Donald R. Lehmann’s research while affiliated with Columbia University and other places

Several studies have explored the impact of advertising on perceived quality of brands. These include analytical ones Milgrom and Roberts (Journal of Political Economy, 94(4)796-821, 1986) and econometric studies (e.g., Tsai and Honka Marketing Science, 40(6)1030-1058, 2021). We replicate and extend the findings of Tsai and Honka (Marketing Science, 40(6)1030-1058, 2021) and Du et al. (Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 17(3)257-323, 2019), using a multi-firm, multi-year data set and focus on the impact of ad informativeness (measured as share of money spent on informative ads) on the link between ad expenditures and perceived brand quality. We find that the effect of ad expenditures on perceived quality is weaker for brands with more informative ads.

Consumers often gain extra free time unexpectedly. Given the increasing time pressure that consumers experience in their daily lives, it is important to understand how they spend windfall (or unexpected) free time, which we term found time. In a series of five laboratory experiments and naturalistic field studies, we found that consumers spend more of their free time on hedonic activities than on utilitarian activities when they gain the time unexpectedly (i.e., found time), but not when they know about the free time in advance. This pattern occurs consistently regardless of whether consumers gain the time from canceled work-related or leisure activities. In addition, our studies uncovered perceived busyness as a ubiquitous yet unexplored moderator for the windfall gain literature: the inclination to allocate found time to hedonic consumption decreases when consumers perceive themselves to be busy at the moment. We discuss several potential accounts for the effect of unexpectedness on time expenditure, including a perceived fit between the nature of found time (a fun windfall gain) and hedonic consumption, need for justification, and planning.

Five comments below provide strong and interesting perspectives on multi‐item scale use. They define contexts and research areas where developed scales are valuable and where they are vulnerable. Katsikeas and Madan begin by taking a global perspective on scale use, demonstrating how the use and transferability of scales becomes even more problematic as researchers move across languages and cultures. They provide guidance for scale use that is particularly relevant to international marketing and marketing strategy research. Brendl and Calder acknowledge the use of well‐formed scales as measured variables in psychological experiments, both as independent and dependent variables, but critique the use of multi‐item scales to directly reveal latent unobservable constructs. As with any observed variable, scales should be used to test empirical predictions based on theoretical hypotheses about causal connections between theoretical constructs. Lehmann applauds the variability of multi‐item scales and urges the exploration of the impact of various items within a scale. He advocates for flexibility and variation in multi‐item scales related to psychological theories, simple three‐item scales for manipulation checks, and one‐item scales when measuring objective actions or beliefs. Baumgartner and Weijters focus on how to validate multi‐item scales, particularly when used as mediators or moderators where a unique interpretation of the scale is so central. They recommend meta‐analyses of scales that test relationships among measured scales. Like Lehmann, they worry about the impact of exhaustive scales on respondents and the impact of exhausted respondents on the scales themselves. In the final comment, Wang and Huang update our thinking on emerging ways to define and refine scales. They discuss ways to identify focal and orbital constructs and suggest Item Response Theory as a way to adapt scales to subsets of items that best contribute to identifying individual differences between respondents. They support confirmatory factor analysis across different studies to assess scale equivalence across different contexts, cultures and languages.

The brand-finance interface has been an important area of research in marketing for over three decades. Using the brand-value chain framework as a conceptual foundation, we review the literature that links core brand-related actions to stock market outcomes and accounting-based performance metrics and, more importantly, capture what has been learned collectively. We classify brand actions that have been examined in prior research by their cause (proactive vs. reactive) and scope (strategic vs. tactical) and describe their impacts on various financial performance metrics (e.g., stock returns, Tobin’s q), emphasizing key mediators and moderators influencing the process. We then utilize this framework to identify gaps or ambiguities in prior research findings and suggest research questions to help advance our understanding of the financial value implications of brand-related actions.

This article studies how organizations should design a product by choosing the carbon footprint and price in a market with climate concerns. The authors develop a model and first show how the cost and demand effects of reducing the product carbon footprint determine the profit-maximizing product design. They find that stronger climate concerns reduce the product carbon footprint, demand, the overall corporate carbon footprint and profit, but have an ambiguous impact on price. Next, the authors establish that offsetting carbon emissions can create a win-win outcome for the firm and the climate if the cost of compensation is sufficiently low. Going net zero leads to a win for society if the cost of offsetting is sufficiently low compared to the social cost of pollution created by the corporate carbon footprint. Third, the authors show how regulation in the form of a cap-and-trade scheme or a carbon tax affects product design, firm profitability, and green technology adoption. Finally, the authors extend the analysis to a competitive scenario and show that going net zero creates a win-win-win outcome for the firm, the climate, and society if the offset technology is sufficiently effective.