Large language models, trained on massive datasets, pose a risk to subscription-based and licensed content, undermining copyright and devaluing original work.

Download the guide from Copyleaks to explore:

● How AI is disrupting the media and publishing industries

● Copyright challenges in the AI era

● Understanding if LLMs trained on your data

● Real-world strategies for protecting your content

The post AI, Copyright, and the Future of Media: How Copyleaks Helps Protect Intellectual Property in the Age of Large Language Models appeared first on ���������.

Today’s marketing teams are under pressure to generate stronger results with leaner teams and tighter budgets. In this new Act On Marketing Technology Insights report, based on survey data from more than 100 marketers, learn how B2B organizations are adapting their marketing automation strategies to improve performance and efficiency. Discover why ease of use now outweighs price and features when selecting a platform, how teams are simplifying their technology stacks, and which AI capabilities marketers value most. The report also explores key challenges around reporting, attribution, integrations, and proving ROI while offering practical insights into how teams are using automation to accomplish more with limited resources.

The post Act-On Marketing Automation and AI Trends Report appeared first on ���������.

The mobile app market has been witnessing record levels of growth and valuation in the last decade. Apps emerged as a significant engine of business value via engagement-driven revenue models, such as in-app advertising or purchases, that highly depend on continued use. However, engagement typically diminishes quickly over time, pushing businesses to develop new strategies to maintain user activity. To keep users engaged, many companies implement gamification by incorporating features like levels, badges, points, etc., alongside traditional value rewards to enhance an app’s appeal. Still, it is hard to exactly determine how gamification serves to maintain user engagement and business value.

A investigates whether gamification can truly help keep users engaged in ways that also generate tangible business value. Specifically, the authors examine how chasing game rewards (points, levels, etc.) and value rewards (discounts, credits, etc.) interact to influence user engagement with the app and whether this interaction enhances the quality and quantity of such engagement. The findings suggest that game-based rewards are more effective than regular rewards at getting users involved, which in turn increases business value. They find that this effect is especially strong when users are closer to the rewards. At the same time, the study points out a drawback of gamification: When users become deeply absorbed in the game, their engagement with the game is less likely to translate into actions that add real value.

Game-based rewards are more effective than regular rewards at getting users involved, which in turn increases business value.

Managers can use these findings to design smarter reward systems in their apps. Adding simple game elements like points or levels is a low-cost way to keep users engaged, but these should be carefully linked to value-creating actions such as watching ads, making purchases, or completing tasks. Using both game rewards and real rewards works best when they are spaced out over time rather than given at the same moment. Managers should also be careful not to make the game so immersive that users ignore value-creating activities; showing ads or prompts earlier, before users become deeply absorbed, can help. Overall, the main idea is to balance fun and business goals so that engagement leads to real value rather than distraction.

We recently had the opportunity to contact all the authors of this research to gain deeper insight into their motivations, managerial implications of this research, and additional insights of interest:

Q: What was your motivation behind this research? Was there something you observed in real-world app usage that made you curious about how gamified rewards shape user behavior, and what prompted you to take a closer look at their impact on engagement and business outcomes?

A: This research was directly motivated by a collaboration with an app provider who approached us for advice on how to make their app more engaging. The focal app was a market research app, and their request immediately posed a challenge: the app’s core value-adding activity—that is, answering client survey questions—is not inherently engaging for most users. Moreover, these client surveys only arrive intermittently, meaning that users often simply could not do anything in the app that would have earned them rewards.

The provider had introduced an additional activity that was non-value-added from the firm’s perspective but potentially engaging for users: so-called “fun questions.” These questions were designed purely to keep users active in the app and to motivate repeated usage, even when no client surveys were available.

Importantly, the app’s incentive structure clearly separated these two types of activity. Specifically, users received (traditional) monetary rewards (in-app coins that could be redeemed for vouchers, for example) for answering client surveys (value-added activities). Answering fun questions (non-value-added activities) was rewarded with experience points and with climbing up levels by collecting experience points (gamified rewards). This design ensured that every activity contributed to one of the two reward systems—thus maintaining engagement—while only the value-added activities generated actual costs for the provider.

When we looked beyond this specific case and considered the mobile app market from a broader perspective, we realized that this dual reward system extends far beyond market research apps. Many apps combine value-added activities and non-value-added activities. A fitness app, for example, may create (monetary) value for the provider through subscriptions, while users primarily engage in workouts, challenges, or tracking features that are available for free, and revenue comes from a subset of users upgrading to premium. Similarly, social media and content apps rely on high levels of user engagement that only translate into revenue indirectly, for example, by increasing advertising exposure. This observation led to a broader conceptual insight: Many apps operate with dual or hybrid reward structures that simultaneously reward different types of activities through different psychological mechanisms. While marketing research has studied reward-pursuit effects extensively, this work has almost exclusively focused on a single reward engine, typically monetary rewards tied to value-added activities. However, once an additional gamified reward engine is introduced, the psychology of reward pursuit changes fundamentally. Understanding how these dual reward engines interact with each other, reinforce each other, or sometimes undermine each other became the central motivation for this research.

Q: Marketers often prize immersion (flow) as the gold standard of engagement. In fact, previous studies show that it can elevate customer experience, boosting satisfaction and loyalty. However, your work highlights an important dark side. Could you please elaborate on why a highly engaged user in a deep flow state might ultimately contribute less marginal value, even while spending more time in the app?

A: You are absolutely right that immersion and flow are often seen as the gold standard of engagement. From the user’s perspective, flow typically enhances enjoyment, satisfaction, and the overall experience when using an app. Our findings do not contradict this view, but they show that flow is not unambiguously beneficial from a firm’s value-creation perspective.

The key issue is that time spent in an app is not the same as the value created for the firm. In many engagement-based business models, value for the firm is generated only when users engage in specific activities, such as providing data, viewing ads attentively, or making purchases. In our context, these are the value-added activities that can interrupt the gameplay experience.

When users enter a deep flow state during gameplay, their attention becomes narrowly focused on the game-like activity itself. Psychologically, flow is characterized by intense concentration, reduced awareness of external stimuli, and a strong desire to maintain uninterrupted progress. In such a state, any activity that pulls users away from the game feels more like a disruption than an opportunity. As a result, even though highly immersed users spend more time in the app, they become less responsive to value-adding tasks because they want to avoid gameplay interruption.

Overall, users in a high flow state may engage in a lot of activity and time spent in the app, but the incremental value of the additional engagement for the firm decreases. These users’ attention is increasingly focused on maintaining the flow experience and less on performing value-added activities. In extreme cases, users may then rush through the value-added activities or avoid them altogether, reducing both the quantity and quality of value created for the firm. From a managerial perspective, this finding implies that maximizing flow is not always optimal.

Q: For companies that solely rely on traditional value-added programs (coupons, discounts etc.), how can marketing managers effectively introduce “game rewards” to complement (without cannibalizing) their existing strategy? Could you please share your thoughts on how to strike this balance?

A: For firms that already rely on traditional value-added reward programs, the key is not to replace these mechanisms but to use game rewards as a complementary motivational layer. Our findings suggest that the greatest challenge lies not in introducing game rewards per se but in introducing them in such a way that they do not compete with or distract from value-added activities.

First, functional separation is key to adding game rewards effectively. Game rewards should primarily incentivize non-value-added activities, such as exploration, learning, habit formation, or repeated app access, while value rewards should remain tightly linked to behaviors that directly generate value for the app provider. This separation preserves the economic logic of the reward system and avoids teaching customers that rewards can be earned “cheaply” through gameplay.

Second, managers should carefully manage timing and proximity. Our results show that proximity to rewards can be highly motivating, especially when users are close to both a game reward and a value reward at the same time. In terms of designing the reward system, this means that game rewards should prepare users for value-added activities by keeping them active and emotionally engaging them in using the app without triggering reward attainment in both reward systems at the same time. Avoiding simultaneous reward resets is important, as double reward attainment can temporarily dampen engagement.

Third, firms should actively manage flow levels. While some degree of gamified engagement is beneficial for sustaining usage, deep flow states can reduce responsiveness to value-added activities. Firms should thus insert value-added activities at natural breakpoints in the game experience, such as between levels, after milestones, or during cool-down phases, rather than during moments of peak flow.

Q: Your study highlights “double post-reward resetting” as a critical user retention risk. Why does receiving simultaneous rewards lead to a sharper decline in engagement compared to receiving just one reward? What specific strategies can marketing managers employ to prevent that dip and maintain user momentum?

A: Double post-reward resetting occurs when users attain a game reward and a value reward at approximately the same time. Each reward on its own can trigger a short-term decline in motivation and engagement, as users have achieved the immediate goal and the next goal suddenly seems further away. When both reward engines reset simultaneously, these declines in motivation compound, leading to a sharper and more persistent decline in engagement than after a single reward attainment.

Psychologically, this double reset happens because reward pursuit is driven by a sense of progress and momentum. When users are close to a reward, effort feels meaningful and directed. Once a reward is attained, that sense of progress collapses and has to be rebuilt. If two reward engines reset at the same time, users experience a double loss of momentum. There is no nearby goal in either system that pulls them back into activity, which makes disengagement more likely.

From a managerial perspective, this risk is particularly relevant in hybrid reward systems. While multiple reward types increase engagement during pursuit, they also increase the likelihood that users will reach multiple endpoints simultaneously.

One effective strategy is temporal separation of rewards. Managers can design reward thresholds so that game rewards and value rewards are unlikely to be achieved on the same day or within the same session. For example, game rewards can operate on shorter cycles, with frequent small milestones, while value rewards are spaced out over longer horizons.

A second strategy is staggered goal visibility. When a user attains a reward in one reward engine, the system should immediately make progress toward the next reward in the other engine highly salient. By highlighting that another attainable goal is already within reach, the system maintains a sense of forward momentum and prevents users from feeling as though they are starting from zero across the entire reward structure.

Third, firms can use post-reward bridging mechanisms. After a reward is attained, users can be offered a light follow-up task that quickly restores progress, such as a bonus challenge, a progress boost, or a limited-time multiplier. The goal is not to add more rewards but to shorten the psychological distance to the next meaningful milestone.

Overall, double post-reward resetting is not a reason to avoid hybrid reward systems. It is a reminder that firms need to use strategies that preserve user momentum and fully capture the engagement benefits of combining game and value reward.

Q: You propose using algorithms to detect users’ engagement state in real-time. Practically speaking, how do you envision AI-driven personalization and adaptive interfaces to shape the long-term effects of gamification on customer engagement, and do you believe AI can help mitigate the flow-state issue by detecting immersion and adjusting value-added prompts accordingly?

A: We do not propose AI as a way to make gamification more intense but as a way to make it more situationally intelligent. The central idea is that engagement is not static. Users move between different states over time, ranging from low engagement to goal-oriented reward pursuit to deep flow. The long-term effectiveness of gamification depends on responding to these states dynamically rather than applying the same interface logic and reward activities to everyone at all times.

In practical terms, AI-driven personalization can infer a user’s current engagement state from behavioral signals that are already available in most apps. These include interaction speed, session length, task switching, error rates, response times, and progression velocity. In our study, flow manifests itself in unusually fast progress and highly concentrated activity. It is precisely these patterns that machine learning models are well-suited to detect in real time.

Once engagement states can be inferred, adaptive interfaces can adjust how and when value-added prompts are presented. Here, AI can directly mitigate the flow-state issue. Instead of interrupting users indiscriminately, the system can learn when a user is likely to be more receptive to value-added activities versus when the user would perceive such prompts as disruptive. For example, during periods of deep flow, the interface might temporarily suppress value-added activities or defer them to moments when the user naturally slows down, completes a level, or exits a task sequence.

Over the long run, this kind of adaptation helps align user experience and firm value creation. Instead of maximizing flow at any cost or pushing value-added activities too aggressively, AI enables a balance between sustained engagement through gamification and economically meaningful behaviors. Importantly, this setup also reduces heterogeneity issues. Some users thrive in flow-heavy environments, while others respond better to extrinsic incentives, which are often provided for value-added activities. AI enables firms to learn these patterns at the individual level and adjust trajectories accordingly.

Q: Could you please tell us whether any unexpected findings or emergent patterns arose during your analysis that surprised you or challenged your initial assumptions about how gamification drives engagement?

A: Yes, several findings genuinely surprised us and led us to rethink some common assumptions about gamification and engagement.

One unexpected result was how strong and robust the effects of reward proximity were for both types of rewards. We anticipated that getting close to a game reward would primarily increase game engagement, and that proximity to value rewards would mainly affect value-added behavior. Instead, we found strong cross-effects between the two reward systems. Being close to a value reward also increased game engagement, and being close to a game reward increased value-added engagement. This finding suggests that reward proximity creates a general motivational state rather than activating narrowly targeted behaviors. That was something we had not expected at the beginning.

Another unexpected insight was that more engagement was not always better. Before running the analysis, we expected that higher game engagement would monotonically translate into higher value-added engagement. While this was true on average, the moderation by flow revealed a clear nonlinearity. Once users entered a deep flow state, additional engagement led to diminishing and even negative marginal returns for the firm. This finding forced us to move away from a simple “maximize engagement” narrative and to arrive at a more nuanced view where the quality and direction of engagement matter as much as its intensity.

Finally, we were struck by how systematically these patterns emerged in a very large and granular dataset. The effects were not driven by a small subgroup of users or by short-lived novelty effects. Instead, they reflected stable behavioral regularities over time. This consistency increased our confidence that these dynamics are not idiosyncratic to a single app but point to broader mechanisms at work in gamified digital environments.

Source: Jens W. Paschmann, Hernán A. Bruno, Harald J. van Heerde, Franziska Völckner, and Kristina Klein (2024), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 62 (2), 249–73. doi:

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post When Gamification Pays Off—and When It Doesn’t: Driving Engagement Without Losing Value appeared first on ���������.

You’re five, maybe seven years into your marketing career. You’ve built campaigns, managed budgets, led a team or two. You know what you’re doing. But lately, you’ve noticed something shifting. The job postings you’re eyeing list skills you haven’t formally validated. Your LinkedIn feed is full of peers adding credentials to their names. And every conference panel seems to circle back to the same question: how do you prove what you know?

You’re not imagining the shift., based on a survey of more than 1,500 marketers, found that 61% believe the industry is in its biggest disruption in 20 years. The top challenges they cited? Measuring ROI, keeping up with new platforms and generating leads. That’s a meaningful gap between what companies need and what many marketers feel prepared to deliver.

Employers have noticed. According to, 78% of marketing and creative leaders now pay more for candidates with specialized skills. tells a similar story: nearly half of recruiters now use skills data explicitly when filling roles, looking at what you can do rather than where you’ve worked or what your title was.

So if experience alone isn’t enough to stand out anymore, what is? For a growing number of mid-career marketers, the answer is professional certification.

The salary and hiring picture

Let’s start with the most common question: does certification actually pay off financially?

The short answer is yes, though the story is more nuanced than a single number. Robert Half’s found that an entry-level Marketing Manager without certifications earns roughly $79,500 per year, while an experienced, certified Marketing Manager earns about $113,500. That’s a gap of more than $34,000. Now, experience and certifications aren’t the only variables in that equation, but the pattern is consistent across their data: certified professionals command higher compensation.

It’s not just about what you earn, either. It’s about how you get hired. Robert Half also reports that use certifications to address skills gaps on their teams. That means when a hiring manager is looking at two similar candidates, the one with a recognized credential has a concrete advantage. The projects marketing roles will grow 16% between 2024 and 2034, well above average. In a field that’s expanding and evolving simultaneously, being able to prove you’ve kept up matters.

But the financial case is only part of the picture. When you talk to marketers who’ve actually gone through certification, the benefit they mention most often isn’t salary.

Not all certifications are created equal

Before we get into the data, it’s worth addressing something you’re probably already thinking: there’s no shortage of marketing certifications out there. Google, HubSpot, Meta, and others offer credentials that are free and widely recognized. So why would you pay for one?

The honest answer is that they serve different purposes. Free platform certifications are excellent at proving you can operate a specific tool. They teach you how to run Google Ads campaigns or set up HubSpot workflows, and they carry weight for roles where that platform expertise is what’s being hired for. If you’re early in your career, they’re a smart starting point.

But for mid-career marketers, the question has changed. You’re not trying to prove you can use a tool. You’re trying to prove you understand marketing at a strategic level: how to develop a pricing strategy, how to interpret research data, how to position a product in a competitive market. That’s a different kind of validation, and it requires a different kind of credential. 

The ���������’s PCM® in Marketing Management is designed to assess exactly that kind of broad strategic knowledge, and it requires ongoing recertification to stay current. That’s a meaningful distinction from a one-time platform badge.

What certified marketers say matters most

The ��������� recently surveyed PCM® holders who renewed their certification. The sample was focused (roughly 30 to 90 respondents depending on the question), but the respondent profile makes the data especially telling. These aren’t people filling out a satisfaction survey right after a purchase. These are professionals who earned the credential, used it in their careers, and then decided it was worth paying to maintain.

Their verdict? Ninety-seven percent rated the PCM® as a good or exceptional value.

When asked how the certification had impacted their careers, the most common answer wasn’t a promotion or a raise (though both showed up). It was credibility. Roughly two out of three respondents said the PCM® contributed to increased professional credibility, making it the top-cited outcome by a wide margin.

That finding makes sense when you look at why these marketers chose to renew. The top three reasons: adding the credential to their resume, portfolio, or LinkedIn profile (77%), developing their marketing skills and knowledge (65%), and becoming more competitive for new roles (54%). Another 40% said their employer covers the cost, which tells you something about how companies value the credential on their own teams.

When asked to describe the PCM® to a colleague in one sentence, the responses clustered around two ideas: it validates your marketing knowledge regardless of your educational background, and the ��������� brand carries real weight with employers and clients. That second point came up repeatedly among respondents working in consulting and education, where third-party credibility is especially important.

One theme that showed up across nearly every open-ended response: the credential isn’t really about what you learn during the prep course (though that matters). It’s about what the ongoing commitment to recertification tells the market. You’re someone who takes your professional development seriously, and you can prove it.

Is it right for you? A quick framework

Not every certification makes sense for every marketer, and timing matters. Here are a few questions worth asking before you invest.

Where are you in your career?

• Free certifications from Google or HubSpot are a smart way to build platform-specific skills early on.
• If you’re at the mid-career level, managing campaigns across channels, leading a team, or making the jump into strategy, a professional credential that covers broad marketing knowledge carries more weight than a platform-specific badge.
• The PCM® in Marketing Management is designed with that mid-career marketer in mind.

What do you need to prove, and to whom?

• The ��������� survey data makes it clear: credibility is the primary return certified marketers experience.
• If you’re interviewing for a new role, pitching new clients, or working cross-functionally with teams that don’t know your track record, a certification gives you third-party validation.
• If your reputation is already well-established at your current company, the credential may matter more for future mobility than for your day-to-day.

Will your employer help pay for it?

• Forty percent of PCM® holders surveyed said their company covers the cost.
• Before you assume this comes out of your own pocket, check with your manager or HR team about professional development budgets.
• ��������� members receive discounted pricing on all certification programs, and the PCM® Marketing Management page includes a downloadable “letter to your boss” template to help you make the case for employer sponsorship.

Are you thinking long-term?

• The most valuable certifications aren’t one-and-done. They require renewal and continuing education, which keeps you engaged with how the field is evolving.
• In an industry where shows that keeping up with trends is the second-biggest challenge marketers face, that structure is a feature, not a burden.

The PCM® in Marketing Management: what’s actually involved

If you’ve read this far and you’re seriously considering it, here’s what the PCM® in Marketing Management actually looks like.

The program is a 16-hour self-paced online course covering five core areas of marketing: marketing strategy, marketing research and data analytics, pricing strategy, customer behavior and segmentation, and product and service positioning. It’s designed for the marketer who’s moved past execution and into decision-making: someone leading teams, managing cross-channel campaigns, or overseeing marketing operations.

The exam itself is rigorous by design. You’ll face 150 multiple-choice questions with a three-hour time limit, and you need a score of 70% or higher to pass. Your registration includes three attempts within one year, so there’s room to regroup if your first try falls short. This isn’t a completion certificate you earn just by watching the videos. You need to demonstrate real knowledge across a broad spectrum of marketing disciplines, and that’s part of what gives the credential its weight.

When you pass, you earn the right to use the PCM® designation after your name and receive a digital credential you can add to your LinkedIn profile, email signature, and resume. The certification requires recertification every three years through continuing education, which keeps you engaged with current industry developments rather than letting the credential go stale.

��������� members receive discounted pricing, and the certification page includes current pricing, a free practice exam to assess your readiness, and a downloadable “letter to your boss” template if you want to make the case for employer sponsorship. ��������� recommends candidates have at least a bachelor’s degree with four years of marketing experience (or equivalent), though there are no hard eligibility requirements.

You’d be joining a network of more than 6,000 Professional Certified Marketers, including professionals working across agencies, Fortune 500 marketing teams, consultancies, higher education, and nonprofits. They use the credential for career advancement, credibility, and continued learning.

Ready to take the next step? See all the benefits that a PCM® Certification can have for you and your career by downloading the ��������� PCM® Career Impact Report.

Sources cited in this article:

• HubSpot, “2026 State of Marketing Report” (2026)
• Robert Half, “2026 Salary Guide: Marketing and Creative Salary Trends” (2025)
• Robert Half, “6 Marketing and Creative Certifications for a Career Transition” (2025)
• LinkedIn, “Skills on the Rise: The Fastest-Growing Skills in 2026” (2026)
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook (2026)
• ��������� PCM® Renewal Holder Survey (2026)

The post Are Marketing Certifications Worth It? What the Data Says in 2026 appeared first on ���������.

Online marketplaces rely on simple signals to guide complex decisions. On eBay, one of the most noticeable signals is the Top-Rated Seller badge, or eTRS. For buyers, the badge appears directly in search results and provides a quick indication of seller quality. For sellers, it can lead to visibility, credibility, and sales. Xiang Hui, Ginger Zhe Jin, and Meng Liu when eBay redesigned this badge and, in doing so, altered how quality was defined on the platform.

The redesign emerged from a practical concern. eBay believed that the original version of the badge relied too heavily on consumer feedback that could reflect issues beyond a seller’s control. A delayed package caused by a courier strike or a misunderstanding with a buyer could threaten certification status, even when the seller followed platform rules. In response, eBay shifted the badge criteria toward administrative performance measures, such as shipping timeliness based on tracking data and the handling of unresolved buyer claims. These measures were intended to reflect actions sellers could directly manage, giving sellers clearer control over how their efforts translated into certification.

How Sellers and Buyers Reacted to the Change

This change created a clear shift in the problem sellers were solving. Under the new system, maintaining certification depended less on how buyers reported their experience and more on meeting specific operational thresholds. The authors show that sellers responded accordingly. Performance improved on the dimensions tied to certification, particularly near the cutoff points that determined badge eligibility. Sellers learned the certification cutoff and adjusted their effort to remain just above the threshold, reflecting strategic behavior in response to the redesigned incentive system.

Buyers, meanwhile, were not explicitly made aware of the new criteria. Instead, they inferred what the badge meant on the basis of how well it aligned with their own experience. The study finds that the certificate carries more weight in markets where the administrative measures used by eBay are more closely related to consumer-reported satisfaction. In these categories, buyers saw the badge as more valuable, were more likely to purchase listings displaying it, and were more likely to return to the platform within six months. Where that alignment was weaker, the badge had less influence, even though the badge remained equally salient across categories.

Further Effects of Redesigned Trust Badges

The study also highlights how attention shapes the effectiveness of trust systems. Detailed seller ratings were already available on profile pages, yet very few buyers ever viewed them. The redesign worked well because the most relevant information was embedded directly in the badge buyers were already noticing, rather than hidden behind additional clicks. This design choice illustrates how platforms can increase the impact of information not by adding more signals but by repositioning existing ones into the main decision path.

This design choice illustrates how platforms can increase the impact of information not by adding more signals but by repositioning existing ones into the main decision path.

At a broader level, the redesign had consequences for market structure. Certification rates became more similar across categories, but sales also shifted toward larger sellers in some markets. When quality is assessed at the seller level, incumbents with higher volumes can gain an advantage, even if smaller sellers perform well on individual listings. This raises questions about how platforms can preserve trust while maintaining opportunities for smaller participants.

We spoke with the authors to better understand what motivated the redesign, how buyers and sellers responded, and what managers should take away when thinking about trust systems:

Q: The paper studies eBay’s major redesign of its quality certificate. What marketplace observation first made you think that this redesign could meaningfully change seller behavior and buyer trust?

A: The redesign was motivated by eBay’s perception that the prior badge was unfair to sellers because it relied heavily on consumer reviews that could reflect factors outside sellers’ control, rather than verifiable seller actions. It also mattered because the eTRS badge was highly salient. At the time, it was the only reputation signal shown on the search results page, so changing its criteria could meaningfully change both seller incentives and buyer trust.

Q: When platforms redesign a trust badge, they often change what the badge “means” to consumers. How should a platform communicate the new badge criteria to buyers in a way that increases trust without overwhelming them with details?

A: While we do not directly observe how buyers got the information, seller-facing communications at the time of the rollout framed the new administrative criteria as a “simpler and more objective standard.” The platform focused on ensuring sellers understood the change to these fair metrics. Our results show that buyers changed their behavior in a way that is consistent with understanding this shift, valuing the badge more in markets where the new objective criteria were more relevant to their experience.

Q: The results suggest buyers value the certificate more when administrative data are more correlated with consumer reports. How should platforms decide whether to use a single certificate rule everywhere versus tailoring the certificate across categories or markets?

A: Tailoring can improve relevance when administrative metrics better track consumer experience in some categories than others, but it can reduce the clarity and salience of a single badge and increase complexity for sellers operating across markets. Even with a single rule, effects will be heterogeneous because markets differ in how hard it is to meet the same thresholds and how buyers evaluate performance. Managers must keep this tradeoff in mind when deciding between a single rule and tailoring.

Q: Your setting shows that administrative metrics can be more controllable for sellers but not always equally meaningful for buyers. When relevance is weaker, what complementary information should platforms display alongside the badge so customers still feel confident in their decision?

A: Our study highlights that complementary information, such as detailed seller ratings, was already available on seller profile pages but was rarely viewed by buyers—less than one percent. The redesign worked by integrating more relevant data into the salient badge itself. The implication is that simply displaying extra data may have a limited effect unless it is integrated into the main visible certification signal.

Q: You note that certification can lead to sales that are more concentrated sales on large sellers. What is one platform policy that could preserve the trust benefits of certification without unintentionally disadvantaging smaller sellers?

A: One policy is listing-level certification rather than seller-level certification. Certifying individual listings based on shipping performance and return handling allows smaller sellers to earn trust on specific products without requiring large cumulative sales histories. This preserves the trust value of certification while reducing the mechanical advantage that seller-level aggregation gives to large sellers. Platforms can also use levers other than certification, such as organic ranking or sponsored search, to direct traffic toward high-quality small sellers.

Q: In incentive systems, sellers may focus on the measured dimensions and ignore unmeasured ones. From a managerial standpoint, what guardrails can platforms put in place to prevent quality from declining in areas that are not directly included in the certification criteria?

A: Platforms should assume sellers will optimize to measured thresholds. The key managerial guardrail is balancing focus and dilution. Include the dimensions that matter most to buyers, but avoid so many metrics that incentives become diffuse. Operationally, platforms should continuously monitor for threshold targeting and deterioration in unmeasured dimensions and update criteria by adding or reweighting dimensions when needed.

Source: Xiang Hui, Ginger Zhe Jin, and Meng Liu (2025), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 62 (1), 40–60. doi:.

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post When a Trust Badge Changes What Sellers Do appeared first on ���������.

Marketing has never been better at optimization.

Campaigns can now be targeted by behavior, adjusted in real time and measured across dozens of performance indicators. Algorithms help brands decide which message appears where, when and to whom. Every impression can be counted.

But in this era of perfect optimization, something important has quietly eroded. Presence.

Most modern marketing happens on screens. These are fleeting exposures that appear, scroll by and disappear. We’ve built a system that excels at delivering impressions, but impressions alone rarely create the emotional ties that build long-term awareness and affinity.

That’s where tangible marketing still holds unique power.

Physical touchpoints, whether products, experiences or environments, place brands directly into people’s lives. They aren’t consumed and forgotten in seconds. They remain visible, useful or memorable over time: that becomes a personal signal; that makes one night last a decade.

And because of that persistence, they create something every brand covets: lasting connections.

For many marketers, the challenge isn’t understanding the value of tangible engagement. It’s remembering to design it into campaigns from the start rather than adding it later.

Why Tangible Marketing Sticks

The advantage of physical brand experiences aligns with simple human behavior. People remember what they hold, use, wear and interact with repeatedly. Tangible objects, such as your brand merchandise, occupies real space in daily routines, and that repetition strengthens positive associations over time.

Consumer research reinforces this pattern. Studies examining branded merch consistently show that these physical touchpoints generate high recall and favorability among recipients. In research conducted by Promotional Products Association International (PPAI), recall rates for branded merchandise , with favorability scores even higher.

More broadly, PPAI research shows that more than half of consumers keep promotional items for . In other words, people aren’t just keeping merch because it’s useful. They keep it because these pieces represent experiences, memories or relationships with the brands behind them.

That emotional dimension is difficult to replicate in other channels.

It also helps explain why well-designed tangible marketing often outperforms expectations when it comes to brand recall and loyalty.

When Brands Build Lasting Connections

Several brands have leaned into merch not as a novelty but as a core part of their brand ecosystem.

Take Liquid Death, the canned water company that has built an entire lifestyle identity around its merchandise. The brand’s sells everything from bomber jackets to Spotify-enabled urns. It generates revenue streams that rival its beverage sales, but more importantly the merchandise transforms customers into visible advocates. This is how everyday items like t-shirts and hats can become conversation starters.

We’ve all experienced the unexpected cultural momentum of drinkware. These are statement pieces today. They go everywhere with us. The giant Stanley Quencher tumbler alone has been the subject of , limited edition and that reinforced the physical product as a centerpiece of the brand experience.

Even legacy brands are rediscovering the power of tangible engagement. generated enormous attention in part because of the grownup-approved figurines included with the meal. The collectibles transformed a standard promotion into a physical experience that consumers wanted to own, share and display.

Each of these examples illustrates the same principle. When tangible elements are central to the strategy, they amplify attention and extend engagement far beyond the momentary. A product kept and shown off or treasured personally is a campaign extended for more impressions (and therefor a lower CPI and greater ROI).

From Instance To Impact

Of course, not every branded product or physical activation delivers that kind of impact.

The difference often comes down to design and intentionality.

�ʱʴ���’s , which examined consumer reactions to promotional products, found that design is the most important factor determining whether people keep a branded item. Eighty-nine percent of respondents said design influences whether they hold onto a product. Quality materials ranked next, valued by 68% of consumers, while nearly half said a personal touch like personalization or messaging makes an item more memorable or bound to be kept.

Those findings reinforce a critical lesson for marketers. Tangible marketing works best when it is thoughtful. A poorly designed keepsake can undermine brand perception just as quickly as a great one can strengthen it. But when quality and relevance are prioritized, physical items become part of a consumer’s routine rather than a disposable artifact of a campaign.

That’s where tangible marketing moves from promotional to experiential.

The Media Mix Needs Weight

None of this suggests that digital marketing is losing its importance. On the contrary, digital channels remain unmatched in their ability to deliver reach, targeting and real-time performance data.

But digital works best when paired with something that provides campaign oomph.

Physical touchpoints like merch provide that weight. They transform abstract messaging into something consumers can interact with. They extend brand visibility beyond the moment of exposure. And they reinforce the idea that there is a real organization, with real people, behind the brand.

The most effective marketing strategies today combine both approaches.

Digital media drives discovery and scale. Merch marketing deepens connection and memory. Together they create a more balanced ecosystem that serves both short-term performance and long-term brand equity.

Designing Presence From The Start

The key for marketers is to treat tangible marketing as a strategic channel rather than an afterthought add-on.

Too often, physical elements appear late in campaign development and get added as giveaways, event swag or promotional extras. By that stage, they have limited opportunity to reinforce the central brand narrative. Marketers are so cognizant of attributing metrics that show the effectiveness of their work, and digital media offers each to obtain scorecards. It’s always among the first considerations in any campaign. But the real ROI of merch is no different if we’re clear on the intent and audience of the piece.

If we’re deliberate, we can track the recipient’s behavior, the buying actions they take, and the lasting connection that results. When tangible elements are designed into campaigns from the beginning, they play a major role. They anchor experiences, encourage sharing, spark conversation and extend brand visibility into everyday life.

In a marketing landscape increasingly dominated by digital impressions, that kind of presence matters more than ever.

Optimization may drive efficiency. But presence drives connection.

And the brands that succeed in the next era of marketing will likely be the ones that recognize both are essential.

The post Marketing’s Most Overlooked Advantage: Brand Presence appeared first on ���������.

Our research team analyzed how firms responded to the “China Shock,” a surge of imports that disrupted many U.S. industries between 2000 and 2019. We discovered that firms with influential marketing departments and well-established market-based assets—like differentiation and customer capital—were better able to weather these competitive pressures. Specifically, we found that:

1. Marketing Leadership is Crucial

Firms where marketing had a strong voice in strategic decisions outperformed their peers. By aligning cross-functional teams and advocating for customer-driven innovation, these firms launched initiatives that enhanced brand loyalty, improved product innovation, and strengthened competitive positioning.

2. Strategic Differentiation Matters

Differentiation also proved to be a powerful tool. Firms that emphasized unique product features, higher quality, or sustainability outperformed those competing solely on price. For example, branding efforts like “Made in America” or customization helped firms justify premium pricing and retain customers, even when faced with cheaper imports.

3. Customer Relationships Drive Resilience

Customer relationship capital rounded out the trio of success factors. Firms that invested in building long-term trust and loyalty with their customers faced less risk of losing market share. Strong customer ties created switching costs, making it harder for competitors to lure away buyers.

What Does this Mean for the C-Suite?

These insights have significant implications for executives. Many firms respond to financial pressures by cutting marketing budgets or sidelining marketing leaders from strategic discussions. However, our findings highlight the need to elevate marketing as a core function. Boards and CEOs can support marketing by increasing its decision-making authority and ensuring it is involved in board-level discussions.

Policymakers also have a role to play. While trade policies and tariffs are commonly used to protect domestic industries, our research suggests that empowering firms with marketing resources can offer a market-driven alternative to counter import competition. Public–private partnerships focused on branding, differentiation, and customer engagement could strengthen the competitiveness of domestic firms.

The need for marketing-driven strategies will only grow. Experts warn of a potential “China Shock 2.0,” which could flood global markets with low-cost imports in sectors like electric vehicles and solar panels. Firms must proactively strengthen their marketing leadership and differentiation efforts to withstand future competition.

For firms navigating a volatile global trade landscape, strong marketing capabilities can make the difference between thriving and folding.

Source: Nandini Ramani, “,” Journal of Marketing, 89 (5), 47–65.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Struggling to Navigate Global Trade? Rely on the Power of Marketing appeared first on ���������.

Back for its fourth edition, the State of Digital Content 2026 gives a behind-the-scenes look into how content teams operate and where they’re headed next. This year, Canto surveyed over 400 content and marketing professionals to understand how teams navigate rising digital content complexity, what operational challenges slow them down, and what the most advanced, best-in-class organizations do differently.

You’ll glean insights on:

• The content boom: Understand trends in content operation budgets and expectations around content volume in the age of AI
• Content operations under pressure: Investigate the top challenges organizations are facing around digital content management, workflow performance, and focus areas for improvement
• What’s driving digital asset management: See how organizations are managing content, the consequences of mismanaged assets, and the best practices you need now
• Tech stack optimization: Find out where teams are inefficient, the latest operational priorities, and marketing tech stack maturity trends
• AI throughout the content lifecycle: Discover how AI is impacting content operations, where organizations can apply AI successfully, and emerging opportunities

The post The State of Digital Content: 2026 Edition appeared first on ���������.

In recent years, marketing scholars and practitioners have expressed growing concern about the diminishing influence of marketing departments. Against this backdrop, a examines how governance networks may determine marketing department power (MDP). Drawing on data from over 6,000 publicly traded firms from 2007 to 2021, the researchers show that directors’ exposure through board service at other firms (i.e., board interlocks) affects MDP in the firms on whose boards they also serve (i.e., focal firms). More importantly, the strength of this effect hinges on three interlocking dimensions:

1. the reach of a firm’s board network,
2. the richness of marketing information within that network, and
3. the firm’s receptivity to information furnished by the board interlock network.

This work shifts the lens to upstream factors that shape MDP, suggesting that marketing’s influence is not built solely internally—it is also transmitted through board interlocks, making the board not only a governance body but also a conduit for influencing a firm’s MDP. For scholars of marketing’s organizational role, functional power, and network diffusion effects, this study offers a fresh vantage point and a reminder that if marketing wants to increase its power in firms, the conversation must extend beyond the CMO’s office into the boardroom.

For marketers, the core takeaway is clear: the board matters. Firms whose directors are connected to companies where marketing holds greater influence are more likely to elevate marketing’s importance within their own organization. These networks shape how leaders think about growth, which is a key priority for every board. While firms often call on marketers when facing serious challenges or major opportunities, marketing should not be reserved for exceptional circumstances. A key priority for marketers and CMOs is to educate their boards on how and why marketing drives firm growth, a shared goal across virtually all boards.

A key priority for marketers and CMOs is to educate their boards on how and why marketing drives firm growth, a shared goal across virtually all boards.

In short, governance structures are not just background context; they are powerful levers that can strengthen or diminish marketing’s strategic voice in the firm.

We recently had the opportunity to meet with all three authors of this research, who kindly offered additional insights into their motivations, managerial implications, and prospective avenues for future research.

Q: Your research shows that boards of directors, often overlooked in marketing, can shape marketing’s strategic importance. What led you to recognize the board as a missing piece in the marketing power puzzle, and how did this idea develop into the published study?

A: The idea grew from our , where we found that firms that employ CMOs tend to perform better. But we also noticed that the presence of marketers on top management teams and the overall influence of marketing within firms has declined over time. That pattern made us think about what other forces might shape marketing’s standing in firms, beyond what happens inside the organization. The board of directors emerged as a natural next place to look, because directors serve on multiple boards and can bring with them ideas about what marketing should look like. When the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative released a call for projects offering access to large-scale data on board linkages, it gave us a perfect opportunity to test this idea. That combination of prior research, the open question around marketing’s declining power, and the new data on board interlocks ultimately came together in this study.

Q: Do firms need a formal “Marketing Department” to have influence at the top, or is it enough to possess strong marketing capabilities and a deep understanding of what marketing brings to the organization?

A: That’s more of a philosophical question. While marketing today is highly cross-functional, a formal marketing function still matters. Having a defined department or leadership structure gives marketing visibility and accountability at the top. Without it, the customer perspective can easily get lost amid competing priorities. As we often say, “when something is everybody’s responsibility, it ends up being nobody’s responsibility.” A clear advocate, like a marketing department, helps ensure that the customer’s voice is represented in key decisions.

At the same time, the role of marketing looks very different across industries. In consumer goods and retail, marketing tends to have comprehensive control and plays a central strategic role. In banking, it often has a narrower focus on promotions or communications. In professional services like accounting, marketing is more standardized and peripheral. Unlike functions such as accounting, which look similar across most firms, marketing differs widely in scope, influence, and integration. That diversity makes it distinctive: its impact depends on how the organization chooses to empower it. Companies with a more comprehensive marketing approach tend to outperform those with limited marketing responsibilities. Ultimately, marketing power depends on balancing formal structure with shared responsibility.

Q: You show that marketing department power can diffuse across firms through board interlocks. In other areas, firms also learn through executive mobility, strategic alliances, shared consultants, or even investor influence. How does the kind of knowledge transfer you uncover through board ties differ from these other diffusion channels, and what kinds of marketing knowledge travels across boards?

A: Other knowledge transfer channels certainly exist, such as executive mobility or strategic alliances, and with the appropriate data, they could be modeled in a similar framework. Our study focuses specifically on board interlocks, and because we do not observe boardroom conversations directly, we can capture them only through proxies. Similar mechanisms may operate through other channels, but we cannot directly test them.

A key idea here is that boards prioritize growth. When a director sees marketing contributing to growth in one firm, that perspective may diffuse through the interlock to another board. What travels may be high-level mental models about how marketing contributes to performance, or, in some cases, even specific examples shared by directors. Still, the exact mechanism remains a conjecture because we do not observe the discussions themselves; we only observe their downstream effects.

Operationally, even though we cannot measure every variable directly, our use of instrumental-variable methods helps mitigate omitted-variable concerns in this observational setting. We also know from broader research that top management buy-in is essential. That is what makes boards distinctive: because the CEO reports directly to them, any shift in board-level thinking carries disproportionate weight. These mechanisms remain hypotheses that could be examined in more depth when richer data become available.

Q: When boards are interlocked within the same industry, marketing power may spread more easily across firms. Could that connectivity also create unintended consequences? For example, could firms converge on similar, potentially less differentiated strategies?

A: As board members generally cannot serve on the boards of direct competitors, true competitor‐to‐competitor interlocks are uncommon. However, if firms are not direct competitors but are in related industries, shared information could lead them to become more similar, potentially reducing differentiation and creating herding effects. This relates to some of the network measures we used, such as degree and brokerage. Degree centrality suggests that more connections may lead firms to behave more similarly. In contrast, in brokerage, a board member links otherwise unconnected parts of the network and can introduce more diverse and innovative ideas. So, the risk depends on the structure of the interlock network.

Technically speaking, more substantial board interlock effects may mean that firms are more likely to follow their existing connections. If boards increasingly form interlocks with boards they are already connected to, then the likelihood of convergence increases. Studying this convergence would require looking at network dynamics, how these connections form and evolve over time, presenting an interesting future direction. So, the risk depends on whether board networks become more tightly clustered. If that clustering does occur, the risk of strategic convergence increases.

Q: As marketing becomes linked to broader corporate priorities like DEI and ESG initiatives, does this interconnectedness strengthen marketing’s strategic influence or risk diluting its focus?

A: Any initiative that customers value is worth pursuing, whether it’s DEI, ESG, or something else. If diversity, equity, and inclusion lead to broader thinking and help the company better serve customers, they naturally add to both customer and corporate value. The key is to have a clear understanding of how these initiatives benefit customers. For example, empowered women entrepreneurs while also expanding distribution in rural markets. This is an example where a social initiative directly supported business goals. If firms can articulate how these priorities connect to customer value, then marketing’s role becomes more pronounced. But if the link isn’t clear, there’s a risk that marketing’s focus becomes scattered. Many companies still treat DEI and ESG as compliance initiatives rather than customer-driven ones, so marketing often isn’t leading those efforts. If marketing leads them and grounds them in what matters to customers, that can actually elevate marketing’s strategic influence rather than diluting it.

Q: If you were to extend this research further, which context or mechanism would you most like to explore to deepen our understanding of how governance structures shape marketing’s strategic importance?

A: From a technical perspective, an important next step would be to examine how board connections form and evolve. Some drivers are endogenous; for example, boards that share indirect connections are more likely to become directly connected, much like “friends of friends” becoming friends. Understanding those processes would be valuable, particularly when marketing-affiliated directors drive the connection. If a marketing-driven tie disappears and later reappears, is it due to a marketing-affiliated person? Examining these processes could deepen our understanding of marketing’s strategic influence.

More broadly, another valuable direction is to examine marketing’s organizational role and influence within firms. Some work, including , builds on the idea that marketing’s influence within firms has been declining and thus asks: how can marketers regain strategic influence? As the focus increasingly shifts to marketing activities and the creation of customer value, not merely the marketing department, future research should prioritize these value-creating functions rather than focusing solely on the department. In addition, management research suggests that board interlock effects have been weakening or disappearing. We do not see that in our data; the effect remains stable over time. That leads to an interesting question about what’s actually happening: is the board interlock effect still active?

References:

Frank Germann (2025), “Beyond the 4 Ps: Marketing’s Strategic Comeback [Special issue], NIM Marketing Intelligence Review, .

Frank Germann, Peter Ebbes, and Rajdeep Grewal (2015), “The Chief Marketing Officer Matters!” Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 1–22. .

Unilever (2024), “Harnessing the Potential of India’s Growing Workforce,” (July 23), .

Source: Peter Ebbes, Frank Germann, and Rajdeep Grewal (2024), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 62 (1), 1−21. doi:

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post Linked for Success: How Board Interlocks Influence Marketing Power  appeared first on ���������.

YouTube has become the new king of media – spanning CTV, the creator economy, Shorts, and performance marketing. Yet many brands still manage these opportunities in silos, limiting impact and wasting spend.

This playbook explores how leading brands are rethinking YouTube as a unified ecosystem. By aligning paid media, creator partnerships, and organic strategy, brands can reduce inefficiencies, improve brand suitability, and drive stronger performance.

Inside, you’ll discover the key challenges holding brands back, the strategies top marketers are adopting, and how to build a more connected, effective YouTube approach.

Download the guide to see how brands are turning YouTube into a true growth engine.

The post The Brand Marketer’s YouTube Playbook appeared first on ���������.