The Marketing Science Comment Board

Vol. 28, No. 5, September–October 2009, p. 809
Does Everything Not Being Resolved Equal Nothing Gained? Bringing in the Wisdom of the Academic Crowd, Eric T. Bradlow

Click the comment link below to join the conversation.

How many times have we heard fellow researchers say: “The best papers raise more questions than they answer”? Yet do any of us really believe this? In this issue of Marketing Science, we have a very important and marketing-central “4-tuplet” starting with Jacobson and Mizik’s (2009b) paper that reexamines earlier empirical work on the value implications
of customer satisfaction and, in particular, on stock/portfolio returns. This is followed by commentaries from Fornell, Mithas, and Morgeson (2009) and Ittner, Larcker, and Taylor (2009), authors of much of this past research yet from different perspectives, and
a rejoinder by Jacobson and Mizik (2009a) rounds out the discussion.
One could imagine that after reading these works that a full consensus among authors, reviewers, and, more generally, experts could have resulted. This is not one of those cases; yet do we consider this a “half-full” or a “half-empty” situation? I say half-full, and
here is why.

Click here to read the full editorial for free via HighWire Press.