Marketing News Catch-Up

Let’s catch up on some marketing news. As you might guess, I tend to scan a lot of news sources. I collect a lot of articles. I tag these articles and keep them as potential examples for my classes, my next textbook revision, and of course, for this blog. While some articles get full-blown blog posts, sometimes I just want to give you quick summaries of several articles. That way you can decide if they merit further attention for your personal or professional interest. I have found that AI tools (usually ChatGPT or Gemini) offer ways for me to provide quick informative summaries. I also read the articles and edit those summaries to ensure accuracy and to make them more relevant to marketing instructors. Here are a few from my views in the last month or so.

“Instacart Scraps All Price Tests After Customer Pushback” (The Wall Street Journal, December 22, 2025)

Instacart has ended all item-level price testing on its platform after public backlash revealed that different shoppers were shown different prices for the same grocery items at the same time. A report by Consumer Reports and others found average price differences of about 13%, with some as high as 23%, raising concerns about fairness, transparency, and consumer trust. Although Instacart argued that the tests were similar to traditional retail price experiments and not “dynamic” or personalized pricing, the company acknowledged that the practice fell short of customer expectations—especially during a period of high grocery inflation—and moved quickly to shut the tests down.

For teaching purposes, this article works well as a short, concrete example of how marketing research tools can clash with consumer perceptions and ethics. It fits naturally in Chapter 7 (Marketing research) as a discussion of field experiments, A/B testing, and the limits of real-world pricing research. It also fits squarely in Chapters 17 and 18 (Price) as an illustration of price testing, legality, and customer reactions to perceived unfair pricing. Instructors could use it as an in-class debate or short case: Should firms test prices if consumers view it as deceptive—even if it improves decision making? The FTC action mentioned in the article also makes it relevant to Chapter 1, which addresses marketing ethics and social responsibility. To motivate that debate, the following short (2:31) video might be used to give students appropriate background.

“It turns out that Kia’s new logo wasn’t brand suicide after all” (Fast Company, January 6, 2026)

Kia’s much-criticized 2021 logo redesign has turned out to be a branding success rather than the “brand suicide” many predicted. Despite early consumer confusion—most notably online searches for “KN car”—Kia’s U.S. sales have reached record highs, with 852,155 vehicles sold in 2025 and a growing market share. The rebrand, intended to signal innovation and a future-focused identity amid industry shifts toward electric vehicles and digital-first design, coincided with strong product performance, competitive pricing, and improved perceptions of quality and dependability. Over time, the market outcome mattered more than initial reactions to the visual change.

For instructors, this article is a strong, current example for Chapter 4 (positioning and repositioning) by demonstrating that repositioning can work. This might be particularly relevant when you start using the 2026 release of Essentials of Marketing, which has a new exhibit showing a perceptual map of the automobile market and specifically shows Kia’s repositioning (see image). Kia’s repositioning to “future-forward but affordable” succeeded even when early cues confused consumers. It also fits naturally with Chapter 8 (Product and branding), especially branding decisions, brand meaning, and visual identity as strategic—not cosmetic—choices. The article works well as a short, assigned reading or discussion starter, asking students to evaluate when and why bold rebranding efforts pay off, and how consistency between brand signals, product value, and customer experience ultimately determines success.

What’s coming next? Macroenvironmental Trends to Watch

In teaching marketing, we show our students that they need to monitor the 4 C’s (customers, company, competitors, and context or macroenvironment). In Essentials of Marketing we introduce these ideas in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. And, of course, because such changes affect the marketing mix, they are covered in much of an introductory marketing course. An article and a YouTube video offer some things to watch for 2026 (and maybe, more likely, beyond).

“The Weird and Wonderful Consumer Trends Steering Brands Into 2026,” (The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2025),

This article identifies a set of emerging consumer and cultural shifts likely to shape brand strategy in 2026, especially among Gen Z and younger consumers. Key themes include trading down while still seeking excitement (e.g., bringing premium condiments to inexpensive meals), a renewed desire for visible “humanness” in products and content as AI becomes ubiquitous, the return of in-person communal experiences (such as rave culture), and growing skepticism toward hyper-short, algorithm-driven media. At the same time, brands face paradoxical trends: the rise of fictional creator worlds that feel more coherent than real life, alongside a “Luddite class” of young consumers who intentionally avoid digital platforms and must be reached offline.

For teaching, this article works especially well in Chapter 3 (context/macroenvironment) as a snapshot of cultural, technological, and social forces reshaping markets. It also fits naturally with Chapter 5 (consumer behavior),  illustrating how identity expression, nostalgia, community, and resistance to technology influence consumption. Several additional chapters are relevant: Chapter 4 (segmentation and positioning) for discussing how brands target groups like Gen Z, offline consumers, or value-seeking diners; Chapter 8 (Product Planning and Branding) for low-cost customization, accessories, and brand IP creation; and Chapter 16 (Publicity, Earned Media, Owned Media, and Social Media) for rethinking content strategy in a world of clips, fictional personas, and proof-of-humanness storytelling. Instructors could use the article as a trend-mapping exercise, asking students to connect specific trends to actionable marketing mix decisions.

“10 Marketing Trends You NEED to Know for 2026” (YouTube, Leveling Up with Eric Siu, May 1, 2025)

While I try to be cautious about people who say that very soon technology will do everything, it is something to watch. I have found that these optimists are often right about what will happen, though they overestimate who quickly it will come to pass. There are some interesting ideas here.

This YouTube video outlines how generative AI is rapidly reshaping marketing practice, moving well beyond basic content creation into autonomous “agentic” systems that can conduct research, generate creative assets, optimize search, manage funnels, and test advertising at unprecedented speed and scale. The speaker highlights AI avatars, automated creative production, deep-research tools, and multi-platform “search everywhere” optimization, arguing that marketers can now accomplish in minutes what once took teams weeks or months. The core theme is acceleration: AI dramatically lowers skill barriers, compresses timelines, and enables constant experimentation across content, ads, search, and attribution.

For teaching, this video works well as a forward-looking overview tied to Chapter 3 especially the technological environment and how emerging tools reshape competitive advantage. It also fits naturally with Chapter 13 (Promotion—Integrated Marketing Communications), Chapter 15 (Advertising and Sales Promotion), and Chapter 16 (Publicity, Earned Media, Owned Media, and Social Media), illustrating how AI alters message creation, media planning, testing, and measurement. Instructors could assign the video as a discussion starter and ask students to map specific AI uses to promotion mix elements, or debate which marketing activities should remain human-led versus agent-led as AI capabilities expand.