No abstract

Purpose Privacy considerations have become a topic with increasing interest from academics, industry leaders and regulators. In response to consumers’ privacy concerns, Google announced in 2020 that Chrome would stop supporting third-party cookies in the near future. At the same time, advertising technology companies are developing alternative solutions for online targeting and consumer privacy controls. This paper aims to explore privacy considerations related to online tracking and targeting methods used for programmatic advertising (i.e. third-party cookies, Privacy Sandbox, Unified ID 2.0) for a variety of stakeholders: consumers, AdTech platforms, advertisers and publishers. Design/methodology/approach This study analyzes the topic of internet user privacy concerns, through a multi-pronged approach: industry conversations to collect information, a comprehensive review of trade publications and extensive empirical analysis. This study uses two methods to collect data on consumer preferences for privacy controls: a survey of a representative sample of US consumers and field data from conversations on web-forums created by tech professionals. Findings The results suggest that there are four main segments in the US internet user population. The first segment, consisting of 26% of internet users, is driven by a strong preference for relevant ads and includes consumers who accept the premises of both Privacy Sandbox and Unified ID (UID) 2.0. The second segment (26%) includes consumers who are ambivalent about both sets of premises. The third segment (34%) is driven by a need for relevant ads and a strong desire to prevent advertisers from aggressively collecting data, with consumers who accept the premises of Privacy Sandbox but reject the premises of UID 2.0. The fourth segment (15% of consumers) rejected both sets of premises about privacy control. Text analysis results suggest that the conversation around UID 2.0 is still nascent. Google Sandbox associations seem nominally positive, with sarcasm being an important factor in the sentiment analysis results. Originality/value The value of this paper lies in its multi-method examination of online privacy concerns in light of the recent regulatory legislation (i.e. General Data Protection Regulation and California Consumer Privacy Act) and changes for third-party cookies in browsers such as Firefox, Safari and Chrome. Two alternatives proposed to replace third-party cookies (Privacy Sandbox and Unified ID 2.0) are in the proposal and prototype stage. The elimination of third-party cookies will affect stakeholders, including different types of players in the AdTech industry and internet users. This paper analyzes how two alternative proposals for privacy control align with the interests of several stakeholders.

Recently, business education has experienced an expansion of online education programs. In this paper, we propose a framework to improve the effectiveness of student learning in an online lecture format. In particular, we focus on business courses, which tend to be hard to replicate online as they rely on team work and applied logical thinking in addition to the learning of facts and theory. We identify two main areas that are vital to online business education: competition and community building among students. We argue these are an additional task for the instructor to deliberately perform in an online setting, compared to what often occurs organically in a traditional in-class setting.

We model how quality concerns affect the relationship between a firm and its supplier. A firm concerned about uncontractible quality for a customizable good has to pay higher prices to sustain a relationship with the supplier. If the customizable good has sufficiently volatile demand, then a contract that includes a constant unit price premium only for this good cannot be sustained. Instead, the downstream firm pays a premium both for the customizable good and also for a good with more stable demand that is correlated with the demand for the customizable good. Our results imply that a supplier of customized goods should also supply other products, which can include goods that do not require customization, and both the supplier and buyer benefit from the greater pricing flexibility they achieve by trading multiple goods. History: Ganesh Iyer served as the senior editor and Dmitri Kuksov served as associate editor for this article.

In the past couple of decades, following the advancements in communication technologies, alternative marketing communications such as consumer generated content, influencer marketing and native advertising, have emerged as a viable and gainful tactic. These alternative marketing communications blur the boundaries between the roles of consumer and marketer. The possibility of duplicity and deception in marketing relationships is fueled by the ambiguity of these roles and the lack of clarity in persuasion knowledge when alternative marketing communications are utilized. In this paper, we illustrate the various types of duplicity in marketing relationships that use alternative marketing communications. We adopt a conceptual framework previously developed in this budding literature stream by Pehlivan et al. (2015), and use it to suggest that the notion of 'unidirectional deception' (i.e. marketer deceives consumer) needs to be updated to 'omni-directional deception' , in order to better explain duplicity in current marketing relationships. We use examples encountered in contemporary marketing practices to derive managerial implications and best practices as well as ethical implications or questionable practices for these types of communications. More importantly, this paper suggests that future research should examine duplicity in marketing by minding the new omni-directional dynamic of marketing relationships.