🪫 Out of office. Back in 2 weeks! 🔋

Diving through hundreds, thousands of research papers requires extreme focus and attention to detail.

To do that properly, we need to make sure we are always in tip-top shape. That includes taking a break to recharge your batteries when you have a chance to do so. As many of you are slowing down in August, we are seizing the moment for a 2-week newsletter break too.

Once we restart on Tuesday 1st September, expect a bunch of exciting things in the following weeks:

• Even better insights, tweaked based on your feedback

• A new FREE Playbook, we’re building with a partner (to be revealed) that I’m certain you’ll love [Hint: it’s related to this insight]

• A new and improved experience of our Platform with 300+ insights

See you in 2 weeks!

📝 Context

Topic: Reviews | AI
For: B2C
Research date: June 2026
Universities: LMU Munich 

You’ve read our insight and started replying thoughtfully to every review your travel agency gets on Tripadvisor. You’ve seen your review count increase. However, lately many feel different, as if they’re written by AI, not your actual customers. 

You read sentences like “It’s not just good - it’s mindblowing!” and wonder, what’s the effect of AI-written reviews?

Science says you might want to pay attention to this, and perhaps encourage people not to use it.

P.S.: People like personal touches. This works in reviews too. If you have reviews where people mention a little about themselves (e.g. names, city), highlight them. Readers will find them more useful.

📈 Recommendation

People are often tempted to use AI to write reviews. This can increase the number of reviews you receive but backfire by making the occasional negative review even worse.

If that happens to your business, discourage people from using AI (e.g. “Please write the review yourself, not with AI, other readers will appreciate your words much more!”)

You might get fewer and shorter reviews, but fewer extremely negative ones.

🎓 Findings

• People who use AI to write reviews produce more and longer ones, but they are also more extremely negative.

• Scientists analyzed 117,816 reviews and found that when reviewers could use AI (vs not, during 4-week ban of ChatGPT in Italy in April 2023):

  • The number of reviews increased by 2%

  • Review length increased by 9%

  • Extremely low reviews (1 or 2 stars) were more negative in content (e.g. “I don’t like the room” vs “I hate the room!!”)

  • The content sounds more subjective (e.g. “I didn’t like the breakfast) vs objective (e.g. “Breakfast was local and no continental option was available”), making negative reviews even more harmful.

🧠 Why it works

• We use AI to reduce effort and time spent writing reviews

• Because of this, we feel we’re more productive and efficient, so we are more likely to leave a review.

• But AI tends to write longer and more complex sentences than we do.

• And it reframes our writing to make our negative observations sound more extreme.

✋ Limitations

• The study looked at hotel reviews. The effect might vary for products and other types of services where writing a review feels less or more important (e.g. restaurant vs medical visit).

• AI adoption has increased since this data (April 2023). The effect might change with even more reviews being written by AI, or different models having different biases (e.g. reviews could now be more or less subjective and more or less negative).

• People may also become more experienced in using AI and more aware of its limits. This might change how likely they are to check and edit AI’s outputs, but we don’t know in which direction.

👀 Real-life example

Tripadvisor has a strict AI policy, whereby they monitor for AI-generated content, delete it, and ban the reviewer.

❌ Issue: Considering the businesses on Tripadvisor (e.g. hotels, restaurants) are prone to negative subjective reviews, they should discourage AI use right away.

✅ Solution: Simply understanding what makes people likely to use AI can help Tripadvisor use the right messaging to decrease AI usage:

• Those who know less about AI, are also more likely to use it because they see it as magical. This feeling can be weakened by explaining how it works (e.g. “AI is not magic and doesn’t read your mind. What you write with it reflects what it has already memorized from other people”)

• People see no issues in using AI themselves but are more critical of others using it. At the same time, we don’t want to look bad in the eyes of others so Tripadvisor could say something like “People can spot AI-written reviews, science shows they will be more critical of your words if you use it”.

• Overall, they should make sure to use assertive language (e.g. always, all, never, definitely) in their copy discouraging AI use. This will make the message, and them look more powerful, and make people less likely to go against it.

🔍 Study type

Market observation (analysis of reviews on 4909 hotels listed on Tripadvisor in Europe during a temporary Chatgpt ban in Italy).

📖 Research

The impact of generative artificial intelligence on consumer reviews: Insights from a quasi-experiment. International Journal of Research in Marketing (June 2026).

🏫 Researchers

• Weilong K.M. Gu, LMU Munich 

• Martin Spann, LMU Munich 

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus: Trivia

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 14 hours to accurately turn this 15-page research paper into this 3-min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… Modash

Marketers painted a very clear picture of Black Friday, saying they’ve missed out on creators because prices were too high. 

But when Modash surveyed content creators about holiday campaigns, they told a different story.

The (free!) report shows how increased demand, limited availability, and the opportunity cost of saying yes to one brand shape BFCM pricing - and what marketers can do differently.

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: Social Media | AI
For: B2C. Can be tested for B2B
Research date: May 2026
Universities: University of Virginia, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

You’re trying to grow on Instagram and have seen some recent traction under your posts. People are leaving comments, and it’s getting harder to respond to everyone personally.

You’re tempted to use an AI agent to help you but worry it might backfire and hurt engagement.

Science says it’s not as bad as you think. Overall it will help you, but only if you do it right.

P.S.: A simple way to boost social media engagement is simply mentioning a rival in your content. These kinds of posts received up to 197% more likes on X.

📈 Recommendation

Use AI to help you interact with customers (e.g. comments, DMs). Make sure replies are relevant, sound like you and that you disclose it’s your AI (not you personally).

People will feel acknowledged and engage with you more over time.

🎓 Findings

• Using an AI bot to interact with followers (e.g. replying to comments) increases engagement on social media.

• Researchers ran an analysis of 22k followers’ interactions on 448 posts, and found that when people received a reply from an AI bot (a clearly “AI” labeled bot acting on behalf of the account) to their comment (vs those who did not receive a reply), they:

  • Commented 41% more often under later posts

  • Reposted the influencer’s content 43% more often

• The effect is:

  • Stronger when the community is engaged and the  AI reply was relevant, within the first 45 minutes of the comment, and matched the creator’s tone of voice.

  • Weaker when the creator already replies often and when the accounts offer paywalled content (e.g. paid Substack)

🧠 Why it works

• When we get a reply to a comment, we feel the creator is paying attention to us.

• This works even if the reply is from a bot (whereby people know it’s not the creator but AI disguised as the creator), as long as the response is timely and relevant.

• This feeling of being seen makes us more likely to engage.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• The study looked at one type of social media platform (Weibo) in China. The effect might differ across countries (e.g. Chinese users may be more accepting of AI) and platforms.

• Responses came from a personalized AI bot. People knew it was AI, not the creator. It’s unclear how people would react if they suspected the response was from AI, but it looked as if it was coming from the creator directly.

• Some messages might require a personal answer (e.g. emotional messages, personal ones) but the study didn’t test how the effect changes depending on message type.

• As AI technology evolves and people’s attitudes about AI change, the effect might too.

• We don’t know the difference between bot replies compared to human replies. Human replies could lead to more engagement, but this wasn’t compared.

• We also don’t know the effect of you commenting on other people’s accounts using AI bots. It likely backfires.

• Few platforms make it easy to use such bots, some ban them outright (e.g. Linkedin). However, the effect is still relevant for some major platforms that do allow for these kinds of integrations (e.g. Instagram with Manychat).

• The study effect might not be as strong on branded accounts without an audience-facing person.

👀 Real-life example

Many creators and brands receive comments but don’t respond to them.

❌ Issue: This post got a few comments with relevant questions, but no replies. This is likely hurting engagement on future posts.

✅ Solution: These are a few simple things creators could try out:

• Use AI to help with replying to comments. For example, they could train it on their voice and own content and use it to draft responses.

• Make sure that when the AI bot replies, it clearly says it is an AI, and not the creator (e.g. “AI bot of [Creator]:”)

• Respond with clever humor. Funny but still relevant responses make people even more likely to engage.

• Show empathy to those leaving complaints and confused comments (as in the example above) by leaving a thoughtful reply, or even suggesting a way to get into direct contact.

🔍 Study type

Market observation (of 22,645 follower comments on Weibo between July 1 and August 31 in 2024).

📖 Research

When Influencers Delegate Replies: How Social AI Agents Shape User Engagement. Information Systems Research (May 2026).

🏫 Researchers

• Maggie Mengqing Zhang. McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia

• Yang Gao. Gies College of Business, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

• Jingjing Li. McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia

• Steven L. Johnson. McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus mini-insight

Read the full insight here if you are already a member.

🎓 Insight: What makes people like video ads

📈 Recommendation: Create content with these elements to make people more likely to engage with it:

• Highly emotional at the start but rational at the end (e.g. providing a solution).

• Evoke empathy throughout (e.g. narrating how people feel).

• Have dialogues (both textual and voice-over).

• Engage both sight (e.g. through zoom-ins and outs, dynamic images) and hearing (e.g. sound, music).

✋ Careful: It’s unclear whether the emotions evoked should be positive or negative, and how the effect would translate to very short content where the narration is more compressed

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 15 hours to accurately turn this 20-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

View and purchase the Wharton Blueprint for Effective AI Chatbots, it helps you design Chatbots that people trust and want to use👇

It’s free to download.

This insight is brought to you by… Science Says Platform

The Science Says newsletter keeps you up to date, and I hope you’re loving it 💜

If you’re a marketing pro, we built the Science Says Platform to be the place you turn to before any project to check “What is the latest evidence I should know about, so I get the best possible results?”

 You’ll find all our 300+ insights, like:

• Discount coupons: when to give % off vs $ amount off

• When to use vouchers vs free gifts for promotions

• Make your discounts a bit harder to get

Only paid Platform members can access them all 24/7, along with real-world case studies, the exclusive playbook of brand names, and direct access to our team of PhDs and me to answer your questions.

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: Product | Messaging & Copy
For: B2C
Research date: August 2017
Universities: New York University, Boston University, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

You’re an ecommerce manager selling modern travel accessories, and you’ve noticed your latest batch of luggage tags has the wrong color mix (pink and blue instead of your signature orange and blue).

That was an expensive order and people will realize the products are not in your signature colors.

Science says you should own your mistake, and even lean into it.

P.S.: This works with offers too. People are more likely to take offers that seem like they weren’t meant for them (e.g. a coupon intended for business travelers, claimed by a tourist)

📈 Recommendation

If you make mistakes in your product production (e.g. a misprint), don’t hide them. Highlight them and clearly communicate what the mistake was. Avoid this if you're new on the market or if your product is bought for its functionality (e.g. a deodorant).

People will see your product as more unique and be more likely to buy and willing to pay more for it.

🎓 Findings

• People prefer, want and pay more for products with mistakes.

• Across 7 experiments and an analysis of 3,114 eBay auction sales, scientists found that people: 

  • Paid more for artistic photos from the same seller on eBay when they had mistakes (e.g. fingers in the frame)

  • Wanted a chocolate bar with an accidentally (vs intentionally) enriched flavor 26% more often 

  • Were 27.3% more likely to buy and willing to pay 71.8% more for an artist’s painting with an accidental mark (e.g. with a fingerprint)

  • Were 18.8% more likely to buy, and 18.7% more interested in listening to a song with an unplanned sound addition (e.g. singer’s breathing)

  • Were 10.3% more likely to say they would order a lasagna dish with an ingredient mistakenly added to the sauce (e.g. accidentally using nutmeg instead of pepper)

• The effect:

  • Works even if the mistake makes the product worse (e.g a mark on a drawing)

  • Works regardless of scarcity (e.g. whether 100 or 10,000 are produced)

  • Disappears if the product is bought for its functionality (e.g. a supplement) instead of pleasure (e.g. a cookie)

  • Disappears if the manufacturer is new in business

🧠 Why it works

• We see a product made by mistake as out of the ordinary and unusual, regardless of whether it’s for the worse or better.

• This makes us see them as unique, making us more attracted to them.

• However, we think beginners are more likely to make mistakes, which makes us see their mistaken product as less unique and interesting.

• Similarly, uniqueness becomes less relevant when we are buying for a product’s functionality.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• The study didn’t look at what happens when the consequences of the mistakes are unpleasant (e.g. make the product unusable, bad smell), and where the boundary is.

• The effect might not apply to expensive luxury items (e.g. watch, perfume, whiskey) with a mistake as it might make people concerned about the quality. However, this wasn’t tested.

• It’s likely that overusing this tactic will backfire and reflect negatively on the brand’s image.

👀 Real-life example

Artist Colette is a brand selling work-themed hair accessories (e.g. a calendar hairclip). They announced a misprint on their calculator claw clips on social media.

❌ Issue: They posted a viral video on TikTok addressing the misprint and offering refunds or replacements to all their customers.

✅ Solution: The mistake could have been a great opportunity to increase sales of that product stock if handled differently:

• They could have clearly communicated the mistake but framed it as a fun, unique product instead.

• They could have also run a limited-time offer, stopping it when the remaining stock sold out. This limited, but justified timeframe could have made it more effective.

• Since it’s a small business and the founder is the face of the brand, she could have taken the chance to thank people for their understanding by including a handwritten thank you note in the order, boosting future sales.

🔍 Study type

Lab and online experiments, field experiment (144 train station passersbys evaluating a recently formulated chocolate) and market observation (3,114 photos sold in eBay auction sales from the same seller over 3 months in 2016)

📖 Research

Made by Mistake: When Mistakes Increase Product Preference. Journal of Consumer Research (August 2017). 

🏫 Researchers

• Taly Reich. New York University

• Daniella M Kupor. Boston University

• Rosanna K Smith. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Remember: This is a scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus Trivia

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 12 hours to accurately turn this 19-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… Modash

Stuck on campaign ideas? One way to lighten the load is to learn from the best and get inspired by what’s already working.

Modash has rounded up 17 high-performing influencer campaigns in a free guide, complete with performance stats and key takeaways from brands like:

👉 Victoria’s Secret
👉 Birkenstock
👉 Sennheiser

Ready to discover the tactics behind standout campaigns?

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: Customer Experience | Sales
For: B2C
Research date: April 2026
Universities: Monash University

We’ve talked in the past about the importance of personalizing customer service, humanizing your front-facing employees and making your customers feel like they matter, and aren’t just a number. 

But when was the last time you were addressed by name when receiving a service?

The science says calling customers by name does improve the experience, as long as you can make sure they don’t feel embarrassed or manipulated.

P.S.: Making a customer’s experience feel personalized (e.g. sending a handwritten thank you note with an invoice or highlighting an option specifically for them in a brochure) can increase satisfaction and sales.

📈 Recommendation

Encourage your employees to call customers by their names when interacting with them. 

Train them to use it naturally when talking to customers (e.g. “What would you like to order today Mr. Smith?”) and make sure names aren’t used in a scripted or repetitive way (e.g. using the name in every sentence ), so the interaction feels genuine. Avoid using customer names in embarrassing or uncomfortable situations (e.g. at a pharmacy or a doctor’s clinic).

People will spend more and be more satisfied with the service.

🎓 Findings

• People spend more, are more likely to accept upsell offers, and are more satisfied with their experience when service employees refer to them by name.

• As part of an experiment at a suburban Australian restaurant and 3 online experiments, researchers found that when customers were addressed by their name:

  • Average spending per person increased 17.3% (from $28.67 to $33.64).

  • Upsell offers were accepted more than twice as often (from 22.6% to 48.4%).

  • Customer satisfaction was 15.9% higher.

• People were 17.2% more likely to accept an upsell request when their name was randomly used during the interaction with a waitress (vs not at all), but not when their name was used immediately alongside the upsell offer.

• The effect:

  • Strengthens when employees introduce themselves by name before asking for the customer’s name

  • Reverses if the name is used in an embarrassing situation (e.g. at a pharmacy seeking hemorrhoid cream)

  • Reverses if the name is used too often. Compared to not using a customer’s name at all, using it in every other sentence increased customer satisfaction by 9.1%, but using it in every sentence canceled out this effect and caused discomfort

🧠 Why it works

• When a service employee uses our name, like at Starbucks, we feel more valued as a human being, instead of just a source of revenue. 

• This builds rapport between us and the employee, making us happier with their work and more open to their suggestions. That’s similar to how we tip more if we exchange names with our waiter and address each other by name.

• When the use of our name feels forced, unnatural or like it’s being used to upsell to us, that breaks this rapport.

• If our name is used during an embarrassing situation, or when we’d prefer privacy (e.g. buying medicines for an STD) that makes us uncomfortable and destroys the benefits.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• The study looked at the people in the US, UK and Australia. It’s possible that in other cultures, customers might appreciate formality or social distance and prefer not to be called by name.

• The research didn’t differentiate between addressing people by first name or family names with a title (e.g. Mr. Smith). It’s likely that people might react differently to being addressed in different ways (e.g. it may feel forced to a college student to be referred to as Mr. Smith, while an elderly man may not appreciate a teenage waiter calling him “John”). Similarly, for some settings (e.g. a bank or luxury store) more formal titles might be more appropriate.

• It’s unknown whether addressing repeat or regular customers by their name would continue to result in increased satisfaction and spending or whether the effect would diminish after repeated interactions.

• The study included a field experiment and online experiments where people looked at online scripts of a conversation. It wasn’t tested, but it is possible that this means the effect would carry over to using someone’s name in online support chats as well.

👀 Real-life example

Qatar Airways cabin crew often address customers in their premium cabins by name during their time onboard.

❌ Issue: Cabin crew welcome premium customers by name, but often use the name in a formal, forced manner.

✅ Solution: Qatar Airways can further increase customer satisfaction by:

• Ensuring cabin crew introduce themselves to customers in premium cabins.

• Training cabin crew to ask younger customers whether they prefer to be referred to by first name, to make the use of their last name seem less forced.

• Making customer experiences memorable by adapting customer service based on the purpose of a traveller’s journey (e.g. giving champagne to couples flying together, giving a notebook or pen for business travellers to use in meetings at their destination).

• Apologize for trivial issues that are beyond the control of the cabin crew (e.g. “sorry for the long walk to the gate”) to come across as more warm and increase engagement.

🔍 Study type

Online experiments and field experiment (sales and upselling behavior at 127 tables of a suburban restaurant of a major Australian city).

📖 Research

Call me by my name: The effects of addressing customers by their names, the underlying mechanisms, and the boundary conditions. Journal of Retailing (April 2026). 

🏫 Researchers

• Sri Vishnu Srinivasa Raja. Monash University.

• Yimin Cheng. Monash University.

• Tracey S. Danaher. Monash University.

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus trivia

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 11.5 hours to accurately turn this 17-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… Science Says Platform

The Science Says newsletter keeps you up to date, and I hope you’re loving it 💜

If you’re a marketing pro, we built the Science Says Platform to be the place you turn to before any project to check “What is the latest evidence I should know about, so I get the best possible results?”

 You’ll find all our 300+ insights, like:

• Discount coupons: when to give % off vs $ amount off

• When to use vouchers vs free gifts for promotions

• Make your discounts a bit harder to get

Only paid Platform members can access them all 24/7, along with real-world case studies, the exclusive playbook of brand names, and direct access to our team of PhDs and me to answer your questions.

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: AI | Ecommerce
For: B2C. Can be tested for B2B 
Research date: April 2026
Universities: IÉSEG School of Management, University of Lille

You’re the owner of a sports apparel ecommerce brand with 10,000+ products and dozens of brands. You just got a proposal to implement a chatbot that would help people find clothes most fitting to their needs and style. It got you thinking, “would my customers really use a chatbot to shop for clothes?”

Science says yes, and they might be even more likely to buy what it suggests.

P.S.: If you’re implementing a chatbot and want to make it even more effective you can tweak how it speaks. Research shows making it use interjections (e.g. oh wow, aw) makes people up to 49% more satisfied with it.

📈 Recommendation

Add a chatbot to your website if your product is hard to evaluate (e.g. has different elements to consider like fit, size, style). Avoid if your product is easy to evaluate and has a small assortment size (e.g. a Vitamin with 20+ options).

People will have higher intentions to buy your product when suggested by a chatbot.

🎓 Findings

• AI chatbots boost purchase intention and customer engagement when products are hard to evaluate.

• Across 4 experiments with 1,339 people, researchers found that when chatbots suggested products, people:

  • Had 44.7% higher purchase intentions for products that are hard to evaluate (e.g. formal office pants)

  • Had lower intentions to purchase for products that are easy to evaluate, and have small assortments (e.g. a supplement line with only a few vitamin options)

  • Had higher levels of engagement leading to higher purchase intentions for products that are easy to evaluate but have big assortments (e.g. 10+ options for multivitamins)

🧠 Why it works

• We find it hard to judge products that require comparisons between many options and have different elements to consider (e.g. fit, style, size).

• This makes us feel ambiguity and uncertainty in our choices.

• AI chatbots can help us find and structure the relevant information, which helps us feel more in control when we shop.

• On top of that, we interact and converse with chatbots the same way we do with other humans. 

• This makes us even more engaged and more likely to purchase what they suggest.

✋ Limitations

• The research looked at only a few product types (e.g. pants, books, multivitamins, and blazers), it’s unclear how the effect would be for services, or other kinds of more expensive products like luxury goods, or experiences (e.g. holidays, restaurants).

• The study did not consider how mistakes in recommendations (e.g. inaccurate information) might impact people’s likelihood to continue using the chatbot and accept its suggestions.

• It’s unknown how the environment where chatbots are implemented (e.g. in-store, website, apps) might change people’s likelihood to follow their recommendations.

• The design of the chatbot (e.g. human-like or machine-like) and how it speaks greatly impacts how people react to it and how likely they are to buy. This was not studied in this research, but we cover that extensively in our free Blueprint for Effective AI Chatbots we created in collaboration with Wharton.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

👀 Real-life example

Asos is an online retailer selling items from all major brands. Their new arrivals page has 5k+ styles for women’s clothing alone.

❌ Issue: Thousands of items in different colors, sizes and styles, are overwhelming. People might find it hard to shop.

✅ Solution: They could improve their shoppers’ experience through some simple tweaks:

• Introducing a chatbot that would help people find the right style and compare options.

• Make sure that the AI clearly categorizes options by characteristics (e.g. open back, midi skirt) when suggesting multiple ones to reduce choice overload.

• For an extra nudge, make it use reassuring language (e.g. this fits well with long hair), instead of pressuring (e.g. only 3 left).

🔍 Study type

Online experiments.

📖 Research

Generative AI and customer engagement with the retailer: Does product type matter? Journal of Business Research (April 2026)

🏫 Researchers

• Lina Anggraini. University of Lille

• Nathalie T.M. Demoulin. University of Lille

• Gwarlann De Kerviler. University of Lille

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus: Trivia

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 11 hours to accurately turn this 18-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… Modash

Affiliate marketing: what actually works in 2026?

Modash found the key patterns by surveying how top marketers do it:

• Put in the effort: Affiliates are only as engaged as you are with them

• Refresh often: New products work much better than existing ones

• No flat rates: Or you kill the incentive to grow

• And 5 more… (in this free, ungated summary)

As we’ll see in today’s insight, it’s all about how you do it, and who you involve (at the right time).

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: Sales
For: B2C. Can be tested for B2B
Research date:  April 2026
Universities: University of Tennessee, University of Wyoming, University of Kentucky

After a back-and-forth over email, a customer agrees to meet with you to discuss buying an annual subscription for your productivity software. You’ve been through all the options with them, and are setting up a call to close the deal. 

You loop in your manager to lead the meeting, hoping they will help seal the deal.

Science says that might not be the best way to do it.

P.S.: During sales meetings, be more expressive (e.g. use arm gestures and change your tone of voice) to make people more likely to buy from you.

📈 Recommendation

In important sales meetings, have a manager or more senior team member (e.g. a founder or VP) join a salesperson in the meeting. This will make people spend more with your company.

When they join the meeting, make sure they are there in a supporting role, and let the salesperson keep the lead. (e.g. salesperson presents, manager backs them up and answers some questions). 

Customers will spend more and be more satisfied and loyal, especially if they are new customers.

🎓 Findings

• Sales teams with a manager playing a supporting role to the main salesperson in meetings drive higher sales revenues than teams with 2 salespeople. It also leads to more loyal and satisfied customers and increased upselling.

• As part of an analysis of 5.5 million sales from 462 automotive services stores over 2 years, and 6 experiments, researchers found that compared to a team of 2 salespeople:

  • Teams with a manager and salesperson had sales with:

    • 13.2% higher value for new customers

    • 12.5% higher value returning customers

  • When the manager took a supporting role and the salesperson led the meetings led to:

    • 3.6% higher sales revenue for new customers

    • 3.7% higher sales revenue for returning customers

    • Increased cross-buying intention from customers

    • Higher customer satisfaction and intentions to stay with, and advocate for, the company

🧠 Why it works

• We consider people with a higher rank (e.g. a supervisor or manager) to be more attentive to customer needs.

• When we see a manager defer to a salesperson and take a supporting role, we interpret that as a sign that the salesperson is trusted and respected by their supervisors.

• Having a manager join a sales meeting also sends a signal that the deal is important to the company, and the sales team is respected in the company.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• The research looked at B2C shopping (auto services, high-end clothing stores, kitchen remodelling). It wasn’t tested, but the effect is likely to work the same for B2B sales.

• The study looked at teams of 2 people (e.g. manager and salesperson vs. 2 salespeople). The effect may work differently in larger teams (e.g. 4 associates reporting to 1 manager) or organizations with more hierarchy.

👀 Real-life example

Scoring leads by their potential is a useful practice that is commonly used by sales teams. For example, Hubspot encourages scoring them by fit and engagement.

❌ Issue: Lead scoring is used to prioritize leads (e.g. who to schedule a meeting with first, who to follow up with), but rarely is it used to decide who should be on the sales call.

✅ Solution: Maximize results of your sales process by:

• Use lead scores to decide whether there should be only a salesperson (low score), or a salesperson plus a manager on the call (high score).

• Encourage salespeople to speak in a loud tone, and make sure their microphones and connections are high quality so they will sound smarter and more interesting.

• Train sales people to be expressive and talk with their hands.Bonus: make sure salespersons and managers follow these guidelines on their background and appearance when taking sales videocalls.

🔍 Study type

Online experiments and market observation (analysis of 5.5 million transactions of a Fortune 1000 automotive service business across 462 stores from 2017 to 2018).

📖 Research

Whether, When, How, and Why Sales Managers Should Be Involved in Sales Teams. Journal of Marketing (April 2026).

🏫 Researchers

• Daniel E. Chavez. Haslam College of Business, University of Tennessee

• Molly R. Burchett. College of Business, University of Wyoming

• Brian Murtha. Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus: Trivia

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 13 hours to accurately turn this 83-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… Science Says Platform

The Science Says newsletter keeps you up to date, and I hope you’re loving it 💜

If you’re a marketing pro, we built the Science Says Platform to be the place you turn to before any project to check “What is the latest evidence I should know about, so I get the best possible results?”

 You’ll find all our 300+ insights, like:

• Discount coupons: when to give % off vs $ amount off

• When to use vouchers vs free gifts for promotions

• Make your discounts a bit harder to get

Only paid Platform members can access them all 24/7, along with real-world case studies, the exclusive playbook of brand names, and direct access to our team of PhDs and me to answer your questions.

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: AI | Social Media 
For: B2C
Research date: May 2026
Universities: University of Southern California

Imagine you’re scrolling on Linkedin and you see one of my posts. It’s the usual format with our purple graphics, however, this time it says “AI-generated”. 

How would you feel? Would you be as likely to read and engage with it?

Science says you probably wouldn’t, why, and by how much engagement would drop.

P.S.: People have double standards when it comes to AI. We think it’s more acceptable when we use it, but not when others do. Keep this in mind when you create with AI and think about how it would be perceived by others.

📈 Recommendation

Be careful when using AI to generate content. If you do, make sure to explain you’ve still put effort into it, and why you’re using it (e.g. “I spent 20 minutes on this visual and used this model to create special effects”).

People will be more likely to engage with your content.

🎓 Findings

• When people know a social media post is created with AI (e.g. has a “made with AI” label), they engage with it less.

• Across 8 experiments and an analysis of 1m TikTok posts, researchers found that when people knew posts were created with AI, posts:

  • Received 7 to 8% fewer likes 

  • They had 7% lower combined engagement (comments, shares) even if quality was the same

  • Creators were seen as putting 15.6% less effort into their work, and people felt 14.5% less connected to them

• The effect disappears when the AI used is considered complex, requiring effort to use (e.g. Photoshop Neural Filters)

🧠 Why it works

• We value things when we think other people have put time, care, and effort into making them.

• This also helps us feel connected to the creator, which makes us even more likely to engage with them. 

• However, when something is created with AI, we assume people have not put in the time and effort needed to create it.

• This makes us less likely to engage with the post.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• The study only looked at social media content from creators. The effect might not apply in contexts where AI use is expected (e.g. AI-native accounts and influencers).

• The analysis was on a wide range of content types (e.g. video, video and audio, single image, image with text). We don’t know if the effect is stronger or weaker for exclusively text (e.g. newsletters) or audio-based content (e.g. podcasts).

• The effect might differ across content categories. For example, technical content coming from institutions (e.g. public health, tech, announcements) where social connection is less important, might still drive engagement if AI-created.

• Some kinds of AI content look realistic and without labels, it’s hard to spot they were not human-created. The effect might not apply to those cases.

👀 Real-life example

SheerLux, a fashion magazine, experimented with AI-generated content. They announced it on their page with a video of their new AI avatars.

❌ Issue: Compared to their usual engagement, this post got about half the engagement, and comments show mixed feelings.

✅ Solution: There are a few ways in which they could have made this content more effective:

• Specify how and what they've used AI for. For example, by saying that real people have put in the effort to research and create this extra-personalized content. 

• Match the AI avatars to content on innovative topics like tech innovation in fashion.

• Create content that makes viewers think about others (e.g. show something useful, solving relatable problems) to give it a boost and make people more likely to share it.

🔍 Study type

Online experiments and market observation (analysis of 1,135,817 TikTok posts from 8,650 accounts)

📖 Research

Made With AI: Consumer Engagement with Social Media Containing AI Disclosures. Journal of Consumer Research (May 2026)

🏫 Researchers

• Stephan Carney. Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. 

• Ignacio Riveros. Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. 

• Stephanie M. Tully. Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. 

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus mini-insight

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 12 hours to accurately turn this 75-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… the Science Says Platform

The Science Says newsletter keeps you up to date, and I hope you’re loving it 💜

If you’re a pro, we built the Science Says Platform to be the place you turn to before any project to check “What is the latest evidence I should know about, so I get the best possible results?”

 You’ll find all our 300+ insights from the latest, most useful scientific evidence, like:

• Discount coupons: when to give % off vs $ amount off

• When to use vouchers vs free gifts for promotions

• Make your chatbot use interjections (oh wow!)

Only paid Platform members can access them all 24/7, along with the exclusive playbook of brand names.

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: Promotions | Ecommerce
For: B2C. Can be tested for B2B 
Research date: May 2024
Universities: Cornell University, Yale University

You want to run a special promotion to celebrate your clothing brand’s 20th birthday. 

You decide to run a 20% off campaign on your best-selling products, but you feel it’s just too… simple. You’ve run endless of these % off promotions in the past and you want this one to make a big splash. But how?

Science says, a nice way to make it even more effective could be as simple as gamifying the product discount.

P.S.: Gamifying promotions works particularly well when discounts are small. Making discounts a gamble makes people up to 92.6% more likely to choose an uncertain deal (e.g. 10% chance for a free night’s stay) vs. a small guaranteed discount (5% off per night).

📈 Recommendation

If you sell fun and pleasurable products (e.g. snacks, fashion, entertainment), consider gamifying your promotions:

• Decide which discount % you want to offer.

• Then use games (e.g. a spinning wheel, a roll of dice) to randomly allocate which product will be promoted.

People will see you as more fun, and be more likely to buy.

Do not use this for products that are practical and functional (e.g. cleaning supplies), as it backfires.

🎓 Findings

• People prefer and are more likely to buy fun and enjoyable products (e.g. clothes) that are selected for a promotion by chance, compared to identical products selected intentionally (e.g. a fixed selection of promoted products).

• In 13 experiments with Meta ads across different product categories (e.g. ice cream, digital content, artwork), researchers found that when people were told the promotion was based on chance (vs chosen deliberately), they:

  • Were 67% more likely to click on a button to find out more 

  • Said they were 24.3% more interested in purchasing the product

  • Perceived the product 36.6% more fun

  • Thought the brand was 14.9% more fun

  • Were 15.9% more likely to buy another product from the same company

• The effect is:

  • Weaker when the random selection is described in a dry, unplayful way (e.g. “Discount product selector”)

  • Reversed for functional products (e.g. a nicotine gum to stop smoking)

🧠 Why it works

• We see random and gamified product selections as playful.

• This makes us see the whole experience and brand as more fun.

• Which makes us more likely to buy from them.

• These gamified promotions align well with the image we have of fun brands.

• However, we expect companies selling functional products to choose products intentionally.

• Which makes random promotions backfire for these kinds of brands.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• It’s unclear how the amount of the promotion (e.g. 10% vs 30% off) changes the effect. Similarly, we don’t know how the effect would work on luxury items where even small promotions have a big impact on the total amount off.

• The study only looked at % off discounts, it’s unclear how the effect is for other kinds of promotions such as free products or free shipping.

• The experiments did not analyze how the effect holds in the long-term when the strategy is used repeatedly. It likely weakens as the novelty wears off and the strategy looks less fun.

👀 Real-life example

Cosmetics brand Blume uses a fun game for their promotions. Wherever the ball lands, that’s the promotion people get.

❌ Issue: Some of Blume’s products have a very functional purpose (e.g. anti-acne), which could make the randomness of the promotion backfire.

✅ Solution: There are a few tactics Blume could use to make their promotional strategy even more effective:

• Use this promotion only for fun products. For example, by including it only on their lip products page, rather than across the whole website.

• Use “x amount off” instead of “x% off” when promotions are run on a specific category only.

• They could even use a different strategy and gamify the 5% off. Since it’s a small discount, making it a gamble would make it more effective.

🔍 Study type

Online experiments and field experiment (Meta ads experiment with 10,293 users)

📖 Research

Promoting a product without increasing the promotion budget: How chance in promotions can heighten consumer demand. Journal of Consumer Psychology (May 2024).

🏫 Researchers

• Alexander Goldklank Fulmer. Cornell University

• Taly Reich. Yale University

Remember: This is a scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus: Trivia

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 14 hours to accurately turn this 15 page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

🔬 UPDATE: Some fun science has been happening in the background

As fellow science geeks, I think you’ll love this. 

Over the past couple of weeks, we didn’t just talk about science; we actually made science, and many of you were part of it.

I teamed up with researchers from the Fox School of Business and Wharton to test: How do people react to personalized AI videos?

So we created an AI video copy of me (a pretty scarily realistic one!). Then, we created tons of videos of me, with slightly different scripts and slight changes:

• Non-personalized version (e.g. “Science Says readers have read 71 insights on average”)

• Personalized versions (e.g. “You’ve been subscribed for 3 months and received 11 insights”)

• Within those, some disclosed this was an AI video (“This is an AI avatar version of me!”) or not

I then emailed you each a personalized link to the video and we collected analytics data of each video (e.g. how long you watched for, whether you clicked at the end).

What will the results be, and when will we know? That I can’t tell you yet. We’re analyzing the data right now, and most experiments tend to fail. But if we do get an interesting answer - as I hope we will - you will be the first to know!

P.S.: For full details, here is the explanation page of the experiment, which you reached if you opened the video, watched it, and clicked through. A huge thank you to those of you who did!

Ok, time for today’s insight now! 👇

📝 Context

Topic: Product | Ads | Messaging & Copy
For: B2C
Research date: March 2026
Universities: University of California, Washington University in St. Louis, Boston University

You’ve just developed a new peanut butter snack. It’s healthy, organic, and tastes great. Compared to other options, your brand contains only 4 ingredients. 

But competition is tough, and it’s hard to find the right messaging. Everyone is saying they’re organic and natural now.

Science says, simply saying your product has “few ingredients” will go a long way.

P.S.: Highlight what makes your company sustainable (e.g. “our ingredients are local and organic”). People see sustainable products as higher quality.

📈 Recommendation

If your food product has few ingredients, clearly state it (e.g. add an “Only few ingredients” label on your packaging). Avoid doing this if your products are bought for pleasure (e.g. cookie), or for nutritional intake (e.g. vitamins).

People will be more likely to choose your product.

🎓 Findings

• People prefer and are more likely to buy food and beverage products described as having "few ingredients”, compared to those described as having more, even if the product list is identical.

• Across 19 experiments, researchers found that when products were described as having fewer ingredients (vs not):

  • People chose to get an identical granola bar 21.6% more often

  • People said they were 16.4% more likely to buy a juice

  • People were 66.8% more likely to say they’d buy a peanut butter

  • They generated between up to 44.2% higher clicks in Meta ads

• The effect:

  • Reverses when people look for pleasure (e.g. a cookie with rich flavors), uniqueness, or a variety of vitamins in a product

  • Is stronger among customers with a higher interest in natural ingredients 

🧠 Why it works

• We think that products with more ingredients are more processed and unhealthy.

• On the other hand, we see products with fewer ingredients as more natural.

• We generally prefer these products because we think they are safer and healthier.

• Unless we are looking for uniqueness or pleasure. In that case, we think more ingredients mean greater flavor.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• Only food and beverage products were tested, it’s unclear how much effect can be extended to other kinds of products (e.g. skin care, cosmetics, cotton blend clothes).

• The products were framed as having “few (or many) ingredients”, but the exact ingredients number was not specified. The effect might be stronger when the labels specify exactly the number of ingredients (e.g. only 3 ingredients), and/or lists them (e.g. “only nuts, raspberries and chocolate”).

• It’s likely, but wasn’t tested, that the “few ingredients” label wouldn’t work for products on an ingredient list with many ingredients (e.g. 7+), it’s unknown how many ingredients make the label have no effect.

👀 Real-life example

Lesserevil is a brand positioned to sell high-quality, healthy snacks.

❌ Issue: Their Himalayan pink salt popcorn only has 3 ingredients, but this is not mentioned anywhere on their website or packaging.

✅ Solution: There are a few things they could do to make their messaging stronger:

• Clearly highlight it on their packaging by boldly stating “Only 3 ingredients”. Ensure the “3” is written as digits, not as “three”. This makes people more likely to buy.

• Add an explicit note on their packaging saying how sustainable the brand is (e.g. “Sourced sustainably with 100% recycled packaging”). It makes people enjoy it up to 23% more.

• Add images to show what the product smells like (e.g. a lemon slice)

🔍 Study type

Online experiments and field experiments (Meta ads A/B testing with real products reaching 98,139 people).

📖 Research

Less is More (Natural): The Effect of Ingredient Quantity Framing on Consumer Preferences. Journal of Marketing Research (March 2026). 

🏫 Researchers

• Michelle Yoosun Kim. University of California

• Rachel Gershon. University of California

• Sydney E. Scott. Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis. 

• Daniella Kupor. Questrom School of Business, Boston University

• Tianqi Chen, Vanguard

• Remi Trudel. Questrom School of Business, Boston University

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus mini-insight

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

🎓 Insight: When a sustainable product is priced higher, people consider it more eco-friendly, regardless of the product’s quality.

📈 Recommendation: Avoid charging low prices for sustainable products. People will perceive your product as less eco-friendly if the price is low.

If you want to lower the price for your sustainable products, justify how you’re able to keep production costs low

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 12.5 hours to accurately turn this 51-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… Modash

100+ ChatGPT prompts to supercharge your productivity.

This free guide from HubSpot is your fast track to AI mastery:

• Productivity Guide: 21 best practices to 10x your efficiency with AI

• Industry-Specific Use Cases: 15+ real-world applications

• Prompt Powerhouse: 100+ ready-to-use prompts

• Challenge Buster: Overcome common AI hurdles

Plus, in-depth sections on email writing, content creation, customer support, and data analysis.

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: AI | Messaging & Copy
For: B2C
Research date: October 2024
Universities: New York Institute of Technology, West Virginia University

You’re launching a long-awaited update to your B2B prospecting software, and you want to announce it with an email campaign. Prepping for the launch is taking up a big chunk of your time and you decide to use AI to help you. You’re excited so you prompt the AI to write a cheery email and send it announcing the incoming launch.

You expected to get exciting feedback, but 

a week passes and no one, even those that had been asking for that update for months, replies. The reason is that they probably spotted that your message was AI-written and reacted negatively to it.

P.S.: Remember to always be careful when you use AI, people are ok using it themselves, but see others using it more negatively.

📈 Recommendation

Avoid using AI to write emotional messages (e.g. expressing pride for a new product launch, sadness for a loss). If you must use AI (e.g. to help with grammar) make sure the text feels human (e.g. avoid using AI-specific language) and avoid mentioning it was generated by AI.

People feel disgusted and respond negatively to emotional messages written by AI, and are less likely to recommend the brand.

🎓 Findings

• When people know (e.g. it is explicitly said) that an emotional message is written by AI (vs a human), they react more negatively, are less likely to talk positively about the brand, and feel morally disgusted (e.g. felt it was dishonest and fake).

• Across 6 experiments, with over 2,200 participants across different categories (e.g. retail, personal care), researchers found that when people learned that emotional messages were written by AI (vs human), people:

  • Were 24.6% less likely to recommend the brand, and reported 58.4% more moral disgust on a brand’s follow-up emotional email (e.g. sending an email saying “I’m inspired by your commitment to weight loss” after purchasing a diet plan)

  • Reported 64% more moral disgust when a communication about a sales’ manager returnto work was emotional, compared to only 15.9% more when the message was factual

  • Reported 2x more disgust and shared 23.6% less word of mouth on a sympathetic message after a founder’s death.

  • Reported 140.9% more moral disgust when a message was written by AI, but signed by a person (vs. written and signed by a human).

🧠 Why it works

• We value authenticity and honesty in our interactions with companies.

• So we are more likely to interact with and trust messages that feel genuine and emotionally resonant.

• However, when we know a brand has used AI to write a message, it doesn’t feel genuine.

• This makes us think the company has violated our moral norms, so we feel emotional disgust.

Want to advertise to 30,000+ Science Says readers here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• The study only looked at text communication. It’s likely, but wasn’t tested that the effect is the same for communications done in other formats like images, audio, or video (fun fact: we are doing research with Fox School of Business and The Wharton School on just this).

• The study focused on people from the UK and US, people from other countries might have a different perception of AI-generated messages

👀 Real-life example

Ed-tech company infrastructure issued an apology statement after a system outage that disrupted several universities across North America. 

❌ Issue: People felt the message sounded AI-written. A Reddit post about it had overwhelmingly negative comments.

✅ Solution: Always try to write apology messages yourself, as they will always sound more genuine. However, AI can be used as a support (e.g. correcting grammar) but with these guidelines in mind:

• Firstly, ensure it has enough context and is prompted to keep your tone and message. 

• Secondly, the message could thank people for their patience and understanding, as this increases satisfaction more than a simple apology.

• The message should also use “I” instead of “we”. People will react more positively.

• Finally, make it more personal by signing the message, to further improve perceptions.

🔍 Study type

Online experiments.

📖 Research

The AI-authorship effect: Understanding authenticity, moral disgust, and consumer responses to AI-generated marketing communications. Journal of Business Research (October 2024)

🏫 Researchers

• Colleen P. Kirk. New York Institute of Technology.

• Julian Givi. West Virginia University. 

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus mini-insight

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only). Read the full insight here if you are already a member.

🎓 Insight: Using AI bots can turn customers away if used in the wrong situations

📈 Recommendation: Avoid fully replacing humans with AI if warmth is important to the service you’re providing (e.g. scheduling appointments at a spa, ordering room service in a hotel). If you do, people will be more likely to stop using your services.

You can use machines and AI to provide services if customers mainly look for efficiency and practicality (e.g. grocery check-out).

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 10.5 hours to accurately turn this 14-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… Modash

Learn directly from the influencer marketers behind creator programs at Moroccanoil, L'Oréal & Edelman.

Learn about:

• Identifying brand aesthetic and must-haves

• How creators reshape customer perception

• The power of organic product placement in non-salesy content 

Join this special 3-hour edition of Modash LIVE, for $0

📅 June 11 at 10AM ET. 

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: Product
For: B2C
Research date: February 2026
Universities: Vienna University of Economics and Business, City University of London.

You’re shopping for chocolates, and come across two brands at the same price, one in a blue plastic box, and the other in a transparent plastic bag.

Chances are you’ll choose the second option, as the science says transparent packaging is more likely to attract us.

P.S.: When using color in your packaging, use dark colors to make your product seem more effective (unless you're worried people will think about its risks or side effects).

📈 Recommendation

Use transparent packaging or add a transparent cut-out window to your packaging for products. If your product isn’t visually appealing (e.g. frozen gravy), then stick to closed packaging.

People will be more likely to choose your product.

🎓 Findings

• People find more attractive, are more likely to choose, and are more interested in buying food products with transparent packaging (e.g. see-through packaging or a cut-out window), compared to products with packaging they can’t see through.

• As part of a series of 7 experiments on various household food items, researchers found that:

  • When an item had transparent, instead of covered packaging, people:

    • Were 4x more likely to choose it

    • Were 40.6% more interested in buying it

    • Thought the item was 67.2% more attractive and felt ownership of it

• The effect:

  • Disappears when people are buying an item for someone else.

  • Reverses if the product itself doesn’t look nice. For example, people were 3.5% less interested in buying a vegetable stew in transparent packaging.

🧠 Why it works

• We consider product packaging as a barrier between us and a product. While covered packaging hides what’s inside, transparent packaging removes that barrier, letting us see the actual item.

• Because we can see the actual item, we feel more ownership towards it, even before buying it. This makes us more interested in buying the product.

• Since we can see the item inside, we also feel more in control and give more attention to what’s inside.

🔎 You've seen what doing it wrong looks like. The hard part is finding what actually works.

There's no shortage of AI "hacks" and generic webinars promising to fix your visibility. What's missing? Practitioners who've actually broken the silo, unified their brand signals, and built something that holds.

BreakingSilos 2026 is a free online conference on June 9th. No vendor pitches. No generic panels. Just the people who've done it - across SEO, PR, Content, Brand, and Social.

This announcement was sponsored. Want your brand here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• The experiments focused on everyday food items (e.g. cinnamon, muesli, candy, and cookies). It’s unclear how much this can be broadened to other types of items like toiletries or technology products.

• The research looked mostly at items people hadn’t already used or tried. It’s unclear if the effect holds for returning buyers.

• The study didn’t look at how much of the packaging needs to be transparent, or where a cut-out should be positioned. It’s unknown if more transparency in packaging will increase the effect or not.

👀 Real-life example

Asian noodles and sauces brand Omsom uses completely covered packaging for their products.

❌ Issue: The packaging makes it impossible for shoppers to see the product inside.

✅ Solution: Omsom can optimize their packaging by:

• Introducing transparent packaging, or a transparent cut-out window on their boxes and packets, to make more of the content visible.

• Simplifying the design of their packaging, to increase how much people are willing to pay for the item.

• Increasing the color saturation on images of their jars and bottles, to make them seem larger and increase how much people are willing to pay for the product.

🔍 Study type

Lab and online experiments.

📖 Research

A window of opportunity: transparent packaging affects product preference via psychological ownership. International Journal of Research in Marketing (February 2026).

🏫 Researchers

• Eva Marckhgott. Vienna University of Economics and Business

• Bernadette Kamleitner. Vienna University of Economics and Business

• Zachary Estes. Bayes Business School, City, University of London

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus: Trivia

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 11.5 hours to accurately turn this 18 page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

View and purchase the Wharton Blueprint for AI Agent Adoption, it identifies and helps overcome three key frictions to AI agent adoption👇

It’s free to download.

This insight is brought to you by… Hubspot

You have more tools than ever. So why does it feel like critical context is still missing? 

HubSpot's 2026 Essential Apps for Marketers collection brings together 14 apps across creative, ads, events, and more - so the context you need travels with every campaign, decision, and handoff.

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topic: AI | Customer Experience
For: B2C
Research date: April 2025
Universities: Hefei University of Technology

We recently launched our second Blueprint in collaboration with Wharton, about what’s slowing AI agent adoption. One key insight that emerged is this: 

”People are not as forgiving of AI errors as they are of human errors. They systematically misjudge AI partners by focusing on where the system fails on ‘easy’ cases. Those failures loom larger psychologically than the harder cases where the AI adds real value.”
- Kartik Hosanagar, Professor and Co-Director, Wharton Human-AI Research at Wharton

The bar is much higher for AI to perform than it is for people. Assuming the AI works well, we’d still be more critical of even the smallest mistakes. 

That means it’s difficult to get users to accept an AI, even if it’s extremely useful 98% of the time, but makes mistakes 2% of the time. If a junior employee did the same we’d love them, not so with AI.

So how can you make people more accepting of a good AI that makes occasional mistakes? 

Science shows us a simple tactic.

📈 Recommendation

Make your AI use humor when it makes a mistake (e.g. “Oops AI bloopers”), make sure the humor is self-deprecating (e.g. “I’m powered by algorithms but I’m definitely on dial-up speed today”) as that’s the most effective kind.

This is especially effective when the mistake is low severity (e.g. recommending a wrong product) but not so much when the problem is bigger (e.g. giving wrong information to an angry customer).

People will be more likely to forgive the mistake.

🎓 Findings

• People are more forgiving of AI making mistakes when it responds with humor, compared to no humor at all. Self-deprecating humor (e.g. “I apologize—turns out I’m a bit more 'artificial' than 'intelligent' today”) works better than positive and friendly humor (e.g. “AI needs coffee too, let me try again”).

• As part of 4 experiments with 1,919 people, researchers found that when AI used humor (vs no humor), people were:

  • Up to 33.9% more forgiving of a wrong recommendation when it used positive humor

  • Up to 47.8% more forgiving of a wrong recommendation when it used self-deprecating humor

  • 15.7% more forgiving in after-sales services when the humor was positive

  • 25.6% more forgiving in after-sales when the humor was self-deprecating

• The effect is:

  • Stronger when the mistake is low severity (e.g. a wrong color recommendation for a jumper)

  • Disappears when the failure is high severity (e.g. not reimbursing a rightful refund request)

🧠 Why it works

• Humor helps us regulate our emotions (e.g. making fun of a difficult situation).

• So in service contexts, it helps us get over our anger towards someone who makes a mistake.

• The same happens when AI messes up. Humor makes us feel less tension.

• This makes us see it more positively and be more forgiving.

🤖 The AI event for marketing strategists: BreakingSilos 2026. Join for free on June 9th.

Top marketing teams aren't winning AI search by optimizing channels.

The brands pulling ahead in AI search are doing something different: they’re building visibility ecosystems where SEO, social, PR, content, and brand reinforce each other. And AI is citing them for it.

BreakingSilos 2026 is an online conference where the practitioners building those ecosystems share exactly how.

This announcement was sponsored. Want your brand here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• Researchers tested positive and self-deprecating humor. It's unclear how people might respond to different kinds of humor (e.g. self-enhancing, dark humor).

• The study was on online AI chatbots, people might respond differently in real-world offline interactions.

• The study only looked at customer service interactions, the effect might not apply in other contexts (e.g. a coding chatbot)

👀 Real-life example

Sephora helps customers find products through an AI chatbot. It handles complaints by being apologetic.

❌ Issue: The chatbot says sorry and gives in-depth explanations when it makes mistakes, which is not the best approach for this kind of low-severity mistakes.

✅ Solution: Sephora should change how its chatbot responds to mistakes, for example, by:

• Making it make fun of itself (e.g. “Oops my non-brain just glitched, let me retry”)

• Make the chatbot say “thank you” (e.g. “Thank you for bearing with me”), instead of “sorry”.

• Make the chatbot use interjections (e.g. “Oh no!”).

🔍 Study type

Online experiments.

📖 Research

Affiliative or self-deprecating? Exploring the effect of humor types on customer forgiveness in the context of AI agents’ service failure. Journal of Business Research (April 2025)

🏫 Researchers

• Yuguang Xie. School of Management, Hefei University of Technology. 

• Peiyu Zhou. School of Management, Hefei University of Technology.

• Changyong Liang. School of Management, Hefei University of Technology.

• Shuping Zhao. School of Management, Hefei University of Technology.

• Wenxing Lu. School of Management, Hefei University of Technology.

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future, it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus mini-insight

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took me, a PhD analyst, and a marketing pro 10.5 hours to accurately turn this 23-page research paper into this 3min insight.

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

Before we jump in, a quick thing since many of you asked…

Replay: How to design AI agents people want to use

The recording of our live launch is out!

With 1,000+ signups, it was a record breaker for Wharton’s AI Horizons series 🥳

In 60 minutes, Stefano Puntoni and I answered one of the biggest challenges organizations face right now:

🤖 How do you actually get teams to adopt AI agents?

It’s worth a watch for anyone fascinated by the psychology behind AI adoption and either designing AI agents or adopting them in your organization (we share an exclusive plug-and-play framework to help with that).

📝 Context

Topics: Reviews
For: B2C. Can be tested for B2B
Research date: October 2025
Universities: Erasmus University Rotterdam, ESADE, Reichman University, University of Mannheim

You want to get more reviews and, hopefully, that 0.5 extra star rating you’ve been working so hard for. You decide to send a reminder email to all customers who bought in the last month. 

Sending that email on a Sunday evening sounds like a great idea, most people will be relaxing at home, and may be more likely to leave a review. 

Definitely better than sending it on a Tuesday at 3pm when most people are busy at work. Right?

Unfortunately, the science says you’re wrong. Best you send it on a weekday. Here’s why.

P.S.: Make sure the first review you display is always positive. A negative first review triggers a chain reaction leading to more negative reviews.

📈 Recommendation

Send review requests on weekdays, not weekends or public holidays. 

This is particularly important if your business is crowded during weekends (e.g. restaurant, bar), or if you’re asking reviews from your employees (e.g. to review you on Glassdoor or Indeed).

People will be less likely to leave negative reviews.  

🎓 Findings

• People leave more negative reviews during weekends (vs weekdays).

• Scientists analyzed almost 400 million reviews across 33 major platforms (e.g. Amazon, Glassdoor, Yelp, and IMDb) and found that, when given on weekends (vs weekdays):

  • Star reviews were .04 stars lower on average

  • Net Promoter Scores (e.g. How likely are you to recommend to a friend?) were 3.6 points lower.  Share of positive promoter reviews (would recommend) were  3% lower and negative detractor reviews (would not recommend) were  5.7% higher

  • Up to 6% of products on Amazon with only 3 or 4 reviews  would experience a half-star increase in their average rating if weekend reviewers were excluded.

• The effect is:

  • The same worldwide (e.g. applies the same way in Iran on their weekend days of Friday and Saturday)

  • Similar for public holidays (e.g. May 1st, July 4th) on weekdays

  • Stronger on platforms where only verified reviews are accepted

  • Stronger for businesses that get more crowded during the weekend (e.g. restaurants, bars)

  • Stronger on platforms collecting employers' reviews

🧠 Why it works

• People writing reviews on weekends have fewer online and real-life friends.

• They also consistently use fewer words related to sociality (e.g. don’t mention friends, social interactions) in their reviews.

• This group of less socially connected people are more likely to write a review on a weekend and those reviews are more negative. 

• Moreover, customer service quality drops as places get more crowded during weekends.

• This makes businesses popular on weekends even more at risk of negative reviews.

👀 ChatGPT ad library: see who is advertising and their ads

ChatGPT ads are here. Are you competitors already advertising there?

Launching: Trendos Ad Radar. The first ever tool to make ChatGPT ad data accessible. 

Try it for free to see:

• Who’s advertising in ChatGPT

• What ad copy competitors are running

• How often their ads appear

This announcement was sponsored. Want your brand here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• There may also be other reasons behind the effect. For example, people may feel worse on a Sunday evening right before going back into the work week (known as “Sunday neurosis”), which could make them more likely to give a negative review.

👀 Real-life example

Booking. com sends reminder emails for reviews on weekends.

❌ Issue: The weekend timing increases the risk of negative reviews for hotels listed on Booking.com.

✅ Solution: There are a few things Booking.com could do to make people more likely to leave positive reviews:

• Stop sending them on weekends and time the emails to weekdays.

• Give incentives to people who leave reviews (e.g. a future discount, loyalty points). It increases review positivity by up to 83.4%.

• Include other people’s reviews in their reminder email, and show a 5-star first review to nudge people towards more positive reviews.

🔍 Study type

Online experiments, market observation (analysis of nearly 400 million reviews from more than 60 million users across 33 major platforms), and field experiment (reviews reminder sent by email to 11,667 users on either Wednesday or Saturday)

📖 Research

The Weekend Effect in Online Reviews. Journal of Marketing Research (October 2025)

🏫 Researchers

• Andreas Bayerl, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam

• Verena Schoenmueller, ESADE

• Jacob Goldenberg, Reichman University

• Florian Stahl, University of Mannheim

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus: Trivia

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only).

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took 3 of us 12 hours to accurately turn this 23-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇

This insight is brought to you by… Hubspot

60+ Claude Prompts for Marketers: save time, spark better content, and surface new growth opportunities.

• Actionable Claude strategies to boost output across your funnel

• Faster content creation, sharper insights, and smarter dashboard builds

• Real examples from marketers using Claude to scale results

• A framework to plug Claude into your daily workflows

Don’t just keep up with AI, start making it work for you.

Want to sponsor Science Says? Here’s all you need to know.

📝 Context

Topics: Sales | Customer Experience
For: Both B2C and B2B
Research date: February 2026
Universities: University of Vienna, Modul University Vienna

We all know (or intuitively feel) that being expressive helps with sales. 

What we don’t know is how much it helps and what the actual impact is on sales deals.

We also don’t know what exactly makes a difference, or doesn’t. For example, anger is also part of being expressive; does that help sell?

An analysis of sales pitches to over 800 people gives us the answer.

P.S.: A Science Says Platform member recently asked what makes us more persuasive and better sellers in video calls. 

We cover the evidence of what works here (paid members only). The 4 key elements are: background, body language, personal look, and how to speak.

📈 Recommendation

When you are in sales-related calls and presentations, make sure to be expressive.

Use body language (e.g. move your arms), look directly at your audience, and speak energetically. Make sure to be extra-expressive when your product is bought for fun and pleasure (e.g. clothes, hobby supplies).

People will see you as more charismatic, have more positive attitudes towards your product, and will have higher intention to buy.

🎓 Findings

• People have higher purchase intentions and more positive attitudes towards products when salespeople are expressive (e.g. speak energetically, use body language).

• In an analysis of 847 people across 14 sales pitches in different industries (e.g. apps, hardware), researchers found that when the salesperson was expressive (vs not) people:

  • Saw the product or service 31.8% more positively 

  • Were 35.8% more willing to purchase

  • Rated the salesperson 2.2X more charismatic 

• The effect is:

  • Weaker if the product service is more problem-solving and practical (e.g. pest control, tax preparation software)

  • Reversed if the salesperson expresses mild anger (e.g. against a competitor’s faulty product). In the case of mild anger, people see salespeople as more charismatic when they are not expressive.

🧠 Why it works

• We form judgments about people and their intentions by looking at their emotional expressions.

• We see people who are more expressive as more charismatic too. 

• In sales environments, interacting with charismatic people makes us form more positive opinions.

• This has a stronger influence on us when dealing with products or services that are emotionally driven (e.g. clothes, holidays).

• However, when we buy something because of its practical use (e.g. medicine), we are more likely to rely on information rather than emotions and charisma.

📣 Ditch the recycled AI takes and hallucinated facts. Try Chatter.

Most AI marketing tools flatten your voice and pump out content that sounds exactly like everyone else's. No creativity. No fine tuning. Not worth a click. 

Chatter is different. It’s a content intelligence partner built for marketers who want to find stories worth telling: 

• Track competitors’ content

• Remix ideas easily with personas, keywords, and trending topics

• Ditch recycled takes

Create binge-worthy, on-brand content. Try out the free plan, you’ll love it!

This announcement was sponsored. Want your brand here? Click here.

✋ Limitations

• The research looked at people’s purchase intentions after watching videos. In real life, people interact with salespeople, which could change the effect.

• People from different cultures might react differently to expressive people, and prefer less expressive ones.

• It wasn’t tested, but it might be possible that there’s a level at which expressiveness becomes excessive and backfires.

👀 Real-life example

Dr. Squatch is a men’s personal care brand. On their YouTube home page, there’s a video pitch presenting their solid soap bars.

❌ Issue: The pitch is fun, snappy and engaging but the presenter could further improve people’s opinions by simply changing up a few things in his presentation.

✅ Solution: There are a few things the presenter could try. For example:

• Showing more expressiveness, for example, by using facial expressions, wider arm movements when showing the product, or highlighting his point.

• Using a louder, more energetic tone of voice to sell more.

• He could also use hand gestures showing what he’s talking about (e.g. mimicking cleaning his hands) to make people even more willing to buy.

🔍 Study type

Lab experiments (847 people watching 14 sales video pitches across different industries, including smartphone applications, hardware solutions, and marketing consultancies).

📖 Research

Selling With Negative Emotions—Better Than None? Nonverbal Expressiveness During Sales Presentations: An Experimental Approach. Psychology & Marketing (February 2026).

🏫 Researchers

• Sandra Pauser. Lauder Business School, Vienna

• Udo Wagner. University of Vienna and Modul University Vienna

Remember: This is a new scientific discovery. In the future it will probably be better understood and could even be proven wrong (that’s how science works). It may also not be generalizable to your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.

🎁 Bonus mini-insight

Check your knowledge from previous insights (for paid Platform members only). Read the full insight here if you are already a member.

🎓 Insight: Say who your product is NOT for

📈 Recommendation: When pitching products, clearly state who your product is not for (e.g. “Not for risk-taking investors”), rather than who it is for (e.g. “For a safe investment”). It’ll make people see the product more positively.

✋ Careful: It’s unknown whether the effect also leads to higher intentions to purchase the product.

Here is how else Science Says can help your marketing:

• 📈 Join the Science Says Platform to unlock all 300+ insights, real-world case studies, and exclusive playbooks

• 📘 Boost your sales and profits with topic-specific Science-based Playbooks (e.g. Pricing, Ecommerce, SaaS, AI Best Practices)

• 🔬 Get science-based thought leadership content for your brand. We help market leaders in AI, tech, and across B2B enterprises, build authoritative thought leadership using a scientific perspective. Find out more.

🎓 It took 3 of us 13 hours to accurately turn this 24-page research paper into this 3min insight. 

If you enjoyed it please share it with a friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Thomas McKinlay), I’d love to engage and amplify! 

If this was forwarded by a friend you can subscribe below for $0 👇