Journal of Marketing Research Scholarly Insights are produced in partnership with the AMA Doctoral Students SIG – a shared interest network for Marketing PhD students across the world.
Marketers often look to position products in ways that resonate with both the personal and professional lives of consumers. But is this strategy effective? In a recent Journal of Marketing Research study, “Testing Work-Life Theory in Marketing: Evidence from Field Experiments on Social Media,” authors Nita Umashankar, Dhruv Grewal, Abhijit Guha, and Timothy R. Bohling offer cutting-edge insights into this question. The study provides a comprehensive perspective on the effectiveness and pitfalls of “work–life positioning” in marketing campaigns.
Through rigorous field experiments on social media, this research challenges a prevailing assumption in marketing that products can effectively address multiple needs simultaneously without unintended consequences. The authors explore whether highlighting the work–life interface in marketing communications drives consumer engagement. The study reveals that while work–life messaging can enhance interest in simpler products (e.g., personal care, daily planners, apparel), it often backfires for resource-demanding ones (e.g., education, cosmetic surgery, travel, computers).
Why Does this Strategy Backfire?
While combining work–life elements in marketing may seem like a “win–win” approach, consumers may view this messaging as a reminder of the conflicting demands of their lives, triggering stress and reducing interest in the product. According to the study authors, “this is the first time we’ve realized that bringing personal life and professional life together in product messaging is very risky.”
For practitioners, this highlights the importance of avoiding overgeneralized “win–win” positioning for products that address resource-intensive aspects of consumers’ lives. It’s important for marketers to consider the intricate and ever-evolving nature of consumer psychology.
While combining work–life elements in marketing may seem like a “win–win” approach, consumers may view this messaging as a reminder of the conflicting demands of their lives, triggering stress and reducing interest in the product.
The findings also have broader societal and organizational implications. The research provides a deeply personal and compelling perspective on work–life balance, particularly its significance for women navigating professional and personal responsibilities. Study author Nita Umashankar points to the reality of many women leaving the workforce during childbearing years, not because they lack ambition or capability but because workplace policies often fail to offer the flexibility they need to balance these dual roles. Nita emphasizes the importance of adaptive marketing strategies that accommodate consumers’ diverse life stages and challenges.
It was our pleasure to interview Nita, who shared how her own journey of motherhood transformed her professional outlook and helped her to work smarter, prioritize her activities better, and increase her output. She said that these lessons were universal, transcending the specifics of parenting into the general contexts where the personal and professional domains meet.
Two major highlights after speaking with Dr. Umashankar:
- Key Research Finding: This research serves as a cautionary guide for marketers aiming to resonate authentically with their audiences. The belief that it is always a winning strategy to combine work and life benefits in product positioning is untrue, as consumers may end up feel stressed and conflicted when reminded about their work–life balance.
- Key Takeaway for PhD Students: One effective strategy for obtaining a competitive edge is to embrace interdisciplinary topics. Despite their complexity, these fields provide countless opportunities for innovation and meaningful influence. Approach these issues head-on, invest fully, and do it with confidence—your distinct viewpoint has the power to influence the future!
Q: Since the current study relies on social media ad clicks as a key measure of consumer interest, how can businesses account for platform-based biases (e.g., Facebook vs. LinkedIn) when designing and interpreting the effectiveness of work-life ads?
A: The two platforms attract different types of consumers or cater to different consumer mindsets while using the app. Therefore, based on the target consumer’s demographics and mindset (whether they are using the platform to socialize for fun [Facebook] or to network for work [LinkedIn]), businesses can emphasize or downplay work–life elements accordingly.
Q: The research classified products as “resource-demanding” and “resource-undemanding.” How can brands tailor resource-demanding product messaging to align with diverse consumer lifestyles and incomes?
A: Brands should avoid messaging that highlights the work–life interface, as it may evoke perceptions of work–life conflict. This is particularly relevant for consumers who experience work–life conflicts regularly, such as working mothers or executives.
Q: How can businesses use insights about work–life conflict to refine their targeting strategies and improve resonance with high-conflict segments?
A: Businesses naturally tend to position products for busy consumers to meet multiple needs, such as those related to work and personal life. However, this approach may be triggering for these consumers. Therefore, depending on the product, we recommend emphasizing either work or personal life, but not necessarily both.
Q: What additional metrics could help businesses better understand consumer engagement beyond ad clicks, such as the time spent viewing or deeper interactions?
A: Our findings extend beyond digital advertising to product positioning in general. Metrics such as time spent on ads, engagement rates, and qualitative feedback can provide deeper insights into consumer interests and preferences.
Q: What ethical guidelines can help businesses responsibly use work–life messaging without inadvertently amplifying stress or conflict among their customers?
A: If our findings suggested that signaling work–life conflict led to increased ad clicks, it would present an ethical dilemma. However, our results indicate that priming the work–life interface is unwise if it is perceived as conflict rather than enrichment, as this reduces product interest. Therefore, this approach is both a smart business decision and an ethical one.
Q: As highlighted in the paper, consumers often navigate the complexities of the work-life interface. How did you identify the need to explore the effects of work–life positioning strategies on consumer behavior and ad effectiveness? Additionally, what motivated you to pursue this fascinating and impactful research area?
A: The idea emerged while teaching in the MBA program, where I observed students managing both professional and personal domains. The program emphasized personal growth alongside professional development. This research is very close to my heart. We began working on this paper shortly after I had my first child and continued through my second pregnancy and beyond, so work–life conflict and work–life enrichment played a significant role in my life.
Read the Full Study for Complete Details
Source: Nita Umashankar, Dhruv Grewal, Abhijit Guha, and Timothy R. Bohling (2024), “Testing Work–Life Theory in Marketing: Evidence from Field Experiments on Social Media,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (2), 307–29. doi:10.1177/00222437231152894
Go to the Journal of Marketing Research
Manaswini Acharya is a doctoral student in marketing, Texas Tech University, USA.
Ishita Nagpal is a doctoral student in marketing, Georgia State University, USA.