Marketing Group Seminar Series 2025-26

Seminar

Title & Abstract

Prof. Jan-Benedict Steenkamp

(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

23 Oct 2025

13:30-15:00

WBS 2.005/6

Title: A Global Investigation into the Evolution of Price, Assortment, and Distribution Effectiveness.

Abstract: This study investigates how the effectiveness of three core marketing-mix instruments—price, assortment, and distribution—evolves over time across brands, categories, and countries using the Empirics-First approach to relevant knowledge generation (Golder et al. 2023). The authors analyze household panel data covering over 16,000 brands in 85 consumer packaged goods categories for on average 10 years across 34 countries in Asia, Europe, North America and South America. They adopt a rolling-window estimation approach to derive time-varying elasticities, followed by meta-analytic modeling to identify systematic drivers of change. Averaged across time, brand price elasticity is -.640, assortment elasticity is .311, and distribution elasticity is .213. However, time-invariant averages have limited meaning given that 98.5% of brands exhibit significant evolution in at least one instrument’s elasticity. Substantial heterogeneity in trends emerges, moderated by brand, category, and country factors. The single most important predictor for all three instruments is the brand’s baseline elasticity. The stronger the elasticity, the larger its downward trend. Brand power and whether the brand is a local brand emerge as other key factors. Consumer purchase frequency and share-of-wallet are stronger category predictors of elasticity trajectories than retailer factors such as e-commerce penetration, hard-discount share and private label share. Findings challenge static allocation rules and underscore the need for dynamic, elasticity-based resource allocation in brand management.

Dr. Jonathan Berman

(London Business School)

11 Nov 2025

12:30-14:00

WBS 3.007

Title: Preferences for No-Punishment Tolerance Zones in Policy-Making.

Abstract: Policy-makers often face a trade-off between enforcing rules strictly and offering flexibility. While being strict can effectively regulate anti-social behaviour, it is often met with disapproval for restricting personal freedoms. We propose that formalized tolerance zones—defined ranges beyond a stated limit where behaviour is permitted without penalty—can foster strict behavioural regulation alongside enhanced public approval. We find that participants consistently preferred policies with tolerance zones over those without, even when the punishment threshold remains the same. Tolerance zones also led to harsher moral judgments of others who violated stated limits (even when doing so does not meet a punishment threshold). We additionally isolate factors that lead to disapproval for tolerance zones. Findings from this research offer insights for designing effective, publicly supported behavioural regulation.

Dr. Adriana Samper

(Arizona State University)

12 Feb 2026

10:30-12:00

WBS 1.006

Title: Responses to Gender-Based Price Variation: Differences or Discrimination?

Abstract: People frequently encounter gendered products that are very similar to one another, if not identical, yet are priced differently. However, little is known about how women and men make decisions in response to gender-based pricing strategies. The current work demonstrates that when women face higher prices for products than men, they are more likely to see such differential treatment as inherently unjustified and unfair, resulting in lower purchase likelihood and brand evaluations. In contrast, when men face higher prices than women, they are more likely to view the price differences as justified and fair (Studies 1 and 2). Notably, when men are primed to consider discrimination (i.e., unfair treatment) against their own gender, they respond similarly to women (Study 3). We also reveal downstream effects, such that women are also more likely to pay a premium to support stores that charge equal prices (Studies 4a and 4b), and to engage in civic action to prohibit gender-based price variation (Study 5). This research takes a key step in understanding the psychological decision processes and consequences of gender-based price variation, with important implications for designing effective pricing strategies.

Prof. Yael Steinhart

(Tel Aviv University)

18 Feb 2026

WBS 1.003

Title: The Unexpected Mirror: How AI Communication Style Shapes Consumer Self-Perceptions.

Abstract: The rise of large language models has opened the door to a new kind of consumer interaction, where AIs can converse in nuanced linguistic styles. This research explores how AI’s communication style shapes the way consumers see themselves. Across three studies, participants who interacted with an extraverted AI reported more positive self-perceptions than those interacting with an introverted AI. This shift appears to stem from linguistic matching: people tend to mirror the AI’s style, adopting its extraverted tone and, in doing so, internalizing some of its upbeat emotional state. These enhanced self-perceptions, in turn, boost word-of-mouth and return intentions.

Prof. Rebecca Hamilton

(Georgetown University)

23 Feb 2026

13:30-15:00

WBS 3.007

Title: Can We Compare Missed Deadlines and Overpacked Suitcases to Overdue Bills? A Meta-Analysis of Consumer Responses to Resource Scarcity.

Abstract: Whether facing scarcity of time before a deadline, space while packing a suitcase, or money to make a purchase, consumers often experience resource scarcity. Resource scarcity is the lack of capital or production inputs required to obtain desired goods and services (Hamilton et al. 2019). Some prior research suggests that consumers will exhibit a consistent set of responses to resource scarcity, focusing attention on the constrained resource and reducing their cognitive bandwidth for other tasks regardless of whether time or money is scarce (Mullainathan and Shafir 2013). On the other hand, scarcity of money tends to increase price sensitivity (Ailawadi et al. 2011; Shah et al. 2015) and reduce purchase volume (Orhun and Palazzolo 2019), while scarcity of time is often leveraged by marketers to increase purchase intent (Baron et al. 2023; Hmurovic et al. 2023), suggesting that consumer responses to scarcity may be resource specific. To test these competing predictions, we conduct a meta-analysis, investigating differences in consumer responses to scarcity of multiple resources, including money, time, space, and commodities. We also compare consumer responses to chronic and situationally induced scarcity and dependent variables at different stages of the consumer journey. In total, we include 187 papers in our meta-analysis, resulting in 1,609 effect sizes across 45 years of scholarly work in marketing, consumer behavior, economics, psychology, and management journals. We observe significant differences in consumer responses to scarcity across resource types and across dependent measures. We highlight the implications of our findings for research on scarcity and for designing interventions to address resource scarcity.

Prof. Martin Schreier

(WU Vienna)

4 March 2026

10:30-12:00

WBS 2.007

Title: How to encourage pro-environmental behavior: Make it fun!

Abstract: Climate change is a significant challenge for our society. Although individuals can help by engaging in pro-environmental actions (e.g., choosing a plant-based meal), motivating them to follow through has proven difficult. Here we ask whether a serious problem like climate change can be tackled by utilizing a less serious intervention: Play. Specifically, we conjecture that embedding pro-environmental decisions within a playful task (i.e., a challenge to win with your team or break a record) may increase individuals' likelihood to adopt the focal behavior. Put differently, whereas pro-environmental actions-and the preceding decision-making processes-are not typically associated with fun, adding elements of play may increase immediate intrinsic benefits for the self. Two large-scale field experiments (n = 306,493), a longitudinal field study (n = 4,184), and three behavioral experiments (n = 2,970) support our theorizing. The evidence further suggests that such interventions might produce long-lasting behavior change if implemented over a longer period.

Prof. Anne-Kathrin Klesse

(Erasmus University)

11-12 Mar 2026

Title: TBD.

Abstract: TBD.

Dr. Carl-Philip Ahlbom

(Florida State University)

16-17 March 2026

Title: TBD.

Abstract: TBD.