Consumers

Healthcare management and policy

Health

91��ɫ Centre

Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation

Knowledge Categories

Health

Academic area

91��ɫ Business School's Professor Franco Sassi interviews Leon co-founder Henry Dimbleby about the nation's relationship with UPFs and how to change it

Main image: Henry Dimbleby

5 minute read

Off

Book launch on Tencent and its rise to being a global tech giant

Lou Lee — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:15:24 +0000

Book launch on Tencent and its rise to being a global tech giant

Lou Lee Mon, 14/04/2025 - 10:15

15 July 2026 News

Business School academic nominated for second term on UK's fiscal watchdog

14 July 2026 News

Celebrating the Dean’s Community Award winners

9 July 2026 News

91��ɫ Business School achieves 91% average positivity score in National Student Survey

1 July 2026

To mark the publication of their new book, China's 'Everything Online' Company: The Unique Innovation Model of Tencent, Professor George Yip, Emeritus Professor of Marketing & Strategy at 91��ɫ Business School, and co-author Professor Xiaolan Fu, Professor of Technology and International Development at the University of Oxford, shared insights from their research into one of the world's leading technology companies.

Introduced by Lord Clement-Jones, Liberal Democrat House of Lords spokesperson for Science, Innovation and Technology, the event traced Tencent's evolution from its early instant messaging platform QQ to the creation of WeChat and its vast digital ecosystem spanning social media, gaming, payments, cloud computing and AI.

Drawing on years of research, Professor Yip and Professor Fu explained that Tencent's success stems not only from technological excellence, but also from the way it encourages new ideas to emerge. Their book introduces the company's distinctive OCEAN framework: Openness, Coopetition, Empowerment, Autonomy and Attentiveness as a way of managing stakeholder needs. Together, these principles help Tencent operate more like a connected ecosystem than a traditional corporate hierarchy, encouraging experimentation while allowing new ideas to scale quickly.

“I hope people left with fresh insights into how Tencent combines technology, organisation and ecosystem thinking to create innovation at scale, and why those lessons matter well beyond China.”

Professor George Yip

Emeritus Professor of Marketing & Strategy

Reflecting on the event, Professor Yip said: "The enthusiasm and engagement from the audience showed just how much interest there is in understanding one of the world's most innovative companies. I hope people left with fresh insights into how Tencent combines technology, organisation and ecosystem thinking to create innovation at scale, and why those lessons matter well beyond China, even to the UK's next Prime Minister."

The evening concluded with a lively audience Q&A exploring the future of innovation, digital ecosystems and China's rapidly evolving technology landscape.

Professor Yip and Professor Fu's book offers fresh insights for business leaders, policymakers, researchers and students interested in innovation, digital platforms and the future of technology.

Subscribe for research and events from the Business School

Artificial Intelligence

Big Tech

Brand

Digital Transformation

Management & Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship

Academic area

Finance and institutional resilience

Off

External

Off

91��ɫ Business School welcomed business leaders, academics and alumni for the launch of a new book offering a rare insight into how Chinese technology giant Tencent became one of the world's most innovative companies.

2 minute read

How protectionism risks undermining the US economy

Jonathan Haskel — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:39:25 +0000

How protectionism risks undermining the US economy

Jonathan Haskel Tue, 25/02/2025 - 10:39

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

10 April 2025

Donald Trump’s announcement of wide-ranging tariffs has threatened to upend the rules of global trade that have been in place for decades, impacting supply chains and businesses across the world.

The US President’s plan has been designed, in his words, to be reciprocal. What could be fairer than this? The theory is that the US will charge its trading partners in response to what they charge them.

What this means in practice is that the US will charge a country based on it having a goods trade surplus with the US. Some countries that do not have a notable surplus will still be hit with a universal baseline tariff of 10 per cent. For example, countries in the European Union will be subject to a 20 per cent tariff, while the UK will face the baseline 10 per cent tariff.

As the consequences of these tariffs will have major consequences for the global economy, it is worth considering the logic that has informed this decision and whether it stands up to scrutiny from an economic perspective.

Let’s say a country, for example the UK, is running a goods trade deficit with Costa Rica of £100 worth for bananas. From an economics point of view such a deficit makes perfect sense: the UK does not grow very good bananas, but we are good at education and financial services, which we export by accepting Costa Rican students, and providing secure banking for Costa Rican residents. Therefore, we run a deficit on goods, balanced by a surplus on services.

President Trump's reciprocal tariff calculation asks: what would the British tariff have to be on Costa Rican bananas to rebalance trade in bananas? He appears to have done this by assuming the tariff would raise an import price by a certain percentage, which in turn would cause British consumers to switch away from imported bananas by another percentage, which would then reduce banana imports. Select those percentages and work out the tariff that would entirely wipe out all imports. Then take half of that number (for obscure reasons) and that is the alleged tariff rate which Costa Rica is charging the UK.

These bizarre counterfactual calculations have nothing to do with the actual tariffs which are imposed. True, our bananas trade is likely affected by tariffs and safety standards on agricultural products. But fundamentally the pattern of trade is determined by the patterns of comparative advantage across different countries. To repeat, if the UK is good at financial services and education and Costa Rica is better at bananas, both are better off with free trade.

What then follows from this?

Firstly, these numbers should not be taken as an estimate of the type of tariffs which the US or any other country faces. Average tariff rates which the UK imposes on the US are well below five per cent when calculated properly - that is, zero per cent on the vast majority of goods, and higher percentages on goods like agricultural products.

We should also not assume that the UK has been given special treatment by having a lower rate than other countries. The US has a slightly lower trade deficit with the UK than with Europe, so the simple maths of this calculation would lead to a smaller ‘reciprocal’ tariff.

Thirdly, we should remember that the US is a relatively closed economy. British imports are around 30 per cent of GDP, American imports are around 15 per cent, so we must not overstate the impact of unilateral American restrictions on trade on the world.

Unless we descend into a full trade war, the economy most hurt by these measures is the American economy.

The right response to these tariffs is to carry on trading and let the US sink under the weight of its own bad policies.

More narrowly, what does this mean for the UK? The effects of this policy will of course be concentrated in certain export sectors, such as the car industry, and I would expect policies to be forthcoming to mitigate that adverse shock. But more broadly, we should stay focused on what will get the UK economy growing: policy to encourage science, clusters and startups.

Sign up to our newsletter

Knowledge Categories

Finance

Academic area

Jonathan Haskel takes a closer look at why "reciprocal" tariffs misunderstand the real nature of global trade

Credit: Nuthawut Somsuk / iStock via Getty Images Plus

3 minute read

Off

You’ve raised prices – now what?: Raconteur speaks to Dr Xinrong Zhu about companies passing rising costs onto consumers

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 03 Feb 2025 10:02:14 +0000

You’ve raised prices – now what?: Raconteur speaks to Dr Xinrong Zhu about companies passing rising costs onto consumers Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 03/02/2025 - 10:02

28 January 2025

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Carol Propper — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Carol Propper Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

23 June 2026

Article at a glance:

Over the past 20 years, governments have turned to market reforms and competition to curb costs and raise standards in healthcare.
Patient choice has increased, but more support is needed to help those who are less able to exercise this choice.
Proactive scrutiny of mergers, alongside quality incentives and openness to new providers and modes of care, could ensure integration improves care rather than re-establishing local monopolies.

Healthcare functions differently from other product markets due to the importance of maintaining equity in access to care and quality of care. As a result, government intervention is high and healthcare markets are heavily regulated.

However, the cost of healthcare has steadily risen worldwide. In 2000, the average healthcare expenditure in the OECD was 8.1 per cent of GDP, which has since risen to 9.3 per cent of GDP. In the UK, this has risen from around 7 per cent in 2000 to over 11 per cent in recent years. In a bid to reduce these cost increases, governments have introduced reforms to make use of markets in healthcare.

These focus on increasing the role of patient choice and promoting competition between providers, such as hospitals and primary care settings. But does choice and competition actually improve quality of care for patients? Our research reviews the evidence on market reforms in healthcare to shed light on this.

This is important as, even though market reforms featured more prominently in healthcare policy discussions in the past two decades, current priorities such as digitisation and moving healthcare into the community may also rely on competition and patient choice to succeed. Similarly, plans around integrated care and consolidation may benefit from a nuanced understanding of how competition and monopolies affect patient outcomes.

A mixed picture

What’s clear from the findings is that increased choice through market reforms can improve quality of care, but this is not a given. Evidence from the UK and Norway, for example, suggests that allowing patients to choose between providers (without any cost competition) can have a positive impact on patient mortality in emergency settings.

91��ɫ also suggests that patients respond to quality differences when choosing a provider. However, choice for some may be limited and there are demographic differences, with low-income patients more likely to register with poorly rated providers, partly because they lack the information networks of higher income peers.

Competition also introduces new modes of care. Deregulation has led to a rise in online provision, and in care being delivered by substitutes such as pharmacists and nurse practitioners. Evidence suggests these alternatives can provide similar outcomes to in-person care, offering greater convenience for patients and potential cost savings for providers. However, patients who use online consultations may also be more likely to require in-person follow-ups, partially offsetting those benefits.

Greater market freedom has also led to a wave of hospital mergers in some countries, reducing the number of providers and the competitive pressure between them. While concentrating some specialist services in larger centres can have benefits, mergers do not automatically improve quality, productivity or cost, and sometimes make healthcare more expensive. Without strong regulatory oversight, integration and consolidation could risk recreating the same local monopolies that market reforms aimed to reduce.

Areas for improvement

One important way to increase the benefits for patients is by improving access to clear, high-quality information. Rather than simply publishing information and hoping people read it, offering responsive, detailed comparison tools can help people to be better-informed, helping them reach decisions based on their individual needs. Community outreach programmes can help level the playing field, ensuring information does not only benefit those who are already better-informed.

On a macro level, many countries already have the power to scrutinise mergers that limit choice and offer little benefit, but this has often been underused. Using these powers more proactively would help ensure mergers add value, keep markets open to new entrants, and maintain competitive pressure on established providers.

"Increased choice through market reforms can improve quality of care, but this is not a given."

There is also a need to support integrated care while ensuring it does not recreate monopolies that deny patient choice. Regulators should prevent integrated providers from directing patients towards their own affiliated services regardless of quality. Where mergers are permitted, price regulation and quality incentives – such as shared savings models tied to measurable outcomes – can help ensure they genuinely benefit patients.

Regulation can also help keep markets open to new approaches. Allowing well-qualified substitutes such as nurse practitioners to deliver care, and new modes of care such as online consultations can expand choice and capacity, provided quality is closely monitored as the evidence base develops. This is particularly relevant in the context of the benchmarking approaches such as the updated NHS Performance Assessment Framework, where high-performing providers may be given more leeway to test innovative approaches.

Overall, market reforms have given patients greater choice and offer real potential for improvements in care. However, they have not yet fully delivered to the extent policymakers hoped. Better information for patients and stronger, more proactive regulation are the keys to changing this, preventing the re-emergence of monopolies and maximising the benefits of new options and approaches to care.

Find out more about the research

Read Professor Propper's paper

Healthcare management and policy

Knowledge Categories

Health

Academic area

Governments intend market reforms to boost efficiencies in healthcare while improving outcomes. While this has led to greater patient choice, stronger regulation is needed to prevent monopolies, keep markets open to new entrants and maximise gains.

4 minute read

Off

How resilient brands keep customers in volatile markets

Andreas Eisingerich — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

How resilient brands keep customers in volatile markets

Andreas Eisingerich Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

26 May 2026

Article at a glance:

Customer sentiment can shift overnight after negative news, amplified by social media
Traditional metrics such as brand love do not reliably predict who will stand by you in a crisis
The Integrated Brand Immunity Process outlines how to build brand immunity in four steps

Brand managers across industries face growing volatility. Socio-political shocks and the speed at which negative information spreads online mean that small triggers can escalate into reputational crises almost overnight.

In this environment, competitive advantage depends not only on generating customer affection, but on building relationships resilient enough to withstand sudden negative information.

The shift: from loyalty to resilience

Traditional metrics such as brand love capture how customers feel about brands, but not how they will react when things go wrong. Conversely, customers with the strongest brand connection often exhibit the most negative reactions.

This is where brand immunity becomes critical, first introduced by research at 91��ɫ Business School in 2023.

Brand immunity refers to a customer’s resistance to changing their perception of a brand when confronted with negative information. Customers with high immunity process bad news more carefully, weighing it against prior experience. In doing so, brand immunity provides a more reliable indicator of how customers will behave under pressure.

Focusing on customers with high brand immunity in crises helps stabilise sentiment and limit the spread of negative narratives.

A four-step process to building brand immunity

The Integrated Brand Immunity Process translates this insight into action in four steps:

Step 1: Prioritising customers

Resources are finite, and brands cannot immunise every customer. The Customer Immunity Management Matrix helps managers prioritise by mapping customers across:

Value (the impact of losing them); and
Immunity (their resilience to negative information)

Immunity can be measured through simple survey questions. For example, by asking how customers would respond if they encountered negative information about the brand.

Customer value depends on industry context. It allows managers to focus on protecting revenue, as well as the underlying sources of competitive advantage:

Economic value (e.g. banking, telecommunications, reflecting stable revenue)
Psychological value (e.g. luxury, automotive, reflecting a strong brand attachment)
Social value (e.g. travel, entertainment, where customer advocacy drives growth)
Innovation value (e.g. technology, wellness, where customers co-create)

Step 2: Understanding the threat

While the Customer Immunity Management Matrix provides a structure for building resilience, its effectiveness depends on understanding the threat. Not all crises are equal. The matrix identifies who to prioritise, but the nature of the threat determines how to respond.

Managers must distinguish between:

Performance-based threats (e.g. price increases, service disruptions). These require transparency and explanation.
Value-based threats (e.g. ethical breaches, discrimination). These require accountability, corrective action, and cultural change.

Brand immunity helps buffer moderate negativity, but it cannot replace meaningful action in serious value-based crises.

Step 3: Act on four strategic priorities

Once customers are mapped and the threat is determined, four strategies emerge which should be applied through the filter of the threat.

Anchor: high value, high immunity customers
These are your most valuable and committed customers - high spenders and loyal advocates. They should be equipped to defend the brand. In performance-based crises, transparency and data are important. In value-based crises, brands should demonstrate shared values and accountability.
Fortify: high value, low immunity customers
This is the highest-risk group. These customers are strategically important but more vulnerable as they lack a strong brand-self connection. Brands should build emotional connection and communicate proactively. In performance-based situations, early warnings and clear explanations are key. In value-based crises, a sincere apology and visible corrective action are essential.
Leverage: low value, high immunity customers
These customers may not be high spenders, but they are supportive and stable, often active in reviews, communities, or social media. Brands should amplify their voices to stabilise sentiment and influence others. Their advocacy is particularly valuable when it reinforces credible information.
Minimise: low value, low immunity customers
These customers have limited strategic value and are more likely to react negatively or amplify criticism. The priority is to limit exposure and manage communication carefully to contain potential negative spillover.

Step 4: Continuously renew resilience

Customer relationships are dynamic, and immunity can fade over time. Regular reassessment is essential to ensure that the customers who matter most remain resilient.

Brands that succeed in volatile environments are not those that simply build loyalty, but those that prepare their customers before a crisis hits. By identifying and strengthening the customer relationships that matter most, brands can turn volatility into a source of resilience, and ultimately, competitive advantage.

Read insights from Dr Eisingerich's paper

Discover his latest findings

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Analytics & Operations

A practical guide to building brand immunity across your customer base

Main image: Elena Zolotova / iStock via Getty Images

4 minute read

Off

Will European regulators shape Hollywood’s bidding war?

Tommaso Valletti — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Will European regulators shape Hollywood’s bidding war?

Tommaso Valletti Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

5 February 2026

Article at a glance

The European Commission (EC) competition authority is scrutinising rival bids for Warner Bros. from Netflix and Paramount, an unusual scenario
Both bids raise different competition concerns
A frontrunner could emerge if one bidder gets cleared before the other
The EC prefers light-touch remedies
US politics, not Europe, is likely to decide the winner

A bidding saga across the Atlantic

Europe’s competition regulator is simultaneously reviewing competing bids by major US companies Netflix and Paramount to acquire entertainment company Warner Bros. This is unusual and strategically sensitive, given the current geopolitical climate. The bidding saga has attracted significant attention on both sides of the Atlantic.

Both bids raise competition concerns, but in different ways:

The Paramount deal would reduce rivalry between two major Hollywood studios.
Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Bros. would increase market dominance in streaming across Europe

Professor Tommaso Valletti, Professor of Economics at 91��ɫ Business School and former Chief Competition Economist at the EC, questions whether the EC will act boldly, given its preference for light-touch remedies and geopolitical considerations. US politics, not Europe’s regulators, may ultimately decide the winner.

What’s at stake

Netflix agreed to buy Warner Bros.’ studios and streaming assets in a transaction valued around $82.7 billion. To challenge this, rival Paramount Skydance launched a hostile takeover bid for the entire company, including news network CNN, worth $108 billion, offering shareholders a higher per-share cash price.

The Warner Bros. board backs Netflix, but competition concerns are significant and more complex than the ones associated with Paramount’s bid.

A lack of clear precedent in the EU merger control raises a key question: how will the EC proceed?

Because all three companies operate across Europe and the Americas, the European Commission must review the market implications under its EU merger control framework. A simultaneous review could shape the race. By clearing one bidder, while subjecting the other to a longer investigation, a frontrunner could emerge.

A lack of clear precedent in EU merger control raises a key question: how will the EC proceed? Historically, the regulator tends to favour light-touch remedies, like small divestitures or access commitments, over prohibitions.

Netflix: from scale to market power

Netflix’s story of scale in Europe has shifted to revenue diversification. Netflix already shows signs of pricing power: in the UK, a standard subscription rose from £6 to £13 per month over the past decade. A deal with Warner Bros. would lead to:

Further market concentration: Netflix already holds over 50 percent of Europe’s subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) market. Combining this with Warner Bros.’ studios, HBO Max and other streaming platforms would increase its dominance.
Monopolisation of streaming content: Netflix could control one of the largest content libraries and production pipelines in the world, cutting off production for cinemas and other traditional content platforms.

Netflix could address these concerns through remedies such as divesting HBO Max. Its likely defence would be that its streaming services compete with a broader digital entertainment market, including social media and video gaming. Regulators may accept this argument to some extent, although previous merger reviews have generally used a narrower, SVOD-focused market definition.

Paramount: traditional Hollywood rivalry

Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. raises more traditional competition concerns. Combining two established major Hollywood studios would:

reduce industry rivalry and lead to fewer big players in Hollywood,
increase bargaining power over distributors, advertisers and creators, and
potentially lead to fewer market players, less innovation, higher costs for consumers.

The deal would also continue the consolidation of Hollywood studios that has been ongoing for 50 years, reducing the “Big Five” studios (Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, Paramount and Sony) to four. Disney would remain number one, possibly facing stronger competition from the combined entities currently ranked number two (Warner Bros.) and number five (Paramount).

While the merger could be easier to clear overall, overlaps between the studios, for example franchises between Paramount and Warner Bros., could still raise competition concerns that may be harder to address.

Why Europe and the US may decide differently

Whether the EC’s decision will impact the deal remains uncertain. In the US, regulators face a different and more political context. Paramount’s bid would include CNN, which Netflix is not acquiring. President Trump, a vocal critic of CNN, has previously argued that the network should be sold or restructured. These dynamics may influence the outcome.

Given the current political climate, a European ban on either deal seems unlikely. While the EC can still influence the pace and outcome of the bidding war, the winner will ultimately be decided in the US.

Subscribe to our newsletter featuring faculty-led insights

IB Knowledge Newsletter Signup

Finance and institutional resilience

Digital Transformation

Knowledge Categories

Finance

Academic area

A rare regulatory scenario could see Brussels tilt the Netflix - Paramount battle for Warner Bros.

Main image: ugurhan / iStock via Getty Images

4 minute read

Off

Does influencer marketing really work in 2026?

Omar Merlo — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Does influencer marketing really work in 2026?

Omar Merlo Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

20 January 2026

Article at a glance:

Influencer marketing is worth $24 billion as an industry, but followers are becoming cynical. Authenticity is key to building and maintaining consumer trust, but it’s not a single, fixed concept. 91��ɫ by the Business School’s Omar Merlo, Associate Professor of Marketing Strategy and Andreas B. Eisingerich, Professor of Marketing, explores the vital elements to convey true authenticity and how this can be harnessed by major brands. Dr Merlo shares what will make or break influencer marketing in 2026.

Globally, the influencer marketing industry is estimated to be worth $24 billion. Influencers set trends, raise brand profiles, and shape – directly or indirectly – how many of us live. With this rising impact, however, comes greater scrutiny.

Consumers are now more discerning when consuming influencer content, following some with loyalty and trust while viewing others with suspicion. So why do consumers trust some influencers and not others?

One study found that the most important factor in deciding whether or not to follow an influencer on social media is their authentic and genuinely care about their interests. At the same time, over a third of consumers think influencers misrepresent themselves and the products they promote, and almost half think most of them are fake.

Taken together, these findings suggest that there’s a gap; consumers are seeking genuine, honest influencers, but many influencers struggle to convey this authenticity. This is a problem for brands and their chief marketing officers, as well as influencers themselves.

Figure 1: What our research suggests influencers and brands should leave behind in 2025 and take forward for 2026

Stop	Start
Focusing on formal credentials	Talking about relatable experiences
Relying on big-name recognition	Interacting and engaging to build community
Hiding influencer-brand relationships	Being honest and upfront about self-interest
Forcing brand scripts and lines into content	Leading with original storytelling
Presenting an image of perfection	Admitting flaws and mistakes
Trying to hire authenticity off the shelf	Creating the conditions for true authenticity

How to be more authentic in 2026

So, what can influencers and the brands that hire them, do to move from a transactional to a transformational relationship with the clued-in consumers of 2026?

Our research, through 185 interviews with brand managers, agencies, influencers and consumers across the world, sheds light on what authenticity means and how to better reflect it:

Experience matters more than formal credentials: Our survey respondents tended to trust amateur runners, for example, more than Olympic athletes. Consumers connect with expertise gained through real, relatable human experience.

Engagement is a two-way street: Responding, interacting and engaging with followers is key to influencers building and maintaining a community around them. It creates a space where followers feel heard and respected.

Be honest about self-interest: 91��ɫ from 91��ɫ has shown that 96% of sponsored posts are not disclosed. People know that brands pay influencers, so trying to hide it can end up making followers feel like they are being misled, and that they are an asset to be monetised. Being clear about it helps them feel valued.

Authentic voices and stories will shine through: Imposed scripts and brand lines come across as inauthentic and artificial. Original storytelling can be a unique selling point and can even be the reason followers stick around.

Flaws are welcome: Psychologically, revealing a low-impact piece of negative information – such as a mistake or misunderstanding – makes consumers less likely to look for other negatives.

Of course, this can’t be mistaken as a checklist for brands to tick off. Findings suggest that different stakeholders prioritise each dimension differently. Consumers mostly value integrity and transparency, for example, while influencers prioritise originality and expertise.

When influencers miss the mark, they risk losing the trust of their audience. To solve this, brands need to appreciate that authenticity is not an individual trait that influencers do or do not possess – rather, it’s a collective outcome that forms when stakeholder priorities align. Shifting approach to find this alignment can be game-changing for brands, in a global market where authenticity matters most.

The era of renting credibility through one-off posts from influencers is over. Brands that treat influencers as partners rather than media channels and consumers as communities rather than impressions, will earn the most credibility. Those that don’t will simply add to the noise. In 2026, influencer marketing will work only when the conditions needed for true authenticity are prioritised.

Explore more

Social Media

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Authentic future: the shape of influencer marketing in 2026

Main image: FG Trade Latin / iStock via Getty Images Plus

4 minute read

Off

Dr Heeyoung Yoon on consumer judgment, bias and better decision-making

Shamita Harsh — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Dr Heeyoung Yoon on consumer judgment, bias and better decision-making

Shamita Harsh Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

14 October 2025

Dr Yoon’s research investigates how consumers predict their consumption and experiences, why those predictions are often systematically biased, and how better-designed choices can improve both individual well-being and broader societal outcomes.

As Assistant Professor of Marketing at 91��ɫ Business School, Heeyoung Yoon brings a research agenda that blends consumer psychology, marketing, and public policy. Her work focuses on the ways in which consumers form expectations, how these expectations deviate from reality, and how such biases influence everyday choices.

At the heart of her research is the question: why do people so often mispredict their own behaviours? From overestimating how much they will enjoy a product, to underestimating the influence of situational and contextual factors, these biases can have far-reaching consequences. Dr Yoon’s research sheds light on the psychological processes behind these systematic errors, while also identifying interventions that can guide individuals toward more beneficial and sustainable decisions.

From consumer psychology to societal impact

Dr Yoon’s research is motivated not only by curiosity about how people think but also by the desire to improve outcomes for individuals and society. She studies how consumer mispredictions influence decisions with long-term implications for well-being, sustainability, and even carbon emissions. For example, her work reveals how consumers’ misplaced confidence in preference as the primary driver of consumption can lead to inaccurate forecasts and suboptimal decisions.

By highlighting the role of overlooked factors such as habits, motivation and availability, her research demonstrates that small shifts in framing, design, or choice architecture can promote better consumer outcomes. This focus places her work at the intersection of academic inquiry and practical solutions, offering insights for marketers, policymakers, and organisations seeking to encourage prosocial and sustainable behaviour.

The gap between prediction and reality

In a recent article published in the Journal of Consumer 91��ɫ, Dr Yoon shows that consumers systematically overestimate the role of personal preference in determining how much they consume. While people predict that “liking” will drive consumption quantity, contextual factors like availability and habit often play a stronger role. This disconnect helps explain why consumption predictions are frequently inaccurate and why interventions that take account of these overlooked influences may be more effective in guiding healthier and more sustainable decisions.

In her ongoing projects, she continues to investigate biases in assortment choices, comparison judgments, and sustainability decisions. These lines of inquiry build a comprehensive picture of how expectations and decision structures shape consumer behaviour.

Dr Yoon completed her PhD in Marketing at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Her academic training and research experience equip her with a strong foundation in both experimental methods and theory-driven inquiry. By bringing these approaches to 91��ɫ, she aims to expand collaborations that cut across marketing, psychology, and public policy.

On joining 91��ɫ, she reflected: “91��ɫ’s commitment to world-leading research and global impact makes it an inspiring place to be. I’m excited to contribute to and learn from colleagues who are advancing solutions to some of the most pressing challenges of our time.”

At 91��ɫ Business School, Dr Yoon looks forward to continuing her research into consumer judgment and decision-making while building connections with colleagues working on sustainability, behavioural science, and social impact. Her goal is to develop insights that not only advance academic knowledge but also create meaningful benefits for consumers and society.

Read about the new faculty joining the Business School

Explore our latest faculty appointments

Policy

Knowledge Categories

Academic area