The literature is filled with numerous idiosyncratic definitions of what it means for consumption to be authentic. The authors address the resulting conceptual ambiguity by reconceptualizing authenticity, defining it as a holistic consumer assessment determined by six component judgments (accuracy, connectedness, integrity, legitimacy, originality, and proficiency) whereby the role of each component can change according to the consumption context. This definition emerges from a two-stage, multimethod concept reconstruction process leveraging data from more than 3,000 consumers across no fewer than 17 types of consumption experiences. In stage one, the authors take a qualitative approach employing both in-depth interviews and surveys (one conducted on a nationally representative sample) to identify authenticity’s six constituent components. The final components are based on themes emerging from consumer data that were integrated and reconciled with existing definitions in the literature. In stage two, quantitative analyses empirically estimate the six components and support the composite formative nature of the construct. The authors document how certain components contribute to assessments of authenticity differently across contexts; in addition, they show that authenticity has consumer-relevant downstream consequences while being conceptually distinct from consumer attitudes. Their findings offer practitioners direction regarding what to emphasize to convey authenticity to consumers.

The Journal of Marketing highly values research rooted in marketing questions and problems experienced by key stakeholders. While some of the papers we receive have a healthy dose of this quality, many do not. We write this editorial because we see even greater opportunity for the field if we stay even closer to the “natural habitat” of marketing, marketing ecosystems, and the marketplace—what we refer to as the “real world” of marketing throughout the remainder of this editorial. By doing so, the field can access new lines of inquiry and fresh ideas that emerge from turning to marketing problems, practices, and critiques for inspiration. Opportunities include capturing data that reflect the reality of the marketplace, as well as using models and metrics that offer a more transparent view of the impact of our findings—whether dollars earned, behaviors changed, or lives saved. We worry that if we drift from the real world, the field may gravitate toward the study of small problems of little consequence, negating the important role that marketing can play in the world. Staying close to the real world is an important guardrail that can prevent such pitfalls and guide our discipline to a more influential future. In this editorial, we propose to evaluate research by a new standard, which we call “ecological value.” “Ecological” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of English as “related to or concerned with the relation of living organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.” In a marketing context, this means the interactions among and between marketing actors, institutions, and systems. “Value” means that the ideas have some usefulness; in our case, usefulness to the thinking and actions of marketing stakeholders, including consumers, marketing managers, policy makers, and societal stakeholders, including critics. Combining these words, ecological value (EV) is the degree to which research reflects and is relevant to marketing as it exists and evolves among marketing stakeholders and marketing ecosystems. Note that EV is different from external validity. External validity examines whether the study findings can be generalized across other contexts such as other consumption settings, other consumer populations, or other industries (Lynch 1982, 1983), whereas EV is a much broader concept and involves infusing a real-world perspective into every stage of the research process. In this editorial, we explain what EV means, why it is so important, and how you can generate it. We also offer concrete actions—reality checks—to support researchers who join our quest and for the gatekeepers (e.g., reviewers, AEs, editors) who support the knowledge development process. To the newer members of our field, we should point out that research high on EV matters not only to the discipline, but also to your own research agenda. Papers high in EV have greater publication prospects because editorial decisions, at least at JM, tend to be dominated by how interesting and important your ideas are.

Digital advertising markets are growing and attracting increased scrutiny. This article explores four market inefficiencies that remain poorly understood: ad effect measurement, frictions between and within advertising channel members, ad blocking, and ad fraud. Although these topics are not unique to digital advertising, each manifests in unique ways in markets for digital ads. The authors identify relevant findings in the academic literature, recent developments in practice, and promising topics for future research.