As the AMA’s first conference outside the U.S., Bridging at the Frontiers highlights marketing’s unique role in connecting diverse ideas, geographies and priorities while exploring the boundaries of innovation and practice. In today’s world of transition—marked by geopolitical tensions, within-country polarization and ideological contests, environmental challenges and the transformative impact of AI—marketers must navigate complex trade-offs and seize opportunities to create meaningful value.

The 2026 theme emphasizes the dual challenge of bridging divides—local and global, technological and human, ideological and practical—while advancing the frontiers of what marketing can achieve. How can marketing leaders respond to shifting societal norms and skepticism toward policies of sustainability and inclusion while fostering trust across diverse audiences? What role can AI play in transforming customer journeys while driving ethical innovation and equitable growth, such as balancing personalization with privacy and fairness? How can firms manage the dynamic tension between global ambitions and local relevance, ensuring their strategies resonate across distinct cultural and economic contexts?

Join us to explore these pressing questions and opportunities, from rethinking how marketing helps to balance resilience and efficiency in rapidly evolving markets to leveraging emerging technologies to address societal challenges. Together, we’ll bridge the gap between academia and practice, connect global trends with local realities, and chart new frontiers for marketing in a dynamic and interconnected world in transition.

Why Attend?

Hear new perspectives from colleagues across the discipline at this premier marketing research event, where top-tier scholars will present their compelling research. 

Engage in conversations about the latest research topics with researchers, reviewers and editors using our inclusive community and contribute to a more comprehensive approach to marketing.

Connect with like-minded scholars through various learning and networking opportunities.

Celebrate milestones within the community as AMA honors the 2026 AMA Fellows cohort, the 2026 AMA-Irwin-McGraw-Hill Distinguished Marketing Educator Award recipient, and other distinguished winners.

Conference Co-Chairs

Michael Haenlein

ESCP Business School

K. Sudhir

Yale University

Ela Veresiu

York University

AMA Event Policies

The post 2026 AMA Winter Academic Conference appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Data plays an increasingly expansive role across life and commerce today, not just as a tool for business growth but as a force that can drive positive global change. As a melting pot of diversely informed disciplines (psychology, sociology, economics, computer science), marketing is uniquely positioned to capitalize on and be informed by the ongoing data revolution. Marketing provides insights into our self-perception, our view of others, our assessment of how others perceive us and our ideas for improving our world. It shapes market existence and function. Yet, to maximize opportunities through data requires us to think differently. As scholars developing deep theoretical knowledge, we must harness the value of diverse and novel data that will require nothing short of a revolution defined by new methods, new theories and collaborations across diverse disciplines (e.g., medicine, public health, law, urban planning). Mainly, it will require an openness and a hunger for unique perspectives that can enrich our own.

Join us in Chicago on August 22-24 for the 2025 Summer Academic Conference to explore a platform that will enable collaborations, forge strong relationships, inspire courageous thoughts, and ultimately nurture the human aspects of our academy. 

In-Person and Virtual Options

During the 2025 AMA Summer Academic Conference in Chicago, IL, August 22-24, we will illustrate how marketing plays a vital role in maximizing opportunities through data to drive positive global change.

If you cannot join us in Chicago, select virtual programming will be available on Monday, August 18.

Advertisement

Conference Co-Chairs

Colleen Harmeling

Florida State University

Tonya Bradford

University of California, Irvine

Adithya B Pattabhiramaiah

Georgia Tech University

AMA Event Policies

The post 2025 AMA Summer Academic Conference appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Integrate yourself in marketing and policy discussions and collaborations, focusing on building and improving resilience to the multiple adverse trends democratic societies face. Among the most critical strains identified in the World Economic Forum’s 2024 global risks outlook are:

• Socio-political polarization
• Extreme weather and other critical changes to Earth systems
• Cyber insecurity and disinformation
• Outbreak of wars

These challenges create a fragmented and ever-changing landscape, putting pressure on a key mechanism for societal well-being: collective action and collaboration between governance, corporate, and civil society actors.

Join leaders in academia and government on June 20-22 in Washington, DC, at the 2025 Marketing and Public Policy Conference to explore evidence-based knowledge and co-create practically impactful policy solutions for resilience through marketing innovation.

Together, let’s build new bridges and make a difference.

Conference Co-Chairs

Chris Berry

Colorado State University

Eva Kipnis

University of Bradford

Riley Krotz

Florida State University

AMA Event Policies

The post 2025 AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference appeared first on American Marketing Association.

This workshop offers a rare opportunity to learn directly from top scholars, gain invaluable feedback on your research and enhance your chances of publishing in high-impact journals. We look forward to your submission and an engaging, productive workshop!

Excited about this event? Spread the word: #AMAShethEarlyCareer2025

Submission Guidelines and Details

Why Attend?

Learn directly from leading marketing scholars and enhance your research for top-tier journal publications.

Build lasting relationships with your cohort of early career researchers in marketing.

Gain invaluable feedback on your work to maximize its impact in high-impact marketing journals.

Sharpen your contribution by dialoguing with editorial leaders from our field’s top journals.

Event Structure

The workshop will begin with Presentations by Experienced Researchers who have published in major journals (e.g., Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Marketing Science) and/or served as editors or associate editors for these publications. These experts will share insights on navigating the publication process, choosing impactful research topics, and addressing key challenges in the field.

The second half of the workshop will be dedicated to an Interactive Session for Early Career Scholars. Participants will develop and refine their research ideas, receiving feedback from peers and experienced faculty. The goal is to help shape your research into a well-aligned paper for submission to a leading marketing journal and cover important topics such as career development.

A networking reception will take place the day prior to the consortium on February 13, 2025.

Important Dates

• Abstract submission deadline: December 20, 2024
• Notification of acceptance: January 15, 2025
• Application for travel grants deadline: January 30, 2025
• Opening Reception: February 13, 2025
• Workshop date: February 14, 2025

Co-Chairs

AMA Event Policies

The post 2025 AMA-Sheth Foundation Early Career Consortium appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Join the 10-year anniversary of the Annual Organizational Frontlines Research (OFR) Symposium and explore the latest scholarly research and industry trends related to organizational frontlines. This event will take place on February 13-14, 2025, in Phoenix, AZ, before and in conjunction with the 2025 AMA Winter Academic Conference.

Over the past decade, research on the frontlines of organizations—where organizations connect, engage and service their customers—has fully established itself within the marketing academy. The annual OFR Symposium has primarily driven this accomplishment, which has integrated disparate fields exploring organizational boundaries, boundary-spanning roles, interface technologies, exchange platforms, customer contact touchpoints, interactions and service.

The 2025 event will be a celebration of the initiative’s 10th anniversary. Toward that end, we will reflect on and draw new insights from the progress made in researching organizational frontlines – and we will look ahead to managerial and academic priorities in the years to come.

Mark your calendar for this engaging pre-conference that brings together thought leaders in academia with industry leaders to share insights, discuss challenges and develop a productive path forward for organizational frontline research and practice.

AMA Event Policies

The post 2025 Organizational Frontline Research Symposium appeared first on American Marketing Association.

Relive the #AMAWinter Excitement

Marketing in Service of Nature and Humanity

The 2025 theme, Marketing in Service of Nature and Humanity, emphasizes the crucial role marketing plays in expanding beyond traditional profit-centric models. Join the conversation on the importance of integrating environmental stewardship, social responsibility and inclusivity into marketing practices to promote planetary well-being and the collective good.

Register today and join a community of forward-thinking scholars to explore groundbreaking research, connect with peers, and discuss the profound impact of inclusive, socially responsible marketing. Together, we can create a future where marketing serves the environment, communities and the most vulnerable among us.

Why Attend?

Hear new perspectives from colleagues across the discipline at this premier marketing research event, where top-tier scholars will present their compelling research. 

Engage in conversations about the latest research topics with researchers, reviewers and editors using our inclusive community and contribute to a more comprehensive approach to marketing.

Connect with like-minded scholars through various learning and networking opportunities.

Celebrate milestones within the community as AMA honors the 2025 AMA Fellows cohort, the 2025 AMA-Irwin-McGraw-Hill Distinguished Marketing Educator Award recipient, and other distinguished winners.

Maximize Your Time Onsite

Register for the pre-conference, join the reception or apply for the workshop happening before and in conjunction with the 2025 conference:

Conference Co-Chairs

Linda Alkire

Texas State University

Nailya Ordabayeva

Boston University

Meet the 2025 Conference Track Chairs

Related Content: Explore the Conference Theme

Page

Journal of Marketing Special Issue: Better Marketing for a Better World

Article

Marketing for Equity: Pioneering Culturally Competent Health Care for First Nations

Article

Carbon Footprinting and Pricing Under Climate Concerns

Article

Good for the Environment and Good for Business: How Circular Take-Back Programs Enhance Consumer Valuation

Article

Wage Inequality Negatively Impacts Customer Satisfaction and Does Not Improve Long-Term Firm Performance

Article

Here’s How to Help Visitors Care for Parks and Waterways

AMA Event Policies

The post 2025 AMA Winter Academic Conference 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.

Over the last four decades, over 700 papers have explored strategies to either increase PL share for retailers or protect national-brand share for manufacturers, with the price gap between PLs and national brands and the inherent characteristics of the product category being the most frequently studied drivers of PL share. Comprehensive reviews of these drivers have been offered by Keller, Dekimpe, and Geyskens (2022) and Sethuraman and Gielens (2014), among others.

Historically, PLs were seen as inferior to national brands and positioned as low-cost or budget-friendly alternatives. However, over the last decade, many retailers have started to strategically position their PLs beyond just price by also fostering emotional bonds with consumers. A survey from Numerator (2025) found that 59% of U.S. consumers believe PLs offer an above-average value for their price, indicating a growing appreciation of and emphasis on quality and brand attachment beyond mere affordability. This shift in consumer attitudes is evident across diverse segments. Younger shoppers are increasingly choosing grocery stores based on their PL offerings, demonstrating that store brands are now seen as genuine competitors rather than mere substitutes (De Jong 2024). Similarly, high-income consumers are prioritizing PLs at growing rates, with 70% of shoppers earning over $100,000 annually selecting their grocery store based on PL products (Sheehan 2024).

These changes have enabled retailers to prioritize their own labels over national brands. They allocate PLs more favorable in-store placements, such as Costco’s Kirkland Signature products, which are often placed at eye level or in high-traffic areas within the stores. In addition, retailers are promoting PLs through targeted discounts and loyalty programs. For example, Kroger regularly offers 10%–20% discounts on its Simple Truth organic PL line through digital coupons, while Walmart+ members receive exclusive savings on select Great Value products. This prioritization of PLs, often at the expense of national brands, is particularly visible in online platforms, where the practice of self-preferencing—where a retailer’s own brands are favored over third-party brands—has sparked significant antitrust scrutiny (Long and Amaldoss 2024). As a natural outcome of these strategic evolutions, some PLs, such as Costco’s Kirkland and Loblaw’s President’s Choice, have become trusted brands in their own right and are no longer viewed as mere budget options.

Following these evolutions, academic research on PLs has also shifted, moving from a value-based focus to a more quality-centered approach, where various elements of the branding toolkit are gradually being infused and explored. This transformation, known as “PL brandification,” has unfolded in three key steps: first, a focus on quality as the initial step toward PL brandification; second, differentiation as a critical next phase; and finally, the full embrace of PL branding as the third and most advanced stage in this transformation.

A Focus on Quality: The First Step Toward PL Brandification

Already more than twenty years ago, Corstjens and Lal’s (2000) seminal paper in the Journal of Marketing Research emphasized that product quality should be a critical factor in PL strategy. Their findings show that in markets where consumers are sensitive to quality and where inertia affects brand choice, a quality-focused PL strategy enables retailers to succeed. In contrast, a “cheap and nasty” PL approach intensifies price competition. Crucially, they argue that PLs must exceed a certain quality threshold to build long-term profitability.

After improving PLs’ objective quality, it is essential that consumers also perceive a reduced quality gap between PLs and national brands. Steenkamp, Van Heerde, and Geyskens (2010) demonstrate that in countries in the PL development stage, marketing tactics such as advertising and distinctive packaging are especially effective in managing the perceived quality gap between PLs and national brands. In contrast, in PL-mature countries, focusing on manufacturing fundamentals is more impactful, as the belief that national-brand manufacturers produce PLs is more effective in reducing the perceived quality gap than in PL-development countries. Not surprisingly, in mature PL markets like Spain, retailers are likely to heavily rely on national-brand manufacturers as their PL suppliers. This is evident as more than 70% of PL suppliers across all retailers in Spain are dual branders, producing both national brands and PLs (Ma et al. 2024). Another way to foster this belief may be through copycatting. Aribarg et al. (2014) show that copycatting increases consumers’ preference for PLs. Yet, when a well-known retailer name appears on a copycat product, this may inadvertently weaken the appeal of the imitating PL.

However, the dissemination of these insights has not been uniform across the globe. While some regions have embraced quality-focused strategies, others have been slower to adopt these approaches. In particular, the quality gap between PLs and national brands remains significant in the United States and emerging markets. According to Steenkamp (2023), PLs have not yet achieved quality equivalence with national brands in these regions, limiting their competitive potential and consumer acceptance compared with more mature markets.

Differentiation: The Second Step Toward PL Brandification

As PLs evolved beyond their initial focus on price, differentiation emerged as a crucial strategy in shaping their competitive positioning. Choi and Coughlan (2006) were among the first to introduce the notion of differentiation as a key factor in explaining how PLs should position themselves relative to national brands. According to their framework, when national brands are differentiated, a high-quality PL should align itself closer to the stronger national brand, while a lower-quality PL should position itself closer to the weaker national brand. However, when national brands are undifferentiated, PLs must distinguish themselves from both stronger and weaker competitors. Importantly, PLs cannot afford to remain undifferentiated in terms of either quality or features if they wish to remain successful. As such, their work hints at two distinct paths for differentiation: vertical differentiation, which focuses on quality tiers such as economy, standard, and premium PLs, and horizontal differentiation, which emphasizes unique product attributes. We now turn to the academic work that further explores these two differentiation paths in greater depth.

Vertical Differentiation on Quality

Acknowledging the importance of quality differentiation, many retailers now offer multitier PLs, as illustrated in Figure 1 for two leading retailers, Tesco and Kroger. Standard PLs (depicted in the middle column) typically mimic mainstream national brands by offering comparable quality at lower prices, while premium PLs (shown in the right-hand column) offer superior quality at higher prices, often with unique ingredients, flavors, or packaging. In contrast, economy PLs (shown in the left column), focus on cost reduction by cutting back on expensive ingredients, allowing retailers to pursue enhanced quality without neglecting the economy-seeking segment of their shoppers.

Figure 1
Examples of vertically differentiated PL lines

Many retailers have fully embraced this shift, moving away from a single-tier PL approach. In the United Kingdom, premium PLs already account for 8.4% of total PL sales, while economy-tier PLs make up 4.7% (NIQ Brandbank 2024). This strategy enables retailers to capture a broader audience, from budget-conscious shoppers to high-end consumers seeking premium PL alternatives. Ultimately, this results in a product portfolio that is vertically differentiated in both price and quality, but it must be carefully managed to avoid unintended cannibalization (Amaldoss and Shin 2015; Geyskens, Gielens, and Gijsbrechts 2010).

While PL tiers help retailers cover the full price–quality spectrum, their introduction may also trigger cannibalization. Economy PLs may pull customers from both national brands and higher-tier PLs, while premium PLs can challenge premium national brands. Geyskens, Gielens, and Gijsbrechts (2010) suggest that to minimize cannibalization, retailers should counter the brand-type similarity effect by positioning PL tiers on different shelves or using stand-alone brand names instead of subbrands. Interestingly, national-brand manufacturers’ concerns about PL proliferation are often overstated. Geyskens, Gielens, and Gijsbrechts find that PL tiering can sometimes even increase national-brand choice share. Premium national brands should emphasize quality and avoid price cuts, while mainstream national brands should leverage mixed displays alongside other PLs and national brands to encourage favorable consumer comparisons.

What should the quality levels of multitier store brands be? Amaldoss and Shinn (2015) suggest that retailers align the quality of their different PL tiers with national brands to reach all types of consumers. This approach helps reduce overlap between their own PL products, but it increases competition with national brands. Although this added competition can affect profitability, retailers can manage it by carefully adjusting the prices of both their PLs and national brands. In fact, with their control over pricing, retailers can even position one of their PLs as the top-quality choice. However, when national brands dominate a category, retailers may allow a national brand to take the top spot, ensuring their PLs can still appeal to a wide range of consumers.

Horizontal Differentiation on Features

As PLs evolve, retailers are increasingly turning to horizontal differentiation to stand out in the market. A key approach involves incorporating nontraditional, intangible attributes such as organic, eco-friendly, health, and fair trade into their PL offerings. Figure 2, for instance, highlights how Carrefour prominently emphasizes the organic attribute within several of its food categories. Similarly, Tesco prioritizes the eco-friendly attribute in some of its nonfood categories, while Kroger underscores health through its Simple Truth product line, which is distinguished by the avoidance of unwanted ingredients.

Figure 2
Examples of Horizontally Differentiated PL Lines

In this respect, Maesen (2025) highlights the growing trend of introducing organic PLs. These PLs are horizontally differentiated from conventional standard PLs by offering unique qualities that only appeal to some consumers. By focusing on such attributes, retailers can compete more effectively with (organic) national brands and lower the risk of cannibalizing their existing PL lines.

As PLs increasingly benefit from horizontal differentiation, their new product lines are becoming strategic weapons not only to sustain their own sales but also to steal share from leading national brands. Over 80% of grocery retailers identify innovation as the top strategy for growing PL market share (Rafferty 2023). For instance, Target’s Good & Gather has introduced over 2,500 new PL products, while Kroger launched 680 new items in 2023 and Albertsons added more than 800 PL products in 2021. In Spain, Mercadona operates 23 “co-innovation centers” that test 11,000 products annually, showcasing a sophisticated, data-driven approach to product development (McOuat et al. 2024). Research by Gielens (2012) demonstrated that standard PLs, in particular, are more likely to compete directly with national brands, with their new product introductions effectively capturing share from both rival national brands and other PL tiers within the retailer’s portfolio.

PL Branding: The Third Step Toward PL Brandification

To transform PLs into true, competitive brands, retailers must take an additional leap beyond quality improvement and differentiation by fully embracing comprehensive branding strategies. Bronnenberg, Dubé, and Sanders (2020) highlight that while consumers expect PLs to perform well, they are still less likely to choose them over national brands due to their deep-rooted loyalty to established national-brand names. To fully capitalize on their PLs’ potential, retailers must therefore integrate more branding elements into their strategies. Doing so can help break through the aforementioned brand-loyalty barriers and create stronger, lasting consumer connections with PLs. Both brand naming and advertising play a crucial role in this transformation.

Naming PLs

To build effective PL brands, retailers must carefully choose brand names that enable consumers to more easily differentiate among various PLs. After all, the key to branding is that consumers perceive differences among brands within a product category. An important decision for retailers involves whether to align their PL brands with the store banner or use a stand-alone brand name. With store-banner branding, the link between PL product and retailer is explicit, enhancing the likelihood of positive spillover effects. Germany’s Edeka, for example, has its banner name in the naming of both its economy (Edeka Gut & Günstig) and premium (Edeka Genussmomente) tiers, consistent with the branding strategy used on its long-standing standard tier (Edeka). The Spanish retailer Mercadona, in contrast, opted to use the stand-alone name “Hacendado” for its standard PL products in the ambient and frozen food categories.

For the standard tier, Schnittka et al. (2015), using a survey in Germany, conclude that store-banner branding increases PL recognition and PL attitude. Geyskens et al. (2018) demonstrate the benefits of store-banner branding for standard PLs by examining a Dutch retailer’s strategic relaunch of its entire standard PL portfolio. Overall, the PL rebranding was a success, with PL sales soaring by 27% in the first quarter after rebranding, and profits also experiencing an increase. The rebranding initiative drove PL growth in product categories where PLs are traditionally weaker than national brands. By leveraging its banner name on its standard PL, the retailer effectively capitalized on its strong reputation.

For the economy and premium tier, Keller, Dekimpe, and Geyskens (2016) studied a large pan-European sample of over 220 PL-branding decisions made by over 150 retailers across more than 25 countries. They conclude that retailers benefit most from store-banner branding their premium PLs when they possess high brand equity or follow a hi–lo price format. However, for retailers with lower equity or an everyday-low-pricing strategy, stand-alone branding for the premium tier becomes more effective.

Importantly, even when using stand-alone branding, retailers can benefit from using a common (umbrella) brand name for all categories, rather than working with multiple category-specific brand names, as this may facilitate consumers’ mental categorization and credibly signal positive intercategory quality correlations. Keller, Geyskens, and Dekimpe (2020) studied three substantially different retailers that switched to an umbrella brand name for one of their (economy or standard) PL tiers. Figure 3 shows in this respect how SPAR, a leading Dutch convenience store chain, switched from a diffuse set of category-specific brand names to a single unified name, “OK€.” In all three instances, the rebranded PL tier’s intrinsic brand strength increased.

Figure 3
SPAR’s Rebranding of Category-Specific Brand Names to a Single Unified Name

Advertising

As a final frontier in branding, PL retailers can explore advertising to elevate their PLs. Historically, PLs relied on price and shelf placement to drive purchases, since advertising campaigns for a wide variety of PLs across various categories were seen as cost-prohibitive. Recently, however, Kroger invested $2.5 million in an advertisement highlighting its PL products. In this campaign, it seeks to complement its core focus on value and product features with stronger attitudinal and emotional appeals (see Figure 4, Panel A).

Moreover, the rise of social media and new retail advertising platforms offers fresh opportunities for cost-effective advertising. For example, Kroger actively leverages its Instagram account to prominently feature its PL products in an engaging and entertaining manner while also providing additional product information (see Figure 4, Panel B). This approach reflects a broader trend among leading retailers, who are increasingly using digital channels to tell the stories behind their PLs. These narratives often highlight key aspects such as ingredient sourcing, production methods, and product origins, enabling brands to deepen consumer engagement and build trust while distinguishing their offerings in a competitive market. Such efforts help create stronger brand awareness and build emotional connections. Yet, the academic study of advertising’s role in PL branding remains largely unexplored, opening new avenues for research in this area. Szymanowski and Gijsbrechts (2012), for example, found that a retailer’s PL is not entirely private, in that consumers use their positive experiences with one PL to upgrade their beliefs about rival retailers’ store brands. It would be interesting to study to what extent messages with different content, or through different media (see also Danaher et al. 2020), may help to better appropriate advertising’s branding benefits.

Figure 4
Examples of Kroger’s Advertising Campaign Dedicated to Its PLs

Conclusion

The transformation of PLs into fully-fledged brands, holding significant equity on their own account, unfolds in three steps prioritizing (1) quality, (2) strategic differentiation, and (3) full-scale branding.

First, quality remains the foundation of successful PL strategies. Retailers must ensure their PLs consistently meet or exceed consumer expectations to foster long-term loyalty. Beyond objective quality improvements, bridging the perceived quality gap is equally critical. In markets where PLs are still developing, advertising and distinctive packaging are effective tools to enhance perceived quality, whereas in PL-mature countries, leveraging consumer beliefs that PLs are produced by trusted national-brand manufacturers plays a more significant role.

The second step in PL brandification is to differentiate with purpose. Retailers achieve this through a two- or three-tiered approach, structuring PL portfolios into economy, standard, and/or premium tiers to cover the price–quality spectrum. At the same time, they may harness the power of horizontal differentiation by embracing attributes like sustainability, fair trade, and ethical sourcing. This approach positions PLs as compelling alternatives to national brands while curbing the risk of cannibalizing existing products.        

The third and final step in PL brandification is to choose the PL’s brand name wisely. Aligning the naming strategy with each tier’s objectives is crucial—while a banner-aligned name reinforces trust and strengthens the retailer’s overall brand image, a stand-alone name can provide greater flexibility, particularly for premium tiers seeking independent positioning. In addition, the naming strategy should align with the store’s format. In a hi–lo pricing model, store-banner branding is particularly effective for premium PLs, leveraging positive spillover effects from the retailer’s reputation. Conversely, in everyday-low-price formats, stand-alone branding for premium tiers helps create a distinct premium perception without overly relying on store credibility. Retailers should also evaluate the benefits of umbrella branding, as using the same brand name across an entire PL tier can reduce consumer uncertainty and enhance the overall sales performance of the PL brand.

As PLs continue to evolve, several research gaps warrant further exploration. First, the role of advertising in PL brandification remains an open question. It is unclear how different advertising strategies—such as storytelling, influencer partnerships, or targeted social media campaigns—affect consumer perceptions of PLs. Further research could explore how advertising effectiveness varies by PL tier. Understanding the long-term impact of PL advertising on PL equity would provide valuable insights for both retailers and researchers.

Second, while prior work has examined individual elements such as tiered pricing and store-banner branding, there is limited understanding of how these elements interact with shelf positioning, promotional intensity, and category management to influence the PL brand’s equity. For example, does a premium PL benefit more from prominent shelf placement than a standard-tier PL, or do price promotions have a stronger impact on lower-tier PLs? A more integrated perspective on these dynamics could help retailers optimize their PL strategies to maximize brand equity.

Finally, the rise of e-commerce and algorithm-driven recommendations raises new challenges and opportunities for PLs. Online environments enable new forms of self-preferencing, where retailers promote their own PLs over national brands, a practice that has drawn increasing regulatory scrutiny. Future research could explore the effects of digital shelf placement, targeted advertising, and algorithmic bias on PL success, shedding light on how these strategies influence consumer decision-making and retailer performance in an increasingly digital landscape.

References

Amaldoss, Wilfred and Woochoel Shin (2015), “Multitier Store Brands and Channel Profits,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (6), 754–67.

Aribarg, Anocha, Neeraj Arora, Ty Henderson, and Youngju Kim (2014), “Private Label Imitation of a National Brand: Implications for Consumer Choice and Law,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (6), 657–75.

Bronnenberg, Bart, Jean-Pierre Dubé, and Robert E. Sanders (2020), “Consumer Misinformation and the Brand Premium: A Private Label Blind Taste Test,” Marketing Science, 39 (2), 382–406.

Choi, S. Chan and Anne T. Coughlan (2006), “Quality Versus Feature Differentiation from the National Brand,” Journal of Retailing, 82 (2), 79–93.

Corstjens, Marcel and Rajiv Lal (2000), “Building Store Loyalty through Store Brands,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (3), 281–91.

Danaher, Peter. J., Tracey S. Danaher, Michael Smith, and Ruben Loaiza-Maya (2020), “Advertising Effectiveness for Multiple Retailer-Brands in a Multimedia and Multichannel Environment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (3), 445–67.

De Jong, Koen A.M. (2024), The Power of Private Label, IPLC BV.

Geyskens, Inge, Katrijn Gielens, and Els Gijsbrechts (2010), “Proliferating Private-Label Portfolios: How Introducing Economy and Premium Private Labels Influences Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5), 791–807.

Geyskens, Inge, Kristopher O. Keller, Marnik G. Dekimpe, and Koen de Jong (2018), “How to Brand your Private Labels,” Business Horizons, 61 (3), 487–96.

Gielens, Katrijn (2012), “New Products: The Antidote to Private Label Growth?” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (3), 408–23.

Gielens, Katrijn, Marnik G. Dekimpe, Anirban Mukherjee, and Kapil Tuli (2023), “The Future of Private Label Markets: A Global Convergence Approach,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40 (1), 248–67.

Keller, Kristopher O., Marnik G. Dekimpe, and Inge Geyskens (2016), “Let Your Banner Wave? Antecedents and Performance Implications of Retailers’ Private-Label Branding Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (4), 1–19.

Keller, Kristopher O., Marnik G. Dekimpe, and Inge Geyskens (2022), “Adding Budget and Premium Private Labels to Standard Private Labels: Established Empirical Generalizations, Emerging Empirical Insights, and Future Research,” Journal of Retailing, 98 (1), 5–23.

Keller, Kristopher O., Inge Geyskens, and Marnik G. Dekimpe (2020), “Opening the Umbrella: The Performance Implications of Private Label Rebranding,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (4), 677–94.

Long, Fei and Wilfred Amaldoss (2024), “Self-Preferencing in E-Commerce Marketplaces: The Role of Sponsored Advertising and Private Labels,” Marketing Science, 43 (5), 925–52.

Ma, Yu, Kusum L. Ailawadi, Mercedes Martos-Partal and Óscar González-Benito (2024), “Dual Branding by National Brand Manufacturers: Drivers and Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing, 88 (3), 69–87.

Maesen, Stijn (2025), “Introducing Specialist Private Labels: How Reducing Manufacturers’ Competing Assortment Size Affects Retailer Performance,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 42 (1), 192–211.

McOuat, Angus, Dymfke Kuijpers, Patricio Ibáñez, and Ryan Drassinower (2024), “A Turning Point for Private Brands: How Retailers Can Seize the Opportunity,” McKinsey & Co. (November 4), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/a-turning-point-for-private-brands-how-retailers-can-seize-the-opportunity.

NIQ Brandbank (2024), “Branded vs. Private Label – Who Is Going to Come Out on Top?” (May 14), https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2024/brandbank-branded-vs-private-label-who-is-going-to-come-out-on-top/.

Numerator (2025), “Get Perspective on Private Label Performance,” (updated February 18), https://www.numerator.com/private-label-trends.

Rafferty, Atalanta (2023), “How Private Label Brands Are Redefining Themselves from Imitators to Innovators,” RF Binder (July 10), https://rfbinder.com/how-private-labels-brands-are-redefining-themselves-from-imitators-to-innovators.

Schnittka, Oliver, Jan-Michael Becker, Karen Gedenk, Henrik Sattler, Isabel Victoria Villeda, and Franziska Völckner (2015), “Does Chain Labeling Make Private Labels More Successful?” Schmalenbach Business Review, 67 (1), 92–113.

Sethuraman, Raj and Katrijn Gielens (2014), “Determinants of Store Brand Share,” Journal of Retailing, 90 (2), 141–53.

Sheehan, Diana (2024), “Beyond Value: How Private Label Is Winning Over Consumers,” PDG Insights (May 30), https://www.pdginsights.com/post/beyond-value-how-private-label-is-winning-over-consumers.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2023), “What Is Holding Private Label Back in the United States and in Emerging Markets?” Journal of Retailing, 100 (4), 55–69.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Harald J. van Heerde, and Inge Geyskens (2010), “What Makes Consumers Willing to Pay a Price Premium for National Brands over Private Labels?” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (6), 1011–24.

Szymanowski, Maciej and Els Gijsbrechts (2012), “Consumption-Based Cross-Brand Learning: Are Private Labels Really Private?” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (2), 231–46.

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post The Brandification of Private Labels: Beyond Budget 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.

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.