Picture this: A kids’ menu contains some healthy options, so a parent decides to order one for their child—perhaps grilled chicken bites with baby carrots. However, when it comes to the parent’s own order, they choose something less healthy, such as a cheeseburger with fries. They do this not because they necessarily want a burger themselves but out of concern that their child won’t like or eat their healthy meal, so the parent uses their own meal as a backup option. This common scenario reveals a complex dynamic in family dining that has significant implications for restaurants, policymakers, and public health.

A dives deep into the dynamics of these parent–child consumption choices through a series of studies, including interviews, a field experiment at a nursery school, and lab experiments. When parents choose healthy options for their kids in settings where sharing is possible, they often make unhealthy choices for themselves. This isn’t simply a matter of parents rewarding themselves; rather, it reflects a deeper tension between present-focused concerns (“will my child eat enough?”) and future-focused concerns (“is my child learning healthy eating habits?”).

“When parents choose healthy options for their kids in settings where sharing is possible, they often make unhealthy choices for themselves.”

The research identifies a psychological process in which parents focus so heavily on their child’s needs that they view their own meal as an extension of their child’s plate, often leveraging it as an alternative option for their child. This behavior not only impacts immediate consumption but could also have longer-term implications related to the wellness of the parents and, in turn, the wellness of the family the as a whole, as well as the modeling of unhealthy habits for children—despite parents’ good intentions.

What Can Restaurants and Policymakers Do?

For restaurants and policymakers, these findings suggest the need for a more holistic approach to family dining. Simply adding healthy options to kids’ menus isn’t enough; the entire dining ecosystem needs attention. Restaurants might consider menu language that promotes future-focused thinking about family meals, developing marketing communications that help set boundaries around food sharing, and working on aligning perceptions of healthy and tasty food. Meanwhile, policymakers should look beyond simply mandating healthy children’s menu options to consider guidelines that address both children’s and adults’ choices, especially in settings where families eat together. Educational campaigns could help families prioritize future well-being over immediate concerns, thus addressing the psychological dynamics revealed in this research. 

We had the privilege of speaking directly with two authors, Kelley Gullo Wight and Peggy Liu, to dive deeper into their fascinating study. Read on for their insights and behind-the-scenes stories:

Q: What initially inspired you to study the relationship between parents’ choices for their children and their subsequent choices for themselves? Can you share how the initial idea led to further studies and ultimately became the published article?

Dr. Wight: The initial inspiration came from personal observations during my first year of the PhD program. I got a cat and noticed an interesting pattern in my own behavior: I would go to the pet food store and spend a lot of time picking out the healthiest food. Afterward, I would go to the cupcake store next door and buy myself a cupcake. I started wondering, “What is happening? Why am I doing this?” This initial observation sparked broader research into how our initial choices for close others might affect our subsequent choices for ourselves.

Dr. Liu: At some point along the journey for this project, we expanded our study to consider a huge variety of relationships, such as siblings, competitive relationships, and friendships. However, what the JMR review team wanted us to do was, instead of covering every possible type of choice for others affecting choice for self, to think more about one specific type of context where it’s common to make choices for others and to figure out why there are influences between choices for others and choices for self in that context. By focusing on the parent–child relationship, we were able to develop a much stronger and more impactful paper.

Q: Were there any challenges in earlier studies, such as the field study conducted in the nursery school? How did you ultimately execute it?

Dr. Wight: The original version of the paper included a field study at a dog park. When the review team wanted us to focus specifically on parent–child relationships, we needed to find a replacement field study, which proved quite challenging during COVID.

Ultimately, we partnered with a nursery school. While we couldn’t directly observe parents and children eating because of COVID protocols, they allowed us to coordinate take-home meal orders for families. We are very grateful to the nursery school for their willingness to work with us. After the research was completed, we were able to give back to the community by conducting workshops about families with the parents, which was really great.

Q: Could greater literacy regarding sustainable and health-conscious food choices make a difference? What suggestions would you offer to parents based on your findings?

Dr. Wight: Focusing on sustainability and avoiding food waste could have a countereffect here: people might be more likely to pick a less healthy backup option to make sure all food is eaten. One thing that seems to be going on is that it may be valuable as a parent to be able to provide a wide variety of options that you have (as the parent) cleared as being healthy and to then let the child pick among them. This way, you’re still exerting control as the parent, and the child has a greater variety of healthy options to pick from, which might encourage healthier eating and help ensure that they pick the healthy options that they view as especially tasty.

Dr. Liu: I think most parents and adults know what’s healthy and unhealthy. Our research suggests that it is really important to emphasize that parents have a future focus (e.g., thinking about their child’s development of healthy habits for their future) instead of just a present focus (e.g., thinking about their child’s eating at that present moment). I think it’s also important to help people—both adults and children—understand that health and taste can be aligned. There’s some interesting research in nutrition that shows you have to try food many times before you can actually know if you like it.

Q: Based on your research, what adjustments would you suggest to restaurants to help promote healthier eating habits, particularly given that many kids’ meals today tend to be unhealthy? How could these insights be applied in public health initiatives?

Dr. Liu: While some companies and school cafeterias have tried to encourage providing children with healthier meals, we need to think about both short-term and long-term impacts. One key aspect would be to make health and taste feel more aligned for children. I think it’s important for children to develop actual enjoyment of these healthier options. Many parents know that it’s not good for their kids to eat unhealthy options frequently; to the extent that restaurants or companies could help children develop healthier habits, I think parents would be willing to eat [at these locations] more frequently.

Dr. Wight: The White House released a in 2023 for restaurants and businesses to offer more healthy children’s options, and many companies signed up. Our research insights suggest that we can’t only focus on the healthy options we offer on the kids’ menu or how we advertise healthy options for kids. We have to think about how parents pick their own meals as well because what really matters is what’s available on the table.

Q: Given societal pressure, such as the ideal of a “perfect parent,” or when in a social event with other parents, will parents’ behavior change?

Dr. Wight: I think, in some ways it’s an empirical question—something that could be interesting to study. With these kinds of parental peer pressure situations, I see where it could result in parents being more likely to try to encourage their children to eat healthy, which exacerbates the concern about whether they will eat enough to be full (such that parents choose unhealthy backup options). However, in other ways, parents may also choose healthy for themselves, given their peer influence. Something else could happen too. When you’re sitting with your parent friend and want to hang out, maybe you want to settle your child as soon as possible and give them something unhealthy that you know they’ll eat without any protest. This depends on all kinds of factors, which adds another layer of social influence to this kind of social dynamic.

Q: Beyond food, do you think similar behaviors might arise in other caregiving areas, such as educational choices (e.g., extracurriculars) or financial decisions for children? Are there common threads across different contexts?)

Dr. Liu: I think one broad concept that ties all these areas together is that parents make sacrifices. As parents, you may sacrifice your time, money, and consumption preferences across these domains. However, some of our findings in this particular JMR paper are fairly specific to food in the sense that if you think about something like the problems of sharing food and the immediate concerns of the child’s hunger, I’m not sure how those concepts translate as easily to education choices. There are parents who drive themselves ragged, trying to drive their children all over town to every extracurricular, when really what might have been better for the child and the whole family’s well-being is if the parent was less stressed. Therefore, while this is a bit removed from what this research project focused on empirically, it has a broader theme of sacrificing your own well-being for the child. This area of sacrifice is a really interesting one, I think, especially given recent calls by the for more work on the well-being of caregivers.

References

Kelley Gullo Wight, Peggy J. Liu, Lingrui Zhou, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2024), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (3), 451–71.

The White House (February 27, 2024), ““

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (August 28, 2024), “.”

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post The Parent’s Plate Problem: How Good Intentions for Kids Lead to Poor Food Choices for Adults appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

A reveals that nearly half of firms employ persuasive or blended cues to maximize opt-in rates. While these strategies can be effective, they come with significant trade-offs in reputation and regulatory risk, particularly for firms with high visibility or a history of data breaches.  For example, Meta recently faced a €490 million fine from the European Commission for using a “nudge” model to obtain data consent for ads. This incident underscores the tension between transparency and persuasion in data practices, raising critical questions about ethics, compliance, and consumer trust.

The Prevalence of Persuasive Strategies

The study examines nearly 1,400 firms and finds that 26% rely solely on persuasive cues, while 24% combine persuasive and informative elements. This demonstrates that many firms focus on meeting the letter of GDPR regulations rather than altering their data collection practices as intended. Field and lab experiments confirm that blended strategies are the most effective, significantly boosting opt-in rates compared to purely transparent messaging.

The Costs and Benefits of Persuasion

Using persuasive cues provides firms with increased access to consumer data, enabling enhanced monetization and competitive advantage. However, these benefits are offset by potential costs, including reputational harm and regulatory penalties. Consumers and regulators often recognize attempts to influence decisions, which can erode trust, particularly for brands already grappling with public scrutiny over past data breaches.

Interestingly, the study finds that firms excelling in data monetization are more inclined to use persuasive tactics, while those with established reputations or higher visibility tend to avoid them. This suggests a strategic trade-off between short-term data gains and long-term trust.

Insights by Industry and Channel

A surprising discovery is the stark difference in data collection strategies across industries and channels. Firms selling physical products or operating brick-and-mortar stores lean more heavily on persuasive cues compared to purely digital businesses.

This behavior appears driven by the desire for a unified, omnichannel customer view. Physical retailers often aim to integrate insights from both online and offline interactions, leveraging persuasive strategies to gain consent for cross-channel tracking. By contrast, digital-first firms may naturally collect sufficient data from their existing online customer base, allowing them to prioritize transparency and trust over persuasion.

Stakeholder Implications

The findings carry significant implications for regulators, firms, and consumers.

Policymakers: Mandatory opt-in requirements, as dictated by GDPR and designed to increase transparency, may inadvertently incentivize firms to rely on persuasive strategies. Policymakers should consider revising guidelines to balance transparency with practicality. For example, encouraging the use of monetary incentives for opt-ins can make data consent more equitable and easier to regulate.

Firms: Businesses must weigh the risks and rewards of persuasive strategies. While these tactics may yield higher opt-ins, they could backfire if perceived as manipulative, especially for high-profile brands. Offering incentives and maintaining clear communication about data use can mitigate these risks.

Consumers: Individuals should exercise caution when opting in for financial rewards, especially from firms with aggressive data monetization practices. Awareness of persuasive tactics can help consumers make informed decisions about their data.

Lessons for Firms and Future Research

This study offers a practical framework for evaluating opt-in strategies, emphasizing that while persuasive cues can be effective, they are not always sustainable. Firms with physical stores may benefit from leveraging their omnichannel presence but must balance persuasion with trust to maintain customer loyalty.

For policymakers, the study suggests revisiting GDPR implementation to address unintended consequences, such as overreliance on persuasion. Encouraging more transparent practices while allowing for creative opt-in approaches, like incentives, can create a healthier data ecosystem.

Source: Caterina D’Assergio, Puneet Manchanda, Elisa Montaguti, and Sara Valentini, “” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Persuasion vs. Transparency: How Firms Navigate GDPR Compliance to Boost Opt-Ins appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

In a , we explain what underlies these Republicans’ thought processes and behaviors and how the majority of news media and social media contribute to this problem.

The Lethal Combination: Polarization and Misinformation

Our team finds that political polarization triggers Republicans, but not Democrats, to spread misinformation that is objectively false. Although Republicans may understand the content is very likely false, they are willing to spread it. We also discover the reason why Republicans respond to political polarization by conveying misinformation, while Democrats do not: Republicans strongly value their party winning over the competition. Democrats do not value winning nearly as strongly; they place more value on equity and inclusion, seeing the world in a fundamentally different way than Republicans.

In other words, whenever there is political polarization—that is, fierce competition between political parties—Republicans feel their backs are against the wall and come out swinging. They are willing to convey misinformation that is likely untrue, but not definitively false, to help their fellow Republicans win and Democrats lose. Democrats are less triggered by political polarization—they do not value their party winning over other values, so they do not respond this way.

We conducted six studies that demonstrate this. Our first study examines fact-checked statements in the news media and on social media by public figures over 10 years (2007–2016). Our second study extends this analysis to 16 years (2007–2022). We find that when there was political polarization in the news cycle, Republicans conveyed significantly more misinformation than Democrats.

We verify our findings in three online studies where we surveyed U.S. adults who identified as either Republican or Democrat. We put these individuals in politically polarized situations—for instance, we showed them Senate Republican and Democratic leaders arguing. We then showed them misinformation from current social media. For example, Republicans saw news such as “Democratic Senators are secretly pro-Russia” and “Democratic Senators are purposely manipulating gas prices,” while Democrats saw news such as “Republican Senators are secretly pro-Russia” and “Republican Senators are purposely manipulating gas prices.” In politically polarized situations, Republicans were significantly more willing to convey misinformation than Democrats to gain an advantage over the opposing party.

Our last study examines the speeches of U.S. presidents over 94 years (1929–2023), spanning the 31^st president Herbert Hoover to the 46^th president Joseph Biden. We find that in political polarized situations, such as during election periods, Republican presidents talked more about “we” and “us” than Democratic presidents, indicating they were more focused on their own party and partisanship.

To summarize, Republicans react to political polarization by putting out partisan misinformation. This can have a deleterious effect on the state of democratic institutions and processes. For instance, in the year following the 2020 U.S. presidential election and accompanying misinformation about election fraud, 400 restrictive voting bills were introduced in 47 U.S. state legislatures. Additionally, 14 states passed restrictive voting bills that, for instance, shortened the mail-in voting period, eliminated election day registration, and/or reduced ballot drop box access. These changes have decreased voter turnout and engagement, particularly among minority voters.

Lessons for Marketers, Media Organizations, and Policy Makers

What should be done to reduce the harmful effects of misinformation? We offer some ideas that could have a positive effect:

• Dampen political polarization in news media and social media. We find numerous instances when the same news story had a polarizing or less polarizing headline depending on the news outlet; for example, the Wall Street Journal said “tense vote” while the Guardian said “bipartisan vote.” However, marketplace incentives may be insurmountable because polarization increases audience size, engagement, and political donations.

• Invest more money in fact checking, which is now a task performed by volunteer organizations on shoestring budgets. We recommend that fact-checkers strategically allocate more resources when situations are politically polarized (e.g., during elections). They could also integrate fact checks with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank’s polarization index to better understand and predict when misinformation is likely to spike.

• There are 18 U.S. states that mandate media literacy education to teach students how to detect misinformation in the media. We recommend that the remaining U.S. states follow their lead.

Overall, we should strive to create a new generation of citizenry that will not be swayed by objectively false political misinformation to protect trust, truth, and democracy.

Source: Xiajing Zhu and Cornelia Pechmann, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Study: Republicans Respond to Political Polarization by Spreading Misinformation, Democrats Don’t appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Public policy makers are grappling with the question of whether to abolish the biannual time change and, if so, whether to make standard time or daylight saving time permanent. While sleep scientists call for year-round standard time because it best aligns with humans’ circadian rhythms, many retailers and outdoor industries support permanent daylight saving time, arguing that longer sunlight in the evenings supports their business. It is thus crucial to further illuminate the consequences of the current policy to better inform policy makers, managers, and consumers.

In a , we explore whether the onset of daylight saving time leads consumers to engage in unhealthy behaviors. Are there contextual and individual moderating factors that might amplify the potential deleterious consequences of switching to daylight saving time?

We examined social media data from X (formerly Twitter) to study consumer responses to the onset of daylight saving time. We find that the number of tweets with keywords related to the disruptive nature of the switch to daylight saving time peaked around 12 hours after the change occurred. We also find that the volume of negatively toned tweets rose more substantially, indicating a stronger increase in negative sentiment toward the time change. Overall, our preliminary findings suggest that consumers respond negatively to the switch to daylight saving time.

Snack Consumption and Fitness Center Visits

Next, we examine two unique disaggregate level datasets that capture two different consumer behaviors: snack consumption and fitness center visits. The first dataset captures consumers’ real-time snack consumption in their natural environments, while the second dataset tracks the attendance records of customers visiting fitness centers. For understanding consumer behavior following the onset of daylight saving time, we compare consumers’ calorie consumption from packaged snacks and visits to fitness centers across two customer groups: those who are affected by the onset of daylight saving time (the treatment group) and those who are not affected by the onset of daylight saving time (the control group), before and after the onset of daylight saving time.

We find that:

1. calorie consumption from largely unhealthy snacks increases following the time change and
2. visits to fitness centers decrease.

The effect on calorie consumption is amplified during the evening hours and for cloudy days. Further, visits to fitness centers are reduced among fitness center members who live farther away and who do not visit the fitness centers regularly. Finally, we also examine the effect of the transition from daylight saving time to standard time (during fall) and find that there is no effect of the fall transition on calories consumed from unhealthy snacks. Our results highlight the role of sleepiness caused by the one-hour setback, which impairs consumers’ self-control and leads to less healthy consumption behavior.

Lessons for Public Policy Makers

Our study indicates that the onset of daylight saving time is an obstacle to consumers’ health goals, suggesting that policy makers should continue trying to end the time changes. Further, from a consumer well-being perspective, public health campaigns promoting healthy eating and exercise might be especially necessary around the time change.

“Our study indicates that the onset of daylight saving time is an obstacle to consumers’ health goals, suggesting that policy makers should continue trying to end the time changes.”

Lessons for Consumers

We suggest that consumers follow self-control strategies such as avoiding stocking up on unhealthy snacks before the time change. Conversely, fitness center members might plan activities close to the center to reduce the effort required to visit it following the time change. Consumers vulnerable to self-control failures might also seek support from peers (e.g., online social networks) and platforms incentivizing healthy behavior (e.g., through gamification).

Novel technologies, such as smart circadian lighting systems, might also help consumers reset their circadian clocks in a less disruptive fashion. Apps originally designed for travelers to reduce jet lag can be used to minimize the effect of the time change.

Lessons for Chief Marketing Officers

Firms involved in health-related industries can use the insights from the study to anticipate demand and to better serve their customers around the onset of daylight saving time. For instance, when daylight saving time starts, fitness centers could offer promotions like free coffee or a competition or event to bring people in and counter their tendency to skip exercising.

Overall, policy makers, consumers, and firms can benefit from our study by anticipating the likelihood with which people will be thrown off course due to the disruption caused by the time change and discussing steps that might be taken by stakeholders to mitigate the negative consequences.

Source: Ramkumar Janakiraman, Harsha Kamatham, Sven Feurer, Rishika Rishika, Bhavna Phogaat, and Marina Girju, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post How Daylight Saving Time Is Bad for Your Health: Consumers Eat Worse and Skip the Gym More After Springing Forward appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

A web companion that extends this research by providing detailed context and results is .

In countries without universal health insurance or developed health care systems, governments try to make drugs affordable and accessible. For instance, in India, where around 80% of healthcare expenses are borne privately with the majority paid out-of-pocket, the ostensible reason for price regulation is to increase the affordability of essential drugs. However, there is a general lack of empirical evidence assessing the impact of regulation on the availability, accessibility, and sales of prescription drugs in emerging economies such as India.

In a , we examine the unintended consequences of India’s Drug Price Control Order in 2013 (DPCO 2013) that was instituted to make essential medicines more affordable. Because of the lower prices intended to increase drug accessibility, we find that pharmaceutical firms curtailed marketing efforts for regulated drugs due to diminished profit margins and shifted their focus to unregulated (but related) drugs. This shift disproportionately affected prescriptions issued by less formally educated physicians—those who often serve the most economically disadvantaged populations, and the very groups DPCO 2013 aimed to benefit.

Pharmaceutical firms curtailed marketing efforts for regulated drugs due to diminished profit margins and shifted their focus to unregulated (but related) drugs.

The process began in September 2011 when the Indian government prepared a National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM). In May 2013, the government announced price regulations for these drugs, capping their prices. The price cap for each drug was computed using the weighted average (market shares used as weights) of the market prices of the drug as sold by different brands (minimum 1% market share). Brands priced above the cap were required to reduce their prices to at or below the price cap, while brands already priced below the cap were required to retain current prices.

The government implemented several measures to mitigate potential negative reactions from firms. The order required firms to maintain current production volumes of regulated drugs. While firms may apply to exit a category with a six-month notice, the order reserved the right to mandate production for up to 12 months. Furthermore, price increases for regulated drugs were limited to inflation levels. Additionally, it capped annual price hikes for unregulated drugs at 10% to prevent firms from offsetting lost margins on regulated drugs by raising prices on unregulated ones.

The Marketing Curveball

In this study, we identified 179 oral solid drugs (pills) included in DPCO 2013. By comparing data from India to the Philippines—a country without similar regulations—we find that, on average, the sales volumes of these regulated drugs declined in India.

We identify the strategic shift in marketing efforts of firms as a main contributing factor. In India, where direct-to-consumer advertising is prohibited for prescription drugs, the main vehicle for promotion is detailing; that is, providing information about drugs and their efficacy to physicians, usually by medical representatives from pharmaceutical firms. Using detailing data from a large pharmaceutical firm, we find that due to the lowered margins of regulated drugs, firms shifted their detailing focus to unregulated (but related) drugs. For example, a firm could have shifted its marketing focus from atorvastatin (a regulated drug for cholesterol issues) to rosuvastatin (an unregulated drug prescribed for similar issues).

We further examine this shift’s impact on prescriptions from physicians without formal medical degrees (termed as non-MBBS Physicians). Large parts of India lack access to highly qualified doctors, and physicians without formal medical degrees usually provide healthcare and actively prescribe allopathic medicines. Due to the shift in detailing focus, the percentage of prescriptions for regulated drugs from these non-MBBS physicians declined. Furthermore, our surveys show that compared to formally trained medical professionals, non-MBBS physicians relied heavily on pharmaceutical detailing to inform their prescribing practices.

We rule out other potential explanations for the declining sales volumes of regulated drugs. The prevalence of diseases like acute respiratory infections, circulatory system diseases, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and pneumonia has increased, which does not explain the sales decline. Also, new drug approvals have dropped significantly since 2013 and AYUSH (traditional Indian medicine) has also declined. Thus, our findings strongly support a detailing-led explanation for the reduced sales volumes.

Lessons for Regulators, Marketing Officers, and Advocacy Groups

Our study serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of policies and market dynamics.

• Regulators must understand the full spectrum of a policy’s impact before implementing it. This includes considering how pharmaceutical firms might react to price caps, including marketing strategies, and the downstream effects on healthcare providers and patients.
• Pharmaceutical companies need to maintain a balance between profitability and social responsibility, particularly in markets heavily reliant on out-of-pocket spending for healthcare.
• Patient advocacy groups must amplify their role in policy discussions, ensuring that the voices of the most vulnerable populations are heard and that their needs are prioritized in healthcare regulations.

extends this research by providing detailed context and results for broader dissemination.

From: Saravana Jaikumar, Pradeep K. Chintagunta, and Arvind Sahay, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post How an Indian Government Policy Backfired: Prescription Drug Price Regulations Led to More Marketing for Unregulated Medications appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

The COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna introduce a piece of mRNA that corresponds to a viral protein, usually one found on the outer membrane of the coronavirus. The immune system recognizes this foreign protein and produces antibodies to fight it. These antibodies remain in the body even after the pathogen has been destroyed. If exposed to the virus after receiving an mRNA-based vaccine, antibodies can quickly recognize and fight it before it causes serious illness.

The skepticism about mRNA centers around claims that it could spread itself throughout the body and alter the basic DNA of those vaccinated. This belief persists despite several leading scientists and policymakers assuring the public that the mRNA is broken down shortly after vaccination and does not stay in the body.

In a , we find that certain consumers are surprisingly averse to products described as employing a novel technology, like vaccines based on mRNA technology. We investigate how consumers react to technological innovations under the following circumstances:

• When consumers cannot test and trial the new product to reduce uncertainty
• When the new product might lead to a health loss
• When other consumers’ adoption of the new product might undermine the importance of the new technology

Examples of such innovations are mRNA vaccines and other pharmaceutical products but also products such as nanoparticle pesticides, lithium-ion battery technology, or hydrogen energy. We use a mathematical model and series of experiments to study the adoption of mRNA vaccines as a specific case, and we extend our findings to the abovementioned domains.

We find that consumers demand higher vaccine efficacy to offset the higher perceived uncertainty that surrounds a new technology compared to a traditional vaccine. On average, participants required a 19% higher vaccine efficacy to adopt a new technology vaccine.

This aversion to new technology vaccines was more pronounced among certain consumer segments, such as people who have little trust in their government. Consumers less inclined to embrace new technology in general were also more likely to avoid a vaccine employing new technology. Finally, consumers who are risk averse, especially regarding small probabilities of losses, tended to show a stronger aversion to adopting a new technology vaccine.

Nudges to “Follow the Herd”

We find that one way to reduce this aversion is with a social proof nudge: to communicate that other consumers have adopted the new technology. When we communicated that a higher percentage of the population had adopted the new technology, people saw it as a proxy trial experience, which reduced their uncertainty. They were therefore more likely to “follow the herd” and adopt the new technology.

But this strategy can be a double-edged sword: When people know that a high percentage of the population has taken up a vaccine, they might be less likely to vaccinate because they believe they are protected due to herd immunity.

However, our findings show that a social proof nudge has an overall net positive effect in this context and reduces aversion to new technology vaccines. We find the same pattern in other domains such as novel energy-efficient technology (i.e., hydrogen energy heating, lithium-battery cars), nanoparticle pesticides, and other pharmaceutical products.

Lessons for Marketers and Policymakers

• Marketers can identify consumers with low trust in government, low technology readiness, and high aversion to risk based on their willingness to pay for insurance premiums, past purchases of high-tech products, and their age and education level.

• Companies can adjust their communication strategies to better connect with different groups of consumers by predicting how each would respond to the introduction of new technologies. 

• Consumers can make more informed choices about new technology by understanding how their personal beliefs and attitudes, such as trust in government and risk preferences, as well as social proof nudges, influence their choices.
  
• Policymakers and marketers must carefully consider the potential (long-term) risks of new technology and respect the autonomy of decision makers. This is because social proof nudges might bias information processing in ways that lead consumers to overlook uncertainty when they should not.

• When a technology’s greatest need lies in communities prone to distrust (e.g., new technology pesticides for farmers in rural areas), marketers should understand the root causes of distrust, seek feedback, and focus on reducing the perceived uncertainty in a transparent fashion, as exaggerated claims may contribute to further distrust.

From: Laura Zimmermann, Jeeva Somasundaram, and Barsha Saha, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Overcoming Consumer Resistance to New Technology: The Power of Social Proof appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Across the globe, over one billion individuals—including 650 million adults, 340 million teenagers, and 39 million children—are considered obese (). This number is still rising, and with dangerous expected outcomes. According to the World Health Organization, by 2025, 167 million adults and children will have worsening health due to being overweight or obese. Consequently, regulatory bodies around the world are working to combat this issue. Professors Max J. Pachali, Marco J.W. Kotschedoff, Arjen van Lin, Bart J. Bronnenberg, and Erica van Herpen study such a regulation in Chile to develop a model that sheds light on the impact of warning labels on cereal prices. Their reveals a fascinating trend: Labeled cereals experience price hikes, while unlabeled products either witness a decrease in price or only marginal price increases. This intriguing finding presents compelling evidence that price-sensitive consumers remain within the unlabeled product category.

In 2016, Chile took a pioneering step by becoming the first country to enforce a mandatory, nationwide policy requiring nutrient warning labels on the front of product packaging (). Focusing on this crucial issue, the researchers delved deep into the multifaceted nature of the problem, with a particular emphasis on its impact on lower-income groups. Their study unveils the intricate dynamics between nutrition, economics, and consumer behavior, shedding light on a fascinating interplay. By peeling back the layers of this complex phenomenon, the article uncovers valuable insights that prove indispensable to both academic scholars and industry practitioners seeking a comprehensive understanding of how warning labels might influence pricing dynamics

Prices Align with Policymakers’ Intentions

The authors’ findings reveal an unexpected outcome in response to the warning label regulation: a price equilibrium that aligns with the objectives of policymakers. Notably, cereals deemed less healthy and labeled as such experience a significant loss in market share, whereas their healthier, unlabeled counterparts witness a substantial gain. In other words, firms increase the prices of unhealthier (labeled) products and drop or increase less the prices of healthier (unlabeled) products—a striking and perhaps unexpected pattern that is driven by the way different consumers respond to the warning labels.

Firms increase the prices of unhealthier (labeled) products and drop or increase less the prices of healthier (unlabeled) products—a striking and perhaps unexpected pattern that is driven by the way different consumers respond to the warning labels.

The adjustment of prices plays a pivotal role in this equilibrium. From a policymaker’s perspective, one of the most notable discoveries is the substantial impact of price changes on products with calorie and sugar labels. Furthermore, the study highlights that equilibrium price adjustments result in significant shifts in demand for unlabeled cereals. The research demonstrates that a mere .44% increase in market share for unlabeled cereals translates to a remarkable 12% of their total market share within the new equilibrium established post-regulation.

We had the privilege of conducting an insightful interview with the authors, who generously shared captivating perspectives on their research for this article. Brace for an extraordinary journey that unveils the covert strategies of the market, where labeled cereals encounter the daunting challenge of skyrocketing prices:

Q: Most research on nutrition labels in marketing has focused on changes in consumer behavior. What prompted you to study the effect of a warning label mandate on both consumer and manufacturer behavior?

A: The goal of the warning label regulation in Chile was to stimulate healthier product choices. In particular, policymakers targeted consumers with lower socioeconomic standards who often have less knowledge about a healthy diet and often have limited access to healthcare. However, the intended goal of the regulation may backfire if manufacturers responded by, for example, lowering the prices of labeled (unhealthier) products to compensate for the negative utility shock triggered by the warning label mandate. In this case, consumers with lower income (often more price sensitive) would face additional incentives to purchase unhealthier products. However, in our case, we find that the effect of the regulation is even amplified as more price-sensitive households updated more negatively on labeled products (referred to as a “composition effect” in the manuscript). Because of this, labeled cereals face a larger portion of less price-sensitive consumers than before, rationalizing raised prices after regulation. These price responses amplify the effect of the regulation as it becomes even more unattractive for low-income consumers to purchase unhealthy cereals. As the direction of price adjustments is usually unclear a priori, it is thus important to account for the supply-side’s adjustments of prices for judging the effectiveness of a public policy intervention, such as the warning label introduction in Chile.

Q: The U.S. is one of the countries with an obesity epidemic. Considering the cultural and socioeconomic differences between countries like the United States and Chile, do you think similar behavior would be encountered in the U.S.?

A: Our main finding that firms increased prices of unhealthier and labeled cereal products was derived using a structural model of optimal consumer and retailer behavior. Our findings thus provide guidance for predicting the likely direction of price adjustments in other markets if policymakers can, for example, anticipate which consumers will be most responsive to the introduction of warning labels: price sensitive (generally lower socioeconomic groups with lower income) versus less price sensitive (higher socioeconomic groups with higher income). To gain ex-ante knowledge of whether this might also be the case in a different market, policymakers could set up a choice experiment or conjoint analysis in their target population to investigate the likely price response. Thus, our results are generalizable beyond the Chilean case and may apply to countries like the United States as well.

Q: What do you think about consumer and manufacturer behavior across product categories? Cereal is a staple product, typically consumed daily, which makes the item (and consequently, the warning label) more salient. Do you think we would see similar effects across categories such as fast food, which people might consume outside the home and less frequently but with equally harmful consequences?

A: As other research shows (), consumers may not respond as strongly to introducing warning labels in categories where they expect unhealthy products, such as chocolates and cookies. The reason is that labels only influence purchase behavior if consumers’ beliefs about the healthiness of products were biased before the label introduction. Thus, our findings may not be generalizable to categories in which consumers are already aware of the unhealthiness of products regarding sugar, calories, fat, or salt. We cannot therefore say with certainty that our findings would also apply to the fast food category. However, in other categories where the healthfulness of products is less clear for most consumers a priori, such as bread, we would expect similar price responses.

Q: What are your thoughts on products that were reformulated to avoid the warning labels? What characteristics would you say prompted certain firms to make the change while others did not?

A: Reformulations are an important aspect for judging the effect of the warning label regulation as well (see, e.g., ). We expect products that reformulated their recipe below the critical thresholds to avoid warning labels to benefit after regulation, similar to what we indicate for unlabeled products in the manuscript. However, most prominent product manufacturers with high market shares did not reformulate their product recipes in the cereal category for one-and-a-half years after the warning label regulation. The reason is that manufacturers are more hesitant to change the recipe of successful products in the marketplace. For most manufacturers, the price is the most flexible marketing-mix variable to adjust after a warning label introduction.

Q: Chile was the first country to implement nutritional warning labels. Was this a reason to choose Chile to study the effect of nutritional warning labels on price? In 2020, Mexico enacted a law requiring warning labels on the front of food packages that contain “excess” sugar, calories, sodium, or saturated fat. How do you think the findings of this study apply in Mexico?

A: Chile was one of the first countries that adopted a warning label regulation. We chose Chile because a mandatory regulation creates a clean setting to evaluate the effect of warning label introductions on consumer behavior and retailers’ price setting. As mentioned in our response to previous questions, the consumer composition effect may apply in Mexico as well, depending on which consumers will be most responsive to the introduction of warning labels—price sensitive (generally lower socioeconomic groups with lower income) versus less price sensitive (higher socioeconomic groups with higher income). Please also consider our previous answer on how policymakers can ex-ante test whether this is likely the case using, for example, conjoint analysis.

Q: Since price is one of the most flexible marketing mix elements to adjust, how do you think promotional offers will influence the relationship between nutritional warnings and price for both price-sensitive and non-price-sensitive consumers?

A: As suggested by our results, unlabeled products face a larger segment of more price-sensitive consumers than before regulation due to the consumer composition effect triggered by the warning label introduction. This suggests that these price-sensitive consumers that also pay attention to the healthfulness of their consumption would be very responsive to temporary price promotions of unlabeled products. On the other hand, labeled cereal products that face a more price-insensitive consumer clientele after regulation may have fewer incentives to put their products on price promotions. This would be a desirable side-effect of our results. However, we agree that this is a very interesting aspect that should be analyzed in future research.

Read the full article:

Max J. Pachali, Marco J.W. Kotschedoff, Arjen Van Lin, Bart J. Bronnenberg, and Erica Van Herpen (2022), “” Journal of Marketing Research, 60 (1), 92–109. doi:

References:

AlĂ©-Chilet, Jorge and Sarah Moshary (2022), “Beyond Consumer Switching: Supply Responses to Food Packaging and Advertising Regulations,” Marketing Science, 41 (2), 243–70.

Araya, SebastiĂĄn, AndrĂ©s Elberg, Carlos Noton, and Daniel Schwartz (2022), “Identifying Food Labeling Effects on Consumer Behavior,” Marketing Science, 41 (5), 982–1003.

Taillie, Lindsey Smith, Maxime Bercholz, Barry Popkin, Marcela Reyes, M. Arantxa Colchero, and Camila CorvalĂĄn (2021), “Changes in Food Purchases after the Chilean Policies on Food Labelling, Marketing, and Sales in Schools: A Before and After Study,” The Lancet Planetary Health, 5 (8).

World Health Organization, “World Obesity Day 2022 – Accelerating Action To Stop Obesity,” World Health Organization, .

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post How Do Nutritional Warning Labels Affect Prices? [Expert Insights] appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Two recent Journal of Marketing articles provide new insights into marketing and societal issues

From consumers to investors to employees, a recent survey reports that every stakeholder group expects . With these expectations only growing, there may be a need to develop new measures in marketing to investigate questions at the intersection of marketing and society. Using such measures has the potential to inform policymakers, which may ultimately improve outcomes on some of the most critical issues facing society today. Two recent Journal of Marketing articles provide nuance to previously used measures to consider marketing’s impact on societal outcomes.

The Positive Influence of Female Executives in the C-Suite

Despite significant strides during the 20th century, gender equality remains a pressing societal issue. In business, , with even starker consequences for women of color. However, recent findings suggest that women in top management reap not only personal benefits but also financial performance benefits for their firms. The Journal of Marketing article, “” by Chandra Srivastava, Saim Kashmiri, and Vijay Mahajan, shows that women executives influence the financial performance of firms by centering and focusing on customers.

The authors introduce female influence in the top management team (FITMT) as a measure of female executives’ leverage on decision making within the entire management team (TMT). FITMT differs from traditional demographic standards that focus on female representation in the TMT, thus allowing the authors to tease out these important findings. As Srivastava notes, “By expanding access to leadership among women, we get better marketing for the firm, and we get a more equal society.”

Rethinking Financial Vulnerability

The Journal of Marketing article “” by Linda Court Salisbury, Gergana Y. Nenkov, Simon J. Blanchard, Ronald Paul Hill, Alexander L. Brown, and Kelly D. Martin addresses another critical societal issue: consumer financial vulnerability (CFV). The authors suggest that addressing CFV requires broadening CFV to account for individuals’ risk of experiencing harm, not just those currently experiencing harm. Given the current measures of CFV, Salisbury provides a powerful example explaining why we typically underestimate the number of vulnerable people in the marketplace: “An uninsured person may delay medical treatment, preventive treatment because they can’t afford it. That could lead to a medical crisis, which then could lead to short-term disability and loss of work. It becomes a kind of domino effect of harm. So, we wanted to try to make it clear that vulnerability is a risk of harm…You don’t have to be experiencing harm to still be vulnerable to it.” The researchers also show that by analyzing customer financial data, marketers can help to offset consumer financial vulnerability.

In addition to the managerial insights and policy implications, these articles shed light on the need for new tools and measures to address issues at the intersection of marketing and society appropriately. Referring to FITMT, Srivastava explains that companies “can look at it and say, ‘Well, we have an equal number of women to men, but the women don’t hold any of the top leadership positions. They’re all at the lower ranks.’ And so, this would enable them to really see how much influence they’re giving diverse bodies outside of what’s the norm.” Discussing the logic behind expanding CFV, Salisbury adds that “in other domains, firms might start to think of considering measurement, which would allow us to identify the risk of certain types of harms that consumers might experience, rather than waiting for the harms to occur. I think that could really benefit, both consumers and firms alike.”

Stakeholders increasingly expect firms to address societal issues. Thus, as marketing academics and practitioners consider marketing’s impact on societal outcomes, new ways of measuring this impact may become necessary. While the stakes are high, given the challenges of the moment, the rewards could mean a more equitable and just society for all.

Advice for Firms Addressing Societal Issues

1. Growth and profit maximization prioritizes one group of stakeholders, owners/investors, often at the expense of other stakeholders. Firms should prioritize the needs of all their stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, communities), focusing on long and longer-term performance.  
2. Firms should recognize that some of the measures that have been used in the past may be insufficient to analyze and assess the issues of the moment. 
3. Financial performance measures are no longer enough. Firms should begin measuring their social impact as well.
4. Figuring out the best metrics may require investing time, financial, and personnel resources.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post New Perspectives on Addressing Issues at the Intersection of Marketing and Society appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Consumers often indicate a preference for socially responsible products, yet this is not always reflected in their purchasing behaviors. What’s more, sometimes socially costly goods are priced higher due to the materials used (e.g., pre-cut fruits and vegetables in plastic packaging) or to discourage repeat purchasing that would increase the product’s harm (e.g., a bottle deposit or a higher gasoline tax). However, new research has found that a higher price tag for socially costly goods can actually increase rather than decrease some consumers’ preferences for them.

In a , Saerom Lee and Karen Page Winterich investigate when and why people of varying social classes make a purchase that is associated with high social costs, such as environmental harm from tourism or clothing made with synthetic fibers. They found that consumers from a subjectively high social class have a higher sense of entitlement to resources. This, in turn, provides a means of justifying purchases that are socially harmful and increases their product purchase intentions and choice. A higher price increases feelings of entitlement for these consumers, as it signals an “even” exchange of financial costs and social costs. In other words, upper-class consumers feel that the social cost is justified because they pay so much money for the product.

Higher prices increase feelings of entitlement for consumers in higher social classes, as they signal an “even” exchange of financial costs and social costs. In other words, upper-class consumers feel that the social cost is justified because they pay so much money for the product.

However, the effect of social class on entitlement disappears in certain circumstances. First, if a high-class individual has strong egalitarian values (i.e., if they do not believe that their interests are more important than others’), there is no effect. Second, if the social cost of purchasing a product is made salient, high-class individuals no longer feel entitled to the purchase. Additionally, high-class individuals have higher purchase intentions and willingness to pay if the social cost is less severe (e.g., a growing concern about tourism causing environmental damage at a beach) versus more severe (e.g., a two-year closure to recover from such damage). While such consumers still feel a high entitlement to socially costly products, this moderation effect occurs because they feel less able to justify their purchase.

For practitioners who are interested in segmenting their market by social class, these findings show how important pricing decisions are for socially-costly products. For high-class individuals, a higher price tag makes it easier to justify the social costs – unless that social cost is made salient or its severity is apparent. Policymakers who are interested in discouraging socially costly product purchases would do well to prime egalitarian values, remind consumers of the social cost of the purchase, and emphasize the severity of the social cost.

We asked the authors for deeper insights into this research and what inspired it.

Q: In your studies, you measured, rather than manipulated, subjective social class. Could consumers’ individual levels of subjective social class change depending upon contextual market factors? Is there anything managers could do to encourage (or discourage) these contextual factors?

A: Most of our studies focused on measured subjective social class, but subjective social class can be temporarily activated (see Study 1, follow-up C), consistent with how other cultural identities can be made contextually salient. While consumers have chronic perceptions of their subjective social class, consumers have experiences of being in a relatively higher as well as a relatively lower social class than others. It is these experiences that allow relatively higher or lower social class to be activated. Thus, marketing managers can temporarily activate motivations and characteristics of high or low social class via contextual marketing factors (e.g., ads or promotional materials, membership status programs, other retail strategies) encouraging consumers to think of themselves as a relatively higher or lower social class than others. To reduce social costs, we would recommend that companies do not emphasize a consumers’ higher status.

Q: Are there situations that could lead lower-class consumers to make similar socially costly choices as the upper-class consumers? Could they draw entitlement from elsewhere?

A: As we described in our response to the first question, chronically lower-class consumers may also be temporarily activated with cognitions of high social class by contextual factors and make similar choices as upper-class consumers. Also, there can be other situational factors that may encourage lower-class consumers to have a strong motivation to justify self-interested behavior, although it can be generally harder to activate entitlement in chronically lower-class consumers. For example, situational factors making salient self-oriented goals and desires of the consumers (e.g., goal-consistent products or discount promotions) may lead lower-class consumers to make socially costly choices, but it’s not clear such choices would occur due to entitlement. There is an opportunity to better understand the role of entitlement in consumer behavior. 

Q: Given that past research has found that women (vs. men) report more concern about environmental issues, would you expect a gender difference for such socially costly purchase decisions?

A: It is possible that gender or other existing individual differences can play a role in purchase decisions of socially costly products. We found entitlement, which was experienced by both men and women, to underlie the purchase of socially costly products. However, it’s possible that when one is not feeling entitlement, the gender differences in concern for environmental issues would impact the likelihood of socially costly choices. Future research could also examine whether there are gender differences in entitlement. 

Q: A boundary condition of the price entitlement effect is the relative salience of egalitarian values. How often or when do you think we observe naturally occurring egalitarian values in upper-class consumers? Or is this something that managers can make salient for these consumers?

A: Although upper-class consumers can be generally more self-focused and more sensitive to contextual factors heightening entitlement, we found in our Study 4 that egalitarian values could be temporarily made salient when the consumers completed a simple writing task. Much traditional marketing may focus on aspirational and status motivations, which would not make egalitarian values salient. However, this focus may be changing today as more and more brands position themselves around consumers’ self-transcendence values. For such products, they may be able to activate egalitarian values by exposing upper-class consumers to some socially responsible marketing messages regarding social justice or equity, though this was not tested empirically and would need further research.

Q:  Organizations that aim to increase sustainability and social equity deal with more politicized social costs than others. In one of your studies (S6), you consider the moderating effect of the severity of the social cost. Do you see potential differences in highly politicized versus not highly politicized topics?

A: This is an interesting question. The price entitlement effect went away when social costs were severe, making the decision to purchase the product more difficult to justify. It’s hard to predict how politicization of social costs will interact with our effects, but it seems possible that highly politicized social costs can be harder to justify for certain consumers and weaken the overall strength of the price entitlement effect. At the same time, politicized social costs may not even be perceived as a social cost by some segments, given polarization regarding many of these issues. A key question to understand this is whether politicized social costs are perceived as more severe. If so, then the effect may be weakened for politicized social issues.

Q: As argued in your article, there is a growing concern among consumers for sustainability and social equality. Is this a topic you both have been considering for a long time? What made you feel it was time to research it now?

A: Yes, both of us have long been interested in studying topics related to sustainability and social equality, such as consumer motivations for green consumption and prosocial behavior. Impacts of climate change are increasingly evident in our daily life and the pandemic has also exacerbated social inequality. Consumers increasingly care about these social issues and consider socially responsible consumption decisions important. At the same time, consumers often feel conflicted when a personally more beneficial product involves social costs and seek a justification to purchase such a product. One particularly salient example that occurred around the time we started this project was the sale of peeled oranges in plastic containers. While this offering could meet a need for a specific segment of consumers that are unable to peel oranges, for other consumers it just removed nature’s protection of the orange, adding a socially costly protection in exchange for convenience that came with a higher price. More generally, we observed consumers feeling that because they’re paying to buy bottled water, the social costs associated with the additional plastic consumption are not a concern. A friend told us that this feeling ironically increased when the extra cost charged for bottled water was more salient after they moved to one of the states that charged bottle deposits, even though they weren’t returning the bottle for the deposit. Relatedly, a conversation with a friend expressing how they wished the library still charged fines, so they wouldn’t feel bad about keeping an overdue library book, was the motivation for one of our study contexts. It was our observation of such behaviors that led us to test this phenomenon empirically to understand the process underlying these choices.

Read the full article:

Saerom Lee and Karen Page Winterich (2022), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 59 (6), 1141–60. doi:

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post “They’re So Entitled!” How Some Consumers Use High Price Tags to Justify Purchases with High Social Costs appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Manuel Hermosilla received a call from a family friend in Chile who had been recently diagnosed with cancer. The friend needed help tracking down Hydroxychloroquine to treat her rheumatoid arthritis—a drug in short supply given its supposed therapeutic powers to combat COVID-19.

Hermosilla found two alternatives for Hydroxychloroquine: a generic version for about $15 a month and the branded version for a hefty $330. The family friend didn’t want the generic version, Hermosilla says. “Given her cancer diagnosis, she felt the generic wasn’t ‘safe’ enough—which got me to thinking: could medical-related insecurities impact patients’ brand/generic choices?”

Getting bad medical news can be alarming. It might influence us to embark on a healthier lifestyle, perhaps by exercising more or eating healthier food. Given that brand name drugs are perceived to be more effective and perhaps even safer than generics (despite many experts viewing generics as molecular replicas of brand name drugs), bad news might also affect how we choose between drugs.

A finds that some of the overspending on brand name drugs could be attributable to patients experiencing negative emotions when they receive bad medical news. The research points to estimates suggesting substantial savings for the U.S. healthcare system—about 10% of drug expenditures, or $36 billion a year—if patients always chose a generic option when available.^[1] The researchers suggest that a broader use of generics could significantly lower expenditures without sacrificing the quality of patient care.

Emotions and Risk-Taking

While much existing research has focused on the idea that consumers lack information reassuring them of the therapeutic equivalency between generic and brand name drugs, the authors focus on how “negative information shocks” might impact patient decision making. The work builds on literature showing that negative emotions reduce risk-taking.

Getting bad news is a common and often unavoidable part of interacting with the health care system. In this study, the authors first focus on the medical news that comes with blood testing results for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, looking at the “frontier” between 129 mg/dL and 130 mg/dL LDL results—the borderline between the “near optimal” and “borderline high” ranges. This is a common test with a clear cutoff defined in clinical guidelines. It is also a useful test because LDL levels are measured with significant error (e.g., depending on fasting), implying that the two types of individuals (129 vs. 130 mg/dL) have the same health condition.

The researchers examined 2,282 individuals who tested in the 129/130 mg/dL frontier, and the analysis includes all prescription drug choices by these patients (across six drug classes). They find that a “borderline high” LDL test result did in fact influence drug choice. Relative to control patients (129 mg/dL), those receiving the bad news (130 mg/dL) become 1.3% less likely to choose the generic option. Factoring in the average generic price discount relative to brand name drugs, this effect implies a roughly 3% increase in total drug expenditures for the average patient.

The study finds that the bad news effect is concentrated in the immediate aftermath of the test (90 days) and is particularly influential for patients purchasing a drug for the first time. It also finds stronger effects among healthier patients who might be “more surprised” by the bad news.

Aiming to extend the findings, the researchers turned to a different medical test: Hemoglobin A1c, a blood sugar test used for diagnosing and managing diabetes. They focused on the 6.9% to 7% threshold that patients with diabetes use to manage their condition. Here too, the results are generally consistent with the idea that bad medical news makes patients less willing to accept the higher perceived risk of generic drugs.

Bad News as a Factor in Drug Recommendations

While research on bad news in health care settings has traditionally focused on severe outcomes such as death or cancer diagnoses, examining routine tests could lead to a better understanding of healthcare spending decisions.

The findings have implications for several key stakeholders in the healthcare industry. Health policy makers, generic drug manufacturers, and insurers all share the common goal of encouraging patients to choose generics over brand name drugs. To achieve this goal, insurers currently rely on two primary toolkits. The first corresponds to a set of demographic and socioeconomic predictors of generic-averse attitudes. The second corresponds to possible intervention tools, which boils down to price-based promotions (e.g., discounts, coupons, free samples).

The researchers suggest that relying solely on demographic and socioeconomic predictors may neglect an important observable—the arrival of bad medical news. Accordingly, enriching the framework with variables for the recency of bad medical news could improve the campaigns’ efficiency. One simple approach might be to remind patients of the equivalency of generic drugs via a text message just after they receive their test results.

¹This figure follows the findings of and , who estimate that prescription drug expenditures in the U.S. could fall by 10% in the (partial equilibrium) scenario of full generic substitution.

From: Manuel Hermosilla and Andrew T. Ching, “” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Bad Medical News Causes Patients to Choose Brand Name Drugs over Generics, Costing Billions appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.