Gen Z isn’t just reshaping shopping – they’re redefining how brands earn their attention. Unlike older generations who discovered products through TV, magazines, or word-of-mouth, today’s teens navigate a digital-first world where social media drives discovery.

They crave engaging content but aren’t easily convinced. Instead, they take a practical, research-driven approach, weighing price, quality, and social proof before making a purchase. Traditional advertising alone won’t win them over – they trust what feels real, transparent, and relevant.

Two recent surveys of teens, ages 13 to 19, reveal the key forces shaping Gen Z’s shopping habits and what they signal about the next generation of consumers.

1. Social Media Drives Discovery

For Gen Z, shopping starts on social media. More than half of teens (51%) say they’re most likely to discover something they want to buy on a social platform. By comparison, traditional channels—like TV ads (8%) and in-store browsing (23%)—have taken a backseat.

When it comes to discovering new brands, products, services, or experiences, TikTok leads the way (57%), followed by Instagram (49%) and YouTube (46%). Pinterest and Snapchat also play a role, especially for female teens.

And while 42% of teens use TikTok Shop, many still prefer to buy through links in posts or head directly to e-commerce sites (see Insight 4).

2. Authentic Ads Get Attention

Teens don’t mind ads—as long as they feel real and relevant. The most effective ones show products in action, with 31% of teens saying this makes them stop scrolling. Music (28%) and humor (26%) also help grab their attention.

Traditional tactics, however, are losing their edge. Only 18% of teens are swayed by celebrity endorsements, and even Super Bowl ads don’t stick—68% strongly and 43% somewhat agree they don’t remember them a week later. Meanwhile, 66% say they’re more likely to buy something they saw on TikTok than from a big-budget TV campaign.

What works best? Ads that feel native to the platform. Gen Z engages with content they can interact with—not just passively watch. (For more on what makes or breaks an ad with teens, check out Cringey or Cool? What Teens Really Think About Trendiness in Ads)

3. Gen Z Researches Most Every Purchase

Despite their reputation for short attention spans, Gen Z takes a thoughtful approach to shopping. When they spot something they like on social media, most teens dig deeper—75% read comments, 74% visit the brand’s website, and 72% check product reviews before making a purchase.

No single source dictates their decisions, but reviews carry the most weight, whether on a brand’s website (39%) or in social media comments (35%). Recommendations from friends (31%) and family (28%) also play a role, while influencers (17%) and celebrity endorsements (14%) have less sway.

Gen Z is also selective about sharing personal information. While discounts are the biggest incentive (55%), most won’t opt-in to being contacted via email or text unless the deal is worth it. Even after signing up, email engagement is hit or miss—some use discounts immediately (26%), others save them (30%), and many forget about them entirely (23%).

4. Price and Quality Win Over Brand Loyalty

For Gen Z, price is the top priority. Nearly half (43%) want to see it upfront in an ad, followed closely by quality (41%) and product details (36%).

When it comes to shopping, their habits are fluid. TikTok and Instagram drive discovery, but only 28% use in-app checkout. Instead, 32% prefer tapping product links in non-sponsored posts, while 27% engage with shoppable ads. And when asked to pick just one place to shop, Amazon is the clear favorite.

Gen Z is also strategic about spending. Many will add extra items to their cart just to qualify for free shipping rather than paying for it outright.

As for payment, 39% use credit or debit cards, 33% rely on mobile payments like CashApp and Apple Pay, and 25% have parents cover the bill. To streamline checkout, many teens create shopping lists with product links for quick parental approval.

5. Gen Alpha Will Demand Even More Frictionless Shopping

The differences between younger Gen Z (ages 13-14) and older Gen Z (ages 17-18) offer hints about how Gen Alpha may shop in the future. Interestingly, more 17- and 18-year-olds (23%) report not using any in-app shopping features compared to 13- and 14-year-olds (17%). If looked at directionally, this could indicate that Gen Alpha will enter their teen years with an already-established comfort with social commerce.

Final Takeaway

Gen Z isn’t just shaping the future of shopping – they’re raising the bar for brand trust. They expect brands to:

• Be where they scroll – on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube.
• Prove their value upfront – through price transparency, product demos, and real customer reviews.
• Engage in real conversations – not just ads, but authentic interactions through comments, DMs, and social proof.
• Prioritize authenticity over marketing gimmicks – trust is built over time, not through one-off campaigns.
• Make shopping effortless – without sacrificing transparency or control.

To connect with Gen Z, brands need to rethink not just how they market but also how they research. Traditional tactics won’t cut it, and outdated research won’t reveal what truly drives their decisions.

Our custom survey builder helps you reach Gen Z where they are – digitally, authentically, and in real time. Get the insights you need.

The post 5 Key Insights Into Gen Z Shopping Habits – And What They Mean for Gen Alpha appeared first on American Marketing Association.

The post The Future of Video Asset Management appeared first on American Marketing Association.

A new Journal of Marketing study finds that ALN is effective—but only under specific conditions. Some businesses experience significant increases in sales, while others see little to no impact. The key factors determining success include the nature of the sales cycle, deal complexity, and whether the customer is new or returning.

We uncover a critical insight: ALN enhances lead interactions and improves the quality of sales conversations, but it does not guarantee higher conversion rates across all industries. ALN works best when used for new leads, short sales cycles, and lower-value deals. However, its benefits decline in high-ticket purchases or industries where buyers conduct extensive independent research.

ALN works best when used for new leads, short sales cycles, and lower-value deals. However, its benefits decline in high-ticket purchases or industries where buyers conduct extensive independent research.

This distinction has major implications for businesses investing in ALN. Many companies measure ALN success using vanity metrics—email opens, click-through rates, and engagement levels—without assessing whether those interactions lead to actual sales. Our findings suggest that firms should rethink how they evaluate automation success and shift their focus to measuring ALN’s impact on meaningful outcomes like sales meetings and conversions.

When ALN Works—and When It Doesn’t

For companies selling relatively simple products or services with shorter sales cycles, ALN can be a powerful tool. By delivering targeted content at the right time, ALN reduces uncertainty for potential buyers and ensures that sales teams engage with more informed prospects. Our research finds that in such cases, ALN can lead to a 23 percentage point increase in conversion rates.

However, for industries with long and complex sales cycles, such as B2B enterprise software or industrial equipment, ALN’s impact is less clear. In these cases, buyers rely on detailed research, peer recommendations, and in-depth consultations rather than automated content. ALN may increase engagement but does not necessarily lead to more closed deals.

Returning customers also respond differently to ALN compared to first-time buyers. Since they already have a relationship with the brand, they are less likely to need automated content to guide their purchase decision. This means companies must differentiate how they nurture new versus existing leads, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

Are Businesses Measuring the Wrong Metrics?

One of the biggest mistakes we observe is companies focusing too much on engagement metrics rather than true business outcomes. Many firms evaluate ALN success on the basis of email opens, website visits, or social media interactions. Although these indicators suggest interest, they do not necessarily translate into revenue.

Our research suggests that businesses should measure ALN effectiveness by tracking:

• Lead-to-sales meeting conversion rates (Does ALN drive actual conversations between buyers and sales teams?)
• Sales cycle speed (Does ALN shorten the time it takes to close a deal?)
• Revenue impact (Does ALN increase the number of closed deals and overall profitability?)

Shifting to these meaningful metrics will help businesses make informed decisions about ALN’s true value.

How Companies Can Use ALN Strategically

We find that ALN works best as an enhancement—not a replacement—for human sales interactions. Companies that rely too heavily on automation risk alienating high-value prospects who expect personalized, consultative selling. Instead of viewing ALN as a standalone solution, businesses should:

• Segment their leads and tailor ALN for different customer groups (e.g., new vs. returning buyers).
• Use ALN to complement human interactions, rather than replace them, particularly for complex sales.
• Refine ALN strategies over time by tracking real business outcomes rather than engagement metrics.

For marketing leaders, the takeaway is clear: ALN can be a powerful tool, but only if it is applied strategically. Businesses should test its impact before fully committing, ensuring that automation aligns with their sales process rather than relying on industry hype.

Source: Johannes Habel, Nathaniel Hartmann, Phillip Wiseman, Michael Ahearne, and Shashank Vaid, “Sales Pipeline Technology: Automated Lead Nurturing,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Does Automated Lead Nurturing Really Work? A New Study Challenges the Hype appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Amid increasing competition and rising acquisition costs, it’s essential to acquire new customers and ensure you’re getting the right ones in the door. After all, only active, engaged customers will sustain your business for years to come.  

Our latest playbook offers a framework for acquiring new and repeat customers who reward your brand with their business again and again. In this playbook, you’ll learn how to:

• Pinpoint your ideal customer
• Devise your acquisition strategy
• Determine your most effective channels
• Improve activation and long-term value 
• Experiment with key acquisition drivers 

Start driving better business outcomes today with tested methods for identifying, reaching, and acquiring your ideal customers.

The post Mastering Customer Acquisition Strategy appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Salesforce Marketing Cloud or HubSpot Marketing Hub—which is a better fit for your business? We analyzed over 850 software ratings and reviews for Salesforce Marketing Cloud and Hubspot Marketing Hub to help you determine if one of these tools could be a good fit for you.   

Whether you’re interested in understanding which tool is easier to use or offers more value – we’ve got you covered in this guide. 

Download this free report, and you’ll get:

• Honest feedback from people who have used these tools.
• Reviews from users who have scored the products on value, ease of use, and more.
• A side-by-side comparison of each product’s ratings, including number of reviews.

The post Ratings Compared: Salesforce Marketing Cloud vs Hubspot Marketing Hub appeared first on American Marketing Association.

The post AI-first campaign management: Transforming conversational data into high-impact marketing appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Our research team explores the nuances of these partnerships and uncovers critical insights for improving their effectiveness. We find that the way brands manage these collaborations—often through excessive control and reliance on short-term metrics—creates imbalances that undermine trust, content quality, and overall outcomes.

The Dynamics of Sponsored Content

Sponsored content operates in a unique space where brands, influencers, and audiences converge. While influencers offer authenticity and audience trust, brands often prioritize reach and sales metrics. This mismatch of goals can lead to friction.

Our study reveals that brands frequently attempt to script influencer content or impose stringent controls on messaging. While this approach aims to ensure alignment with brand objectives, it often devalues the creative expertise that makes influencers effective. This not only damages the influencers’ relationships with their audience but also reduces the perceived authenticity of the partnership.

Power Imbalances in Partnerships

We find that these collaborations often favor brands, leaving influencers with little agency. For example:

• Influencers are pressured to prioritize metrics like reach or sales, which can shift their focus away from creating engaging, authentic content.
• In response, some influencers resort to acquiring fake followers or engagement to meet brand expectations, which in turn triggers surveillance and distrust from brands.

This cycle of control and distrust weakens partnerships, ultimately harming both parties’ reputations and outcomes.

The Risks of Short-Term Thinking

Short-term metrics, such as immediate sales or engagement rates, dominate many influencer–brand partnerships. While these metrics are easy to measure, they often miss the broader value that influencers bring—such as long-term brand loyalty, deeper audience engagement, and organic reach.

Brands that focus solely on short-term results risk undermining the authenticity of their campaigns and alienating audiences.

Recommendations for Brands and Influencers

For Brands:

• Respect Creative Independence: Recognize that influencers have their own unique voices and audiences. Avoid over-scripting or pressuring influencers to change their tone, which can jeopardize their authenticity and effectiveness.
• Focus on Long-Term Metrics: Shift away from a narrow focus on reach and sales. Instead, prioritize metrics that reflect long-term impact, such as audience loyalty or sentiment.
• Build Trust: Reduce hierarchical dynamics in partnerships. Collaborate with influencers as equal partners, acknowledging their expertise and audience insights.

For Influencers:

• Professionalize Business Practices: Invest in skills or outsource management tasks to handle the business side of partnerships more effectively, freeing up time for creative work.
• Collaborate with Peers: Engage in collective action to address power imbalances and advocate for fairer terms in partnerships.

The insights from this study extend beyond influencer marketing. We argue that similar challenges arise in other emerging markets involving complex, “epistemic” objects—products or services that are not fully understood by their creators or consumers. Examples include NFTs, the Metaverse, and generative AI. In these contexts, valuation and production often involve ambiguities that lead to imbalanced relationships among stakeholders.

Brands and creators working in these spaces can benefit from more calibrated valuation models and efforts to flatten hierarchies, fostering trust and mutual understanding. Influencer–brand partnerships are here to stay, but their potential remains underutilized. Brands and influencers must move beyond short-term metrics and hierarchical relationships to unlock the true value of these collaborations. By fostering trust, respecting creative independence, and focusing on long-term impact, both parties can create campaigns that resonate deeply with audiences while achieving meaningful results.

Source: Zeynep Arsel, Maria Carolina Zanette, and Carolina da Rocha Melo, “Sponsored Content as an Epistemic Market Object: How Platformization of Brand–Creator Partnerships Disrupts Valuation, Coproduction, and the Relationship Between Market Actors,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Are Short-Term Metrics Ruining Influencer–Brand Partnerships? appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Amid evolving privacy laws, new mailbox provider requirements, shifting consumer behaviors, and evolving technology, deliverability is tougher than ever. 

Validity’s latest report reveals why global inbox placement declined in 2024 and what marketers must do to stay ahead. 

Look inside for insights on: 

• Inbox and spam placement rates globally and by region 
• Industry-specific performance benchmarks 
• What to know about deliverability at different mailbox providers 
• AI’s unintended consequences on email deliverability 
• Actionable steps to improve deliverability today 

About Validity: 

For over 20 years, tens of thousands of organizations throughout the world have relied on Validity solutions to target, contact, engage, and keep customers – using trustworthy data as a key advantage. The Validity flagship products – Everest, Sender Certification, BriteVerify, MailCharts , DemandTools and GridBuddy Connect – are all highly rated solutions for CRM data management, email address verification, inbox deliverability and avoiding the spam folder, and grid CRM applications. These solutions deliver smarter campaigns, more qualified leads, more productive sales, and ultimately faster growth. For more information, visit Validity.com and connect with us on LinkedIn and X. 

The post How does your email performance stack up? appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Marketers often look to position products in ways that resonate with both the personal and professional lives of consumers. But is this strategy effective? In a recent Journal of Marketing Research study, “Testing Work-Life Theory in Marketing: Evidence from Field Experiments on Social Media,” authors Nita Umashankar, Dhruv Grewal, Abhijit Guha, and Timothy R. Bohling offer cutting-edge insights into this question. The study provides a comprehensive perspective on the effectiveness and pitfalls of “work–life positioning” in marketing campaigns.

Through rigorous field experiments on social media, this research challenges a prevailing assumption in marketing that products can effectively address multiple needs simultaneously without unintended consequences. The authors explore whether highlighting the work–life interface in marketing communications drives consumer engagement. The study reveals that while work–life messaging can enhance interest in simpler products (e.g., personal care, daily planners, apparel), it often backfires for resource-demanding ones (e.g., education, cosmetic surgery, travel, computers).

Why Does this Strategy Backfire?

While combining work–life elements in marketing may seem like a “win–win” approach, consumers may view this messaging as a reminder of the conflicting demands of their lives, triggering stress and reducing interest in the product. According to the study authors, “this is the first time we’ve realized that bringing personal life and professional life together in product messaging is very risky.”

For practitioners, this highlights the importance of avoiding overgeneralized “win–win” positioning for products that address resource-intensive aspects of consumers’ lives. It’s important for marketers to consider the intricate and ever-evolving nature of consumer psychology.

While combining work–life elements in marketing may seem like a “win–win” approach, consumers may view this messaging as a reminder of the conflicting demands of their lives, triggering stress and reducing interest in the product.

The findings also have broader societal and organizational implications. The research provides a deeply personal and compelling perspective on work–life balance, particularly its significance for women navigating professional and personal responsibilities. Study author Nita Umashankar points to the reality of many women leaving the workforce during childbearing years, not because they lack ambition or capability but because workplace policies often fail to offer the flexibility they need to balance these dual roles. Nita emphasizes the importance of adaptive marketing strategies that accommodate consumers’ diverse life stages and challenges.

It was our pleasure to interview Nita, who shared how her own journey of motherhood transformed her professional outlook and helped her to work smarter, prioritize her activities better, and increase her output. She said that these lessons were universal, transcending the specifics of parenting into the general contexts where the personal and professional domains meet.

Q: Since the current study relies on social media ad clicks as a key measure of consumer interest, how can businesses account for platform-based biases (e.g., Facebook vs. LinkedIn) when designing and interpreting the effectiveness of work-life ads?

A: The two platforms attract different types of consumers or cater to different consumer mindsets while using the app. Therefore, based on the target consumer’s demographics and mindset (whether they are using the platform to socialize for fun [Facebook] or to network for work [LinkedIn]), businesses can emphasize or downplay work–life elements accordingly.

Q: The research classified products as “resource-demanding” and “resource-undemanding.” How can brands tailor resource-demanding product messaging to align with diverse consumer lifestyles and incomes?

A: Brands should avoid messaging that highlights the work–life interface, as it may evoke perceptions of work–life conflict. This is particularly relevant for consumers who experience work–life conflicts regularly, such as working mothers or executives.

Q: How can businesses use insights about work–life conflict to refine their targeting strategies and improve resonance with high-conflict segments?

A: Businesses naturally tend to position products for busy consumers to meet multiple needs, such as those related to work and personal life. However, this approach may be triggering for these consumers. Therefore, depending on the product, we recommend emphasizing either work or personal life, but not necessarily both.

Q: What additional metrics could help businesses better understand consumer engagement beyond ad clicks, such as the time spent viewing or deeper interactions?

A: Our findings extend beyond digital advertising to product positioning in general. Metrics such as time spent on ads, engagement rates, and qualitative feedback can provide deeper insights into consumer interests and preferences.

Q: What ethical guidelines can help businesses responsibly use work–life messaging without inadvertently amplifying stress or conflict among their customers?

A: If our findings suggested that signaling work–life conflict led to increased ad clicks, it would present an ethical dilemma. However, our results indicate that priming the work–life interface is unwise if it is perceived as conflict rather than enrichment, as this reduces product interest. Therefore, this approach is both a smart business decision and an ethical one.

Q: As highlighted in the paper, consumers often navigate the complexities of the work-life interface. How did you identify the need to explore the effects of work–life positioning strategies on consumer behavior and ad effectiveness? Additionally, what motivated you to pursue this fascinating and impactful research area?

A: The idea emerged while teaching in the MBA program, where I observed students managing both professional and personal domains. The program emphasized personal growth alongside professional development. This research is very close to my heart. We began working on this paper shortly after I had my first child and continued through my second pregnancy and beyond, so work–life conflict and work–life enrichment played a significant role in my life.

Source: Nita Umashankar, Dhruv Grewal, Abhijit Guha, and Timothy R. Bohling (2024), “Testing Work–Life Theory in Marketing: Evidence from Field Experiments on Social Media,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (2), 307–29. doi:10.1177/00222437231152894

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post How and When “Work–Life” Messaging in Marketing Can Backfire appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Fillingness, Taste, and Healthiness

• The Role of Food Attributes in Choices
  
  Our study highlights three key attributes—fillingness, taste, and healthiness—that shape food choices. While all consumers value taste, low-SES individuals place a much greater emphasis on fillingness, often at the expense of healthiness. In contrast, high-SES consumers prioritize healthiness, reflecting their access to more abundant and diverse food options.
  
  
• Perceived Relationships Between Attributes
  
  Low-SES consumers often associate healthy foods with being less filling and less tasty, reinforcing their preference for high-calorie, less nutritious options. These beliefs stem from limited exposure to healthy foods and fewer opportunities to experiment with cooking. High-SES individuals, who face fewer resource constraints, are less likely to hold these negative associations.
  
  
• Fillingness as a Critical Factor
  
  Fillingness, while often overlooked in public health strategies, is crucial for low-SES consumers. For individuals facing food insecurity or limited resources, satiety is a pressing concern. Policies and campaigns that ignore this dimension risk promoting foods that low-SES consumers perceive as unappealing or insufficient.

Implications for Policymakers

Our findings suggest that addressing nutritional inequality requires more than just making healthy foods affordable and accessible. Policymakers should focus on creating and promoting healthy options that are perceived as both filling and tasty.

• Expand the Availability of Filling Healthy Foods: Increase access to options like whole grains, legumes, and lean proteins, which are both nutritious and satiating.
  
  
• Incorporate Fillingness in Subsidies: Subsidize filling healthy foods to make them more affordable and attractive to low-SES consumers.

Public health campaigns should also work to reshape perceptions. By emphasizing the satisfying and flavorful aspects of healthy foods, marketers and policymakers can challenge the belief that “healthy equals unsatisfying or bland.”

Marketing and Industry Applications

From a marketing perspective, our research offers actionable strategies to encourage healthier eating habits:

• Reframe the Narrative: Highlight the filling and tasty qualities of healthy foods through advertising and packaging.
  
  
• Product Development: Design healthy food options that cater to low-SES preferences for satiety and flavor.
  
  
• Retail Strategies: Promote healthy, filling meals in stores, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, to align with consumer priorities.

These approaches borrow from the tactics used to market unhealthy foods but reapply them to encourage better choices.

Nutritional inequality is a complex issue that cannot be solved by supply-side solutions alone. Our research shows that consumer preferences and perceptions—particularly regarding fillingness and taste—play a critical role in shaping dietary habits. Addressing these psychological and cultural factors is essential for making healthy foods more appealing and accessible to low-SES populations.

For policymakers, marketers, and public health advocates, the path forward lies in promoting the fillingness and flavor of healthy foods, ensuring that they meet the needs and expectations of disadvantaged communities.

Source: Bernardo Andretti, Yan Vieites, Larissa Elmor, and Eduardo B. Andrade, “How Socioeconomic Status Shapes Food Preferences and Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Why Low-Income Consumers Avoid Healthy Foods—and How to Change Their Minds appeared first on American Marketing Association.