published Faculty: Engage in interactive discussions about research ideas, learn strategies for publishing, and receive personalized feedback from mentors.

Faculty Ambassadors

with faculty ambassadors Professors and in making this event a success for doctoral students.

Karen Page Winterich

Karen is the Gerald I. Susman Professor in Sustainability and Professor of Marketing at Pennsylvania State University. She conducts research in the area of consumer behavior, with much of her work examining how consumers’ social identities influence charitable giving as well as sustainable and im(moral) behavior. Her research is published in Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, and Journal of Marketing, among others. She serves as Co-Editor for the Journal of Marketing Research and is Past President of the Academic Council of the ���������. Karen also enjoys teaching sustainability marketing which she developed as part of Smeal’s Sustainability Education Initiatives.

Andreas Lanz

Andreas is a marketing professor and member of the faculty board at the University of Basel. He joined from HEC Paris in 2023 and holds a doctoral degree from the University of Mannheim. Andreas researches social networks and is recognized for his award-winning work on the effectiveness of micro influence for dissemination (i.e., Lanz et al. 2019 as well as Beichert et al. 2024 and Goldenberg et al. 2024). He published in leading academic journals including the Journal of Marketing (2024; 2024), Journal of Marketing Research (2019; 2024), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2025), Management Information Systems Quarterly (2022; 2025), Management Science (2025), and Quantitative Marketing and Economics (2022)—with press coverage, among others, in the Harvard Business Review and MIT Sloan Management Review.

Doctoral Student Organizers – DocSIG Leadership

Reach out to us at docsig.ama@gmail.com.

Julia van de Sandt
Julia is a fourth-year PhD Candidate in Marketing at the University of South Carolina, specializing in Consumer Behavior. Her research investigates how product materials and information framing influence consumers’ judgment and decision-making in sustainability and financial decision-making. For about a decade before academia, Julia thrived in analytical roles across consumer packaging, cruise tourism, and retail. In 24-25 Julia serves as Chair of DocSIG and concludes three-years of service with DocSIG at Summer��������� in Chicago.

Ishita Nagpal

Ishita is a third-year doctoral student in Marketing at J. Mack Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. Her research interests centered on the intersection of marketing strategy and the social impact of marketing. Passionate about supporting fellow doctoral students, she has been serving DocSIG for over two years. Her dedication and service have been recognized with the Outstanding Service Award at Georgia State

Confirmed Mentors

The post DocSIG Pre-Conference at ��������� Summer Academic Conference appeared first on ���������.

Increasing the ecological value of marketing research by examining the interactions among and between business actors, institutions, and systems can help make scholarly marketing research more meaningful and impactful (Van Heerde et al. 2021). Incorporating and integrating multiple stakeholder perspectives and addressing the corresponding trade-offs can strengthen the rigor and relevance of an inquiry, with the potential to enrich outcomes for all stakeholders (e.g., Berry et al. 2024). 

Managers, academics, and policy makers must address social and business challenges against the backdrop of stakeholders’ divergent priorities and perspectives on important issues. Indeed, many of the world’s most pressing topics affect and are affected by multiple stakeholders in areas such as (but not limited to) the infodemics crisis, the need to deliver quality health care and financial services for all, the sustainability of the planet, the ability to effectively leverage technology, unintended consequences of marketing activities, global differences in social/political priorities, and marketing’s role in advancing human rights. Organizations and managers must navigate the needs of multiple stakeholders, including consumers, communities, customers, employees, executives, investors, and society. A stakeholder view, in which the organization focuses on the well-being of a variety of stakeholders in the value chain, can align with an organization’s other longer-term goals, such as profitability (Berry et al. 2024).

We recognize that many real-world problems combine a marketing issue for one stakeholder with financial, human resource, social, cultural, or even moral issues for another stakeholder. This contributes to the richness and ecological validity of research involving multiple stakeholders. As such, we welcome research that takes a multidisciplinary perspective as long as the marketing lens plays a key role in theorizing and analysis.

The special issue is not limited to a particular context, but for illustrative purposes, consider health care as an example. Consumers need affordable, high-quality health care, and communities need equitable health outcomes. A government may prioritize accessible health care for its citizens, while health care providers seek to run a profitable business with a respectable reputation. Insurers need to transparently provide coverage while containing costs. Health care employees require a reasonable workload and fair compensation. Yet, trade-offs exist that limit favorable outcomes for all stakeholders in a health care ecosystem. Given any complex ecosystem, how can marketing explore the needs, decisions, and processes of multiple stakeholders to shed light on the tensions and necessary trade-offs for all stakeholders? What trade-offs are acceptable, and what are the potential impacts of such trade-offs (e.g., positive and negative financial implications, measurable advancements toward societal goals)?

The editorial mission of the Journal of Marketing is to develop and disseminate “knowledge about real-world marketing questions useful to scholars, educators, managers, policy makers, consumers, and other societal stakeholders around the world.” Our empirical research to date has been effective in reflecting typically one or two sets of conventional stakeholder perspectives (e.g., purely consumer- or firm-focused, salesperson–customer dyad-focused).

We introduce a special issue of the Journal of Marketing focused on understanding the challenges and opportunities related to tensions and divergent priorities among multiple stakeholders, including new and relevant stakeholders.

This special issue encourages empirical research and analytical modeling that takes a 360-degree view to include new and relevant stakeholders in the research process, especially work that builds on existing stakeholders while broadening existing lenses via new stakeholder connections. We seek papers that uncover insights into how to deliver economic returns for firms while also delivering broader beneficial contributions on topics such as individual growth and well-being, societal cohesion, firm investment in organizational values, democratic success, and social challenges.

Many business questions involve various stakeholders who may have competing interests. For instance, MacInnis et al. (2020) identify key marketplace stakeholders that influence consumers and customers as including society, media, government and nongovernment organizations, and businesses, among others. As another example, the United Nations recognizes “major groups” of stakeholders as including women, children, and youth; indigenous peoples and their communities; nongovernmental organizations; local authorities; farmers; workers and trade unions; business and industry; and the scientific and technological community (United Nations, n.d.). In marketing, an integrated stakeholder perspective might consider not only consumers, frontline service employees, and retailers or other businesses but also communities where a product is produced (yet not consumed), measurable impacts on the environment or society, internal impacts on employees, behaviors of policy makers or governmental agents (e.g., Wang et al. 2021), top management teams, shareholders and investors, or the media (at the local, regional, and/or [inter-/supra-] national levels).

Key Criteria for Publication in the Special Issue

The special issue is interested in new marketing knowledge that helps address substantial and important societal and business issues, generated through the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (three or more). Multidisciplinary research is welcome though not required. Empirical research and analytical modeling are welcomed and encouraged.

Key criteria that will be used to assess a submission include:

• Scope of the research question. We encourage research that seeks to tackle large-scale societal-business challenges rather than narrow or incremental topics.
• Novelty of the insights.
• The extent to which the novel insights are derived from at least three key stakeholders. New, relevant stakeholder perspectives are encouraged.
• The magnitude of the behavioral change and/or its impact stemming from the work, such as the number of people likely to change their behavior based on the research (in the short or long term) or the number of people who may benefit from the findings if implemented. These can include managers, policy makers, nonprofits, consumers, and communities, etc.
• The broad potential impact of the work.

Submission deadline (now extended!): July 1, 2026

All manuscripts will be reviewed as a cohort for this special issue of the Journal of Marketing. All submissions will go through Journal of Marketing’s double-anonymized review and follow standard norms and processes. Submissions must be made via the journal’s&�Բ�����;, with author guidelines available here. For any queries, feel free to reach out to the special issue editors.

Special Sessions

Everyone interested in learning more about this special issue is warmly invited to attend the Zoom webinar on Monday, December 15, 11 a.m. ET. .

References

Berry, Leonard L., Tracey S. Danaher, Timothy Keiningham, Lerzan Aksoy, and Tor W. Andreassen (2024), “Social Profit Orientation: Lessons from Organizations Committed to Building a Better World,” Journal of Marketing, 89 (2), 1–19.

MacInnis, Deborah J., Vicki G. Morwitz, Simona Botti, Donna L. Hoffman, Robert V. Kozinets, Don R. Lehmann, John Lynch, Cornelia Pechmann (2020), “Creating Boundary-Breaking, Marketing-Relevant Consumer Research,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (2), 1–23.

United Nations (n.d.), “Major Groups and Other Stakeholders,” .

Van Heerde, Harald J., Christine Moorman, C. Page Moreau, and Robert W. Palmatier, (2021), “Reality Check: Infusing Ecological Value into Academic Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (2), 1–13.

Wang, Yanwen, Michael Lewis, and Vishal Singh (2021), “Investigating the Effects of Excise Taxes, Public Usage Restrictions, and Antismoking Ads across cigarette brands.” Journal of Marketing 85 (3), 150–67.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Call for Papers | Journal of Marketing:��Analyzing Trade-Offs and Advancing Solutions to Society’s Challenges Using an Integrated Multiple Stakeholders Perspective appeared first on ���������.

What are registered reports?

As per the Center for Open Science’s (COS’s) Open Science Framework (OSF), Registered Reports is a publishing format wherein protocols are provisionally accepted for publication before the studies are actually conducted.  

Are registered reports the same as preregistration?

No. Preregistration refers to the registration of hypotheses and plans for data collection and analysis via websites or recognized depositories such as AsPredicted or OSF. Preregistration will be required only if a registered report submission is accepted by the journal.

What is the process of submission to publication?

Submissions will undergo a two-step double-anonymized review process. The first step is the submission of a registered report (see next section for details). If the registered report is accepted, the second step is the submission of the manuscript, which may be characterized as provisionally accepted (i.e., accepted registered report = provisionally accepted manuscript). This requires the authors to carefully and professionally conduct the proposed study/studies adhering to the methodology in the registered report that is accepted. If submitted on time, and if the final manuscript submission adheres to the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing’s&�Բ�����;submission guidelines (which are also used for all ��������� journals), the manuscript will be published in the Special Issue.

To avoid confusion, “registered report” (in lower case) refers to the proposed research submitted in the first step, while “manuscript” refers to the submission – to be published in the Special Issue – in the second step. “Registered Report” (in upper case) refers to the publishing format/process.

What research are we looking for?

We are looking for new empirical work designed to initiate, develop, and test potential solutions to mitigating the generation and propagation of mis- and disinformation, in an ecologically valid way. Our goal is to encourage the testing of theory-driven ideas that are feasible and scalable.

Submissions that propose solutions based on original conceptual insights, methodological innovations, and that offer clear managerial or policy contributions are particularly welcome. 

Interventions could be related to the key players and could address topics such as (but are not limited to):

In addition, interventions could test potential policy solutions or address incentives for platforms, such as their revenue streams (e.g., advertising-based interventions).

Please refer to the Call for Papers for more information.

Registered Report

What criteria will the review team use to evaluate my registered report?

The review team will evaluate submitted registered reports based on the originality and theoretical rationale of the conceptual insights proposed, methodological innovation and rigor (including soundness, feasibility, and reproducibility), as well as the clarity, practicality, and potential impact of the intended managerial or policy contributions.

Which type of studies can I include in my registered report?

We welcome submissions that feature empirical work, whether experimental or nonexperimental, field studies or online studies.

Replications and meta-analyses will not be accepted.

Can/should I perform pretests or pilot tests before submitting my registered report?

Pretesting and pilot-testing ideas can help improve the strength of the registered report; such pretesting of stimuli/methods/measures and pilot testing, along with appropriate power analysis, can be included to establish proof of concept, effect size estimations, and the feasibility of proposed methods.

Any pretests or pilot tests should be included in the final version of the manuscript (in the main text or the appendix) and should be clearly distinguished from data obtained for the manuscript via preregistered study/studies as proposed in the initial registered report submission.

What is required in my registered report submission (Step 1)? Is there a template that I have to use to prepare?

There is no strict template. The registered report is essentially a proposal, in the form of a partial manuscript that includes an introduction (including motivating background literature), hypotheses, rationale for the proposed study/studies, experimental design and procedures, and analytical methods as would be expected in a manuscript.��In addition, authors should address key questions in their submission in addition to presenting the theoretical framework or mechanism, any relevant pretests and pilot studies which have already been conducted, and the proposed empirical test. These key questions may also include whether the proposed interventions would work on real social platforms, whether they are desirable from a societal standpoint, the potential downsides and criticisms of the intervention, their feasibility and scalability, and whether the effects are persistent over time. It may also be critical to carefully consider the relevant outcomes of interest to combat misinformation. The authors should also submit a timeline (which should not exceed nine months) for completing the registered study/studies and a statement confirming that, after the registered report has been accepted, to preregister their study/studies before conducting it/them and to allow open access to any study materials, raw data, and programming code. The authors should also include a statement confirming that all necessary support (e.g. funding, facilities) and approvals (e.g. ethics) are, or would be, in place for the proposed research.

Registered reports should not exceed 5,000 words of text, not including references.

What details should be included in the proposed methodology?

The description of the design and procedures should be sufficiently detailed to allow another researcher to be able to replicate the methodology exactly. This should also be the methodology that is followed and reported in the manuscript.

Sample characteristics, such as data inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., manipulation, attention and/or comprehension checks), should be detailed.

The authors should also include all data cleaning and processing steps, and a description of planned analyses and the inclusion of covariates or regressors. If any analysis depends on the outcome of prior analyses, the decision tree must be specified and followed.

Final Manuscript (Provisionally Accepted After Acceptance of Registered Report)

What if I need more time to conduct the pre-registered study/studies than the timeline that I proposed earlier in my accepted registered report?

Because of the strict publication timeline for the Special Issue, unfortunately, this is generally not allowed. However, If it is truly unavoidable (e.g., because of certain extenuating circumstances), please inform us in advance, along with the modified timeline, so we may assess the request on a case-by-case basis.

Can I modify the existing methodology after the registered report is accepted? Can I add new studies after conducting the pre-registered study/studies in my registered report?

In general, no. Any changes to the stated and accepted design and procedures, however minor it may seem, is counter to the purpose of Registered Reports, and could lead to the manuscript being rejected.

One exception is if (minor) changes to stated studies are allowed, or new studies are specifically requested for, by the review team (both of which would be reported in the manuscript as well as an explanation thereof). Hence, please consider as much as possible the full suite of studies that you plan to conduct to support the research, and detail the studies in the registered report.

Authors are reminded to faithfully conduct their studies, which would, in part, be reflected in the data and programming code. Otherwise, they may risk rejection in the second step.

Must the content in the registered report be replicated in the manuscript?

Yes, except for correcting factual or language errors, minor stylistic changes that do not alter the original meaning, changes from future to past tense, and/or unless specifically requested for or allowed by the reviewers and/or editors (such as for the purposes of brevity).

Any changes that are accepted or requested in the Methodology (see above) must be reported in the manuscript.

What, in addition to the registered report, should be included in the manuscript?

All stated analyses in the accepted registered report must be reported in the manuscript as findings. Additional analyses (e.g., exploratory) not stated in the accepted registered report must be properly characterized as such and justified for inclusion. Authors should not base their conclusions on such additional analyses.

The manuscript should adhere to the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing’s��submission guidelines, which are also used for all ��������� journals.

Can I withdraw a manuscript submission after my registered report is accepted?

While this is not encouraged, we understand that due to extenuating unforeseen reasons, authors may have to withdraw their manuscript submission after the registered report has been accepted.

Can I submit a manuscript based on a partial of what has been approved in the registered report.

Partial withdrawals are not possible unless permitted by the editors in special circumstances, as determined on a case-by-case basis.

The post JPP&M Special Issue on Mitigating Misinformation: FAQ on Registered Reports appeared first on ���������.

The workshop will offer participants the opportunity to receive feedback on their research from experienced editors and reviewers, helping to strengthen their manuscripts for potential submission to JIM (or other journals publishing international marketing research, such as JIBS and IMR). In addition, participants will gain insights into the publication process at JIM.

Target Audience

We welcome full papers from researchers at any career stage, especially early-career researchers (Assistant Professors, Post-Docs, advanced PhD students). Participants will be paired with mentors for detailed, constructive feedback on their work. Submitted papers do not need to be accepted for presentation at the main conference to be accepted for the paper development workshop.

Application

Papers should be submitted to Ayşegül Özsomer, Editor-in-Chief, JIM, and Professor of Marketing, Koç University (ozsomera@ku.edu.tr) and Timo Mandler, Associate Editor, JIM, and Associate Professor of Marketing, Toulouse Business School (t.mandler@tbs-education.fr). The deadline for submissions is December 20, 2024. Papers should follow the . A limited number of papers will be accepted for the workshop. Applicants will be notified about the outcome by early January.

The post Journal of International Marketing Paper Development Workshop appeared first on ���������.

The workshop will allow participants to get acquainted with how to write fair, thorough and constructive reviews. Rebecca Hamilton (Editor in Chief, JMR) and Hari Sridhar (Editor in Chief, JM) will serve as workshop leads, joined by their team of coeditors. The workshop will involve interactive, small-group learning experiences aimed at demystifying the process of writing a constructive review that identifies a paper’s key strengths and weaknesses and how it might be improved.

The workshop is targeted at early career scholars (assistant professors, post-docs, research fellows, PhD students in their last year), and the ideal participant would have submitted at least one paper to a leading marketing journal.

��������� Event Policies

The post 2025 Journal of Marketing / Journal of Marketing Research Reviewer Workshop appeared first on ���������.

Brands are differentiated along both vertical (being perceived as better) and horizontal (being perceived as different) dimensions. For example, Dior and Gucci are both vertically differentiated in terms of their universally valued quality of craftsmanship and heritage of excellence, and they are horizontally differentiated in terms of Dior’s timeless style and classic feminine beauty versus Gucci’s fashion-forward androgyny, for which preferences diverge as a matter of taste.

Researchers have primarily examined how these types of brand knowledge create value for firms through the lens of customer behavior in product markets. In contrast, develops and tests a novel framework that outlines the unique role brand knowledge plays in labor markets.

The study investigates the nuanced ways in which brand differentiation shapes employment dynamics within firms, revealing that vertical differentiation (perceived quality) typically leads to lower employee pay, and horizontal differentiation (brand uniqueness) correlates with higher pay. Companies that exhibit a high degree of horizontal differentiation tend to reward and appreciate workers who best represent the unique qualities of the brand. This creates a synergistic effect that raises employee productivity and retention rates and boosts firm profitability.

The study utilizes a robust multimethod approach, combining archival data and experimental studies, to examine the intersections of brand perception and labor economics. By detailing the employment effects across different types of brand differentiation, the researchers provide a groundbreaking perspective on how firms can strategically leverage brand equity not only for consumer marketing but also as a pivotal tool in human resource management​​.

Responses from the authors about their work shed further light on their motivations and the nuances of their findings. The initial inspiration for exploring this area came from observing MBA students and faculty behaviors influenced by brand prestige, which led the researchers to consider how brand strength could potentially allow firms to offer lower salaries without compromising talent attraction or retention​​. The authors also address the complexities of operationalizing and measuring constructs such as employee productivity and brand differentiation, sharing their strategies to overcome these challenges​​.

What Does This Mean for Managers?

In discussing practical implications, the authors suggest that while vertically differentiated brands might attract talent with the allure of brand prestige, relying solely on this can lead to a “false economy” in which the savings from lower wages are offset by diminished employee productivity and higher turnover rates​​. Conversely, firms characterized by horizontal differentiation could benefit from paying premium wages to employees who are a cultural fit, thereby enhancing employee satisfaction and retention, which in turn bolsters profitability​​.

This research not only broadens the conceptual understanding of brand equity’s role beyond traditional marketing but also invites corporate leaders to rethink how brand values are integrated into their staffing strategies. It’s clear that the strategic management of brand equity in the labor market can be an effective mechanism for enhancing organizational performance. The insights offered by this research are invaluable for brand managers aiming to effectively leverage brand differentiation to optimize both employee satisfaction and company profitability​​.

We had the pleasure of interviewing one of the authors, Christine Moorman, who encourages PhD students to maintain a strong sense of curiosity and openness to real-world phenomena, which are crucial for identifying relevant research questions.

Q: What observations/data points inspired you to investigate the relationship between brand differentiation and the labor market?

A: introduced the idea of employee-based brand equity and found that brands with strong reputations are more likely to pay their executives less. The idea that a strong brand could transfer to an employee who could benefit from it in terms of building reputation and résumé power was also something that we saw in our MBA students’ employment decisions and even among faculty who take jobs at prestigious universities for lower pay. Tavassoli et al. implied that this novel benefit of brands would benefit companies by increasing profits given that pay levels would be lower. We wondered whether this was true or if these “savings” might actually represent a so-called “false economy” and equate to a loss because lower-paid employees would work less hard and be more likely to leave. As note in their work, “…when people do not get what they deserve, they try to get even.” We also wondered if the lower pay finding would hold for more typical managers. Finally, we theorized that different effects for two core dimensions of brand differentiation—being perceived as “better” (vertical brand differentiation) or being perceived as “different” (horizontal brand differentiation). In particular, we expected that firms might compensate employees more when they provide a complementary fit in terms of matching their brand’s horizontal brand differentiation. 

Q: Could you elaborate on the “why” aspect of choosing a mixed-methods approach involving archival data and experiments for your study? (What unique advantages did this approach offer?)

A: Experiments were necessary because our data, while extensive and very unique, had limitations. First, most of the variables we measured were endogenous (susceptible to unobserved factors), including brand, pay, and employee productivity and retention. Second, we did not have enough observations to include a fixed firm effect in the models, creating alternative explanations for our findings. Finally, even if our archival data were stronger, they did not contain variables about employee qualities that might influence how well they match with firms. This was important to our paper because we theorized that brands would pay more for employees who matched their horizontal differentiation (positive assortative matching).

Q: What were some of the challenges you faced in operationalizing and measuring constructs, such as employee productivity and brand differentiation, and how did you overcome them?

A: Finding the right data for each measure was key. This meant acquiring new datasets that have not previously been used in our literature and combining employee, brand, and firm data over time. Finding instruments for our endogenous variables was also essential. Here, we looked for variables that were related to the focal endogenous variable but not related to the outcome it would predict. This process is actually a very creative exercise that involves borrowing from the literature as well as considering new variables.

For example, for our measures of brand differentiation, we use a peer-based instrument (at the industry level) and offer both supply- and demand-side explanations and empirical evidence for this choice. Supply-side pressures to conform to industry norms emerge from the interaction between firms and the ecosystem of non-customer stakeholders that exert pressure in the form of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. For example, mimetic isomorphism can occur because rivals are more likely to share personnel and practices within, rather than across, industries.

On the demand side, there are pressures for convergence that emerge from firms interacting with current or potential customers in an industry, including the development of product–category schemas to evaluate products and common demand shifts (e.g., toward sustainability) in an industry. In addition, we tested our explanations by showing that the industry indicator variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in brand differentiation, indicating that the variance in both vertical and horizontal brand differentiation is smaller within than across industries. We also compared the degree of vertical and horizontal brand differentiation within each industry and found these to significantly differ for 68 of the 80 industries in our sample. Of course, the best way to rule out endogeneity is to conduct an experiment, and we ran a series of studies with employees and HR managers to address specific issues that our empirical data could not answer or where endogeneity remained a concern.

Q: Considering the globalization of brands and labor markets, how do you think the effects of brand differentiation on pay and profits might vary (if at all) across cultural and economic contexts?

A: This is an interesting question. We expect that the findings will be broadly generalized, although the strength of these relationships may vary. For example, looking across cultures, we might expect the negative effects of vertical brand differentiation on pay to be stronger in cultures where résumé power is a stronger signal for future employment or for gaining social status, for example, in cultures that are more defined by a competence-based social hierarchy. The ability to pay less will also be weaker in tight labor markets that limit companies’ ability to offer lower wages, and we find labor availability to be a moderator of this relationship in our data.

Q: What practical advice would you give brand managers looking to leverage brand differentiation in the labor market to enhance both employee satisfaction and company profitability?

A: Henry Ford once said, “Paying good wages is not charity at all—it is the best kind of business” and that his decision to offer a large wage hike back in 1919 was “one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made.” We find that Ford’s logic still holds, but perceptions of a firm’s brand add a significant wrinkle to the story. Specifically, leaders hiring at vertically differentiated brands should think more broadly about their employees’ value proposition, considering the costs of employee turnover and lost productivity. These teams should use their brand power to attract talent but refrain from leveraging their high-quality perceptions to pay less so that employees will work harder on the job and stay longer, boosting productivity while reducing talent-sourcing costs to increase profits overall. Conversely, horizontally differentiated brands should be willing to pay for talent that matches their brand’s uniqueness, trusting that this will eventually pay off in terms of productivity and retention gains. These brands benefit from hiring true believers who possess an excellent cultural fit and who authentically bring unique brand differentiation to life.

Our findings should also put boards on notice, and we recommend that firms include brand differentiation in their compensation-benchmarking models. As noted, vertically differentiated brands should resist paying below industry and size benchmarks—key components in almost any benchmarking model—based on a high level of brand quality. However, they can justify a higher-than-average pay based on higher levels of brand uniqueness. Finally, not only does the full brand-pay-profit relationship tend to be out of sight for management but there are also structural impediments to getting it right. Specifically, found that 67% of marketing leaders were primarily responsible for the firm’s brand but also that marketing’s cross-functional cooperation with HR and finance was significantly lower than that with IT, operation, and sales functions. In fact, marketing’s cooperation with HR and finance was the lowest overall. Our findings should encourage marketing and HR to work together more closely to profitably build and leverage the brand by attracting, rewarding, developing, and retaining the “right” talent.

Q: Do you foresee any long-term shifts in how brand differentiation affects the labor market, particularly with trends such as remote work and freelancing?

A. Yes. Marketing has made great strides in utilizing customer data and looking beyond short-term sales to make decisions based on customer lifetime value. Human resource management is following this analytical trend. This will allow managers to monitor productivity more closely and realize the long-term effects of pay. The gig economy, of course, already aligns freelancers’ pay more with their observable productivity, such as customer ratings, and does not suffer from the same kind of turnover dynamics found among more typical employees. 

Q: Do you expect brand differentiation’s effects on employee compensation to vary significantly across industries? If so, how?

A: We do find industry differences. Most importantly, we find that higher pay based on horizontal differentiation is the strongest in service industries, where well-matched employees deliver the brand most visibly. We also think that it is more likely that we will see important firm differences. We contribute by conceptualizing the matching process between employees and brands and suggesting that it is shaped by various factors: the firm’s demand for labor (labor availability), its approach to creating a consideration set of candidates (labor identification), its ability to attract candidates (labor attraction), and its investment in match quality (labor development). We predict that firm strategies and investments in these activities will shift firm bargaining power and impact the brand–pay relationship.

Source: Christine Moorman, Alina Sorescu, and Nader T. Tavassoli (2024), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (2), 204–24.

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post How Brand Differentiation Shapes Corporate Culture and Profits appeared first on ���������.

The creation of this would not be possible without the dedication of many parties and individuals. The ��������� would like to thank the professors, each of whom coauthored a section of this guide:

Joshua Beck, University of Oregon
Samantha N.N. Cross, Iowa State University��
Andrea Dixon, Baylor University
Conor Henderson, University of Oregon
Ronald Paul Hill, American University
Mark Houston, Texas Christian University
Ginger Killian, Rollins College
Son K. Lam, University of Georgia
Cait Lamberton, University of Pennsylvania
Kristy McManus, University of Georgia
Jessica Rixom, University of Nevada, Reno
Jim Salas, Pepperdine University
Maura L. Scott, Florida State University
Denish Shah, Georgia State University
Clay M. Voorhees, University of Alabama
Karen Page Winterich, Penn State University

The post ��������� Transitions Guide: Navigating the Progression from Doctoral Student to Marketing Professor appeared first on ���������.