Generative AI in Marketing: Promises, Perils, and Public Policy Implications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By evaluating the pattern of generative AI (GAI) use by businesses in marketing, this study aims to understand the subsequent impact on society and develop policy implications that promote its beneficial use. To this end, the authors develop an organizing framework that contends that the usage of GAI models by businesses for marketing purposes creates promises and perils for society through a specific business process. This business process is represented by the action → capabilities → transformation → impact link in the proposed framework. Additionally, the authors find that the level of technology infrastructure, skilled personnel, and data access moderates the influence of GAI on businesses’ ability to develop technology-driven capabilities. Furthermore, adaptive leadership and management strategies moderate the impact of these capabilities on technology-enabled business transformations. This research is the first study to critically evaluate the use of GAI in marketing from a public policy perspective. The study concludes with an agenda for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it