Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, we speak with Kalyan Rallabandi (Bucknell University) to discuss his article, "The Impact of Ad Repetition on Viewer Attention in Connected and Linear Television," coauthored with Hyung Sup (Zack) Bhan (Radford University) and Seoungwoo Lee (Yonsei University), published in the June 2026 issue of JAR.

Kalyan explains how the team used a remarkably rich TVision Insights dataset, shared through the JAR-TVision data release call, that tracks second-by-second attention for over 1,000 viewers via in-home webcams paired with automatic content recognition data. The headline finding is that viewer attention falls with each repeated exposure to an ad, and the decline is noticeably steeper on connected TV than on linear TV, where attention tends to plateau. When the same ad is repeated within narrow windows like a single day or hour, attention decay accelerates on both platforms, but CTV remains the worse offender. The likely culprit is the very thing that makes CTV attractive: viewers there are more engaged and in control, so repeated ad interruptions cost more attention.

The practical takeaway for advertisers is that the common instinct to pile repetition onto CTV because engagement is high actually works against you, and wider spacing between exposures is the safer play. Kalyan also points to structural problems in the CTV ecosystem, where walled gardens and weak cross-platform frequency capping leave agencies with little control over how often viewers see the same ad, and suggests attention-based pricing as a natural evolution. Our discussion also digs into the endogeneity challenge behind the scenes, where naïve estimates showed attention rising with repetition until granular viewer-by-ad fixed effects revealed the true pattern, plus future directions like linking attention to sales outcomes and modeling the wear-in and wear-out sweet spot for repetition.

Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.2025.2538940

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, we speak with Claire Segijn (University of Minnesota) and Joanna Strycharz (University of Amsterdam) to discuss their article, "Advertising Professionals' Views on Advertising Seemingly Related to Offline Conversations," coauthored with Rongjin Zhang (University of Minnesota), published in the March 2026 issue of JAR.

Claire and Joanna explain conversation-related advertising: the widespread consumer belief that phones and smart devices are listening to offline conversations and serving up ads based on what was said. Drawing on a survey of 74 U.S. advertising professionals and the first study to examine this phenomenon from the industry side, they unpack a striking disconnect. Nearly all professionals agree the technology is possible, yet there is no consensus on whether it is actually happening. Those who believe it is happening point to their own experiences as consumers rather than any campaign evidence, while those who say it is not offer four concrete reasons: it isn't an option platforms let them select, it's unnecessary given how much data advertisers already have, it faces real technical hurdles, and it carries legal risk. The bigger story is an information asymmetry that has shifted from one between industry and consumers to one between advertisers and the platforms themselves, with professionals often unsure what data actually powers their own campaigns.

The practical takeaway for advertisers is that perceptions matter even when the practice isn't real: consumers who believe an ad came from an overheard conversation react negatively, so greater transparency about data collection, more internal conversations within agencies, and possibly regulatory mandates are needed. Our discussion also digs into how the project began with student examples in the classroom, the challenges of recruiting busy (and sometimes skeptical) advertising professionals, and a rich future research agenda spanning why consumers hold this belief, how to inform the large group sitting on the fence, and whether reactions differ across product categories.

Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.2025.2531594

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, we speak with Nayla Khan (University of Portsmouth), Marta Nieto-García (Universidad de Salamanca), and Diletta Acuti (University of Bath) to discuss their article, "An Investigation of How and Why Organizations Enact Greenhushing," coauthored with Giampaolo Viglia (University of Portsmouth), published in the March 2026 issue of JAR.

The authors explain what greenhushing is: the strategic decision to downplay or stay quiet about genuine sustainability practices, essentially the mirror image of greenwashing. Using Booking.com's sustainability program as a third-party benchmark, they analyzed the websites and social media of 300 UK hotels and found greenhushing to be widespread: only 38% of hotels communicated their verified sustainability practices on their websites, and less than 2% of their Facebook and Instagram posts touched on sustainability at all. Interviews with 16 service marketers across hotels, restaurants, salons, and tour operators revealed two main drivers: fear of greenwashing accusations and a lack of confidence in whether their practices are "enough" to talk about. Tellingly, most greenhushing organizations also don't track their sustainability performance, which the authors argue feeds that lack of confidence.

The practical takeaway is that firms with verified practices are leaving value on the table. The authors recommend tracking sustainability performance with verifiable metrics, communicating claims backed by that data, and keeping the story consistent across websites and social platforms so it reads as authentic. Our conversation also digs into the origins of the project, including a candid admission from a major grocery retailer that it deliberately stays silent on sustainability, the challenge of interviewing managers who had never heard the term greenhushing, and future directions for research on this topic.

Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.2025.2514889

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, guest interviewer Dr. Steven Park (Queen Mary University of London) speaks with Jia Heng Li and Professor Tae Hyun Baek (both Sungkyunkwan University) to discuss their article, "Consumer Responses to LGBTQ-Themed Advertising: A Computational Analysis of YouTube Comments," coauthored with Minseong Kim (Louisiana State University Shreveport), just published in the June 2026 issue of JAR.

Jia Heng explains how the study moves beyond the surveys and experiments that dominate research on LGBTQ-themed advertising by analyzing what consumers naturally say online. Using computational text mining of more than 20,000 YouTube comments on LGBTQ-themed ads, the authors identify six key topics of conversation, from LGBTQ celebrations and family values to drag culture, brand activism, and gender roles. The headline finding is that overall sentiment is more positive than many might expect, with themes of pride, inclusion, and family associated with emotions like joy and trust. But responses are far from uniform: drag culture and brand activism generate polarized reactions, driven by discomfort with nontraditional gender expressions and skepticism about corporate authenticity. Crucially, consumers aren't just reacting to the ad itself. They're evaluating the brand behind it, questioning whether its support reflects genuine values or "rainbow-washing."

The practical takeaways for advertisers are threefold: treat inclusion as a long-term commitment rather than a one-off campaign, recognize that different forms of LGBTQ representation call for different communication strategies, and mine the comment section, which often reveals more than views and engagement metrics ever could. The discussion also digs into the challenge of interpreting sarcasm and irony in online comments, why the authors paired computational analysis with extensive manual validation, and where this research should go next, from cross-platform comparisons to cross-cultural work.

Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.2025.2554437

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, we speak with Matthew Pittman (University of Tennessee) to discuss his article, "Green Demarketing to Nongreen Consumers: Individuals With Low Environmental Concern Don't Believe Messages to 'Buy Less'," coauthored with Tyler Milfeld (Villanova University) and Eric Haley (University of Tennessee), just published in the June 2026 issue of JAR.

Matthew explains what green demarketing is: a more progressive form of green advertising that urges consumers to buy less of anything, made famous by Patagonia's "Don't Buy This Jacket" campaign. Drawing on two online experiments and a real-world Instagram field experiment, the first to test demarketing in a social media field setting, Matthew unpacks how and when "buy less" appeals backfire. The headline finding is that green demarketing generates lower purchase intentions than traditional green advertising and the mechanism is sequential: consumers first judge the source as less credible, which in turn makes the message less believable. Crucially, this effect is driven by consumers with low environmental concern. Highly green consumers respond just as well to demarketing as they do to conventional green appeals.

The practical takeaway for advertisers is to try and gauge your audience's level of environmental concern and to recognize that "don't buy" messages only land when a brand has built up the environmental credibility, as Patagonia has, to back them up. Our discussion also digs into the field experiment, including the creative challenge of targeting nongreen consumers on social media when ad platforms only let you target what people like, not what they dislike. 

Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.2025.2582341

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Vincent Huang (Hong Kong Baptist University) sits down with Dominic Yeo (Hong Kong Baptist University) to discuss Dominic's Journal of Advertising Research article, "How Persuasive Is Personalized Advertising? A Meta-Analytic Review of Experimental Evidence of the Effects of Personalization on Ad Effectiveness," coauthored with Tsz Hang Chu (Hong Kong Shue Yan University) and Qiqi Li (Hong Kong Baptist University), recently named runner-up for JAR's Best Paper of 2025. 

Dominic explains why personalized advertising actually works, and why the "creepiness factor" we often associate with it may matter less than we think. Drawing on a meta-analysis of 53 experimental studies and nearly 12,000 participants, Dominic and his coauthors directly compare personalized and non-personalized ads across consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions. The headline finding is that personalization is, on average, more persuasive than generic advertising, and the mechanism behind that effect is perceived relevance rather than reduced intrusiveness. In fact, personalization did not significantly increase perceived intrusiveness at all, suggesting that the benefits of feeling understood tend to outweigh the costs of feeling watched.

Vincent and Dominic also dig into a key boundary condition that emerged from the moderator analysis: actual personalization based on real participant data is far more effective than scenario-based, imagined personalization, and covert personalization (think behavioral targeting based on browsing history) tends to outperform overt personalization (like inserting a consumer's first name into an ad). The practical takeaway for advertisers is to keep investing in personalization, but to do it with relevance, not gimmickry, in mind. 

Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.2025.2467763

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Andrea Godfrey Flynn (University of San Diego) joins me to discuss her Journal of Advertising Research article, "The Influence of Perceived Truth of Campaign Messages on Vote Choice: Does Truth Matter When Industries Battle Opponents Over Policy Issues?" coauthored with Kathleen Seiders (Boston College).

Andrea explains why perceived truth matters in political advertising — but not in a simple, uniform way. Drawing on two-wave longitudinal surveys of California voters across three high-stakes ballot measure campaigns in 2018 and 2020, she and Kathleen examine how voters' beliefs about the truthfulness of campaign messages from both the industry side and the opposing coalition side shape actual vote choice. The core finding is that truth does still matter in an era of widespread skepticism about misinformation, but its impact is conditional: conservative-leaning voters are most responsive to perceived truth in industry campaign messages, while liberal-leaning voters are most responsive to perceived truth in opponent campaign messages, consistent with longstanding partisan attitudes toward business.

We also discuss the powerful role of political party endorsements as a second boundary condition. When one party officially endorses the industry side, it is actually the other party's voters who place the greatest weight on perceived truth in their vote decision, a finding with real strategic implications. The practical takeaway is that campaigns should think carefully about both audience targeting and the endorsement landscape. Emphasizing message truthfulness, backing claims with transparent and independent evidence, and avoiding demonization of the opposing side can all help campaigns win support from voters who might otherwise lean the other way. 

Read the full paper here: 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.2025.2464295

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Laura Lavertu (Grenoble Ecole de Management) joins me to discuss her Journal of Advertising Research article, “Petfluencers, the Fur-Mula for Sincere Endorsements: Examining How and When Pets Exhibit Greater Persuasion as Influencers,” coauthored with Katina Kulow (University of Louisville), Kirsten Cowan (University of Edinburgh), and Ben Marder (University of Edinburgh).

Laura explains why petfluencers can sometimes outperform human influencers. Across four studies, including a field study and lab experiments, their research shows that petfluencers can increase engagement and willingness to pay because they are perceived as more sincere. The core idea is that audiences attribute fewer self-interested motives to pets, which helps sponsored posts feel more genuine in an era of influencer fatigue.

We also discuss when this effect is strongest. The findings suggest that petfluencer content works best when the message framing matches consumers’ mindset, particularly around temporal focus. When consumers are in a more present-oriented, concrete mindset, present-focused messaging can amplify petfluencers’ persuasive advantage. The practical takeaway is that petfluencers are not just a novelty tactic. They can be a strategic substitute when sincerity is the constraint, especially if the creative execution reinforces immediacy and reduces psychological distance.

Read the full paper here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218499.2025.2463707

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Tyler Milfeld (Villanova University) joins me, along with Courtney B. Peters (Samford University) and Jennifer H. Tatara (DePaul University), to discuss their Journal of Advertising Research article, “Fueling or Suppressing Brand Activism Backlash: How Message Type Differentially Influences Perceived Hypocrisy and Consumer Attitudes.”

Tyler, Courtney, and Jennifer examine what brands should say, or avoid saying, when a sociopolitical stance triggers backlash. Across three experiments using real brands and salient issues, their research shows that a common real-world response, retraction, often backfires. Retraction increases perceived hypocrisy among people who supported the brand’s original stance, which then lowers brand attitudes. Among people who did not support the stance, retraction does little to improve perceptions.

We also discuss what can mitigate the damage when a retraction is unavoidable. Pairing the retraction with a safety-based justification can reduce the hypocrisy penalty among high-support consumers. The broader takeaway is that backlash is not a standard crisis and response strategies should be chosen based on what the message signals about consistency, motives, and who you risk alienating.

Read the full paper here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218499.2025.2458370

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Heesoo Kim (University of Oregon) joins me to discuss her Journal of Advertising Research article, “Using Unfamiliar Cues to Engage Multitasking Audiences: Giving Attentional Breakthrough,” coauthored with Hongsik John Cheon (Soongsil University).

Heesoo and I explore how advertisers can earn an “attentional breakthrough” when audiences are multitasking across screens. Across four studies, the research shows that embedding an unfamiliar cue, like a scientific or technical term, can trigger selective attention and deeper processing, but mainly when people’s second-screen activity is congruent with the ad, such as looking up the unfamiliar term while watching. Under those congruent multitasking conditions, unfamiliar cues improve ad recall. Under incongruent multitasking, the benefit disappears.

We also discuss the practical playbook. The takeaway is not “add jargon,” but “add a curiosity spark” that reliably converts distraction into relevant second-screen behavior. For marketers, that means designing unfamiliar cues that create a clean information gap, making it easy for consumers to resolve that gap in the moment, and ensuring the second-screen path reinforces the brand and the core message rather than pulling attention away from it.

Read the full paper here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218499.2025.2470510

To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: 
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QN

And follow us on LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/