JAR Inside the Research Podcast

JAR Podcast: How Persuasive Is Personalized Advertising?

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/

The Influence of Perceived Truth of Campaign Messages on Vote Choice: Does Truth Matter When Industries Battle Opponents Over Policy Issues?

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/

Petfluencers, the Fur-Mula for Sincere Endorsements: Examining How and When Pets Exhibit Greater Persuasion as Influencers

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/

Fueling or Suppressing Brand Activism Backlash: How Message Type Differentially Influences Perceived Hypocrisy and Consumer Attitudes

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/

Using Unfamiliar Cues to Engage Multitasking Audiences: Giving Attentional Breakthrough

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/