Business & Entrepreneurship

Government reopens but economic uncertainty lingers: What consumers should know

Katy Hill — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 15:17:55 +0000

Government reopens but economic uncertainty lingers: What consumers should know Katy Hill Thu, 11/13/2025 - 08:17

After a 43-day shutdown—the longest in U.S. history—the government is reopening, but the effects are far from over. Key economic reports on jobs, inflation and retail sales remain delayed, and in some cases may never be released, leaving policymakers and businesses to make decisions without a clear picture of the economy.

The White House said Wednesday it was unlikely that key federal inflation and labor reports affected by the shutdown would be released, although September’s employment data, collected before the shutdown, is expected to come out soon. The added uncertainty comes as new tariffs on imported goods could push up prices on everything from toys and electronics to clothing heading into the holidays.

Edward Van Wesep

��ɫ��Ƶ Today caught up with Edward Van Wesep, professor and chair of the finance division at the Leeds School of Business, to discuss what the loss of economic data means for consumer confidence and spending as the holiday season ramps up and how uncertainty could linger even as federal operations resume.

Let’s start with the big picture: What is an “economic data blackout,” and what happens when it lifts?

The government normally collects key economic numbers—like jobs and prices—by surveying households, businesses and stores. A shutdown can pause these surveys, delaying official reports on employment and consumer prices. When we don’t have those numbers, either we’re in a complete blackout, or we try to use substitutes for the government data.

Online data can help, but it only covers part of the market. Private estimates, like ADP payroll reports—which track wages for about 20% of U.S. workers—fill some of the gaps, but without government data, these estimates can drift from reality, especially in sectors like government work that are heavily affected by a shutdown.

Why should everyday consumers care that these reports were delayed?

If you’re deciding what to buy at the grocery store, it might not matter much. But economic forecasters and regulators, like the Fed, rely on these numbers to make decisions. Businesses use them to plan investments, production and hiring. When numbers are missing, uncertainty rises. Without current data, interest rates may not reflect real economic conditions, which can affect big-ticket purchases like cars and homes.

How do tariffs factor into that uncertainty?

Tariffs on low-end consumer goods are likely raising prices. A tariff is a tax on imports and all taxes get split between buyers and sellers based on something called elasticities of demand and supply. These describe how much people and companies cut back when they face cost increases. Foreign exporters of low-end consumer goods have very little space to absorb a tax, so U.S. consumers end up paying more. Companies selling these goods here, like Walmart and its suppliers, also have very little room to absorb tariffs, so consumers are likely to bear the burden.

It’s not uniform, though. Powerful foreign exporters such as those making iPhones and semiconductors have space to absorb costs, as do U.S. sellers of these goods. Consumers probably won’t feel as much of a pinch for these goods. But the point is that we just don’t know how prices of any of these goods are changing because government statistical agencies aren’t releasing data. Proxies from private organizations help, but government data completes the picture.

With the government reopening, what does the broader picture look like for holiday spending?

It’s worth pointing out that aggregate consumer spending doesn’t ever fall dramatically, COVID-19 pandemic aside. Even in the great recession, spending dropped less than 2.5%. But small drops in aggregate mask large effects for people experiencing unemployment or financial stress, while most people go about their business. The labor market has been awful for over six months and in the first two quarters the economy was weak. We just don’t know how weak it has been since June. Those numbers haven’t been released. We have estimates, but they’re all over the place. It seems that the bottom 80% are suffering and the top earners are carrying the economy. That’s probably bad news for most retailers and companies serving the mass market.

Could continued uncertainty make consumers rely more on credit?

Consumers are already relying on credit. During the pandemic, personal savings spiked while credit card debt dropped. Now savings are lower and credit card debt is higher. People are already spending money that they don't have, which worries firms because if most of your customers are spending money they don’t have, at some point, they will probably stop.

Now that the shutdown is over, how should consumers and businesses think about the economy?

The economy right now is a mystery. It was a mystery even before the shutdown, given huge swings in imports and inventories surrounding the tariffs. Missing or delayed data makes it hard to know how labor markets, gross domestic product growth, and consumer spending are holding up now. Add in factors like tariffs, which may soon be (temporarily) banned by the Supreme Court, and it becomes even harder for businesses and consumers to gauge what’s really happening.

As the government starts coming back online, what’s the most important data to be watching?

I’ll compare ADP’s labor numbers to the government’s first post-shutdown report. I’ll also watch GDP, but more importantly its components: consumer spending, firm investment, and growth from sectors like data centers. Even if the headline GDP number looks strong if consumer spending is solid but labor markets weak, that’s a recipe for slower growth ahead. If a lot of GDP comes from data center construction, that’s confidence in a very narrow industry holding up the economy. Broader-based labor market and consumer strength would be a healthier sign.

Even as the shutdown ends, shoppers and businesses face a murky economic picture heading into the holidays.

Traditional

White

Use AI to shop smarter—not spend more—this holiday season

Katy Hill — Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:40:21 +0000

Use AI to shop smarter—not spend more—this holiday season Katy Hill Tue, 11/11/2025 - 08:40

Artificial intelligence is changing how people shop—helping consumers find gifts faster, compare prices and even interact with livestream hosts selling products in real time. But these tools can also amplify biases and encourage impulse spending if you’re not careful.

Ying Zeng

��ɫ��Ƶ Today spoke with Ying Zeng, assistant professor of marketing at the Leeds School of Business, about how to make the most of AI and shopping platforms this holiday season by turning these digital tools into an advantage.

How is AI influencing the way people shop online this year?

AI is changing how people make decisions. In the past, we had to visit websites, search for products, compare options and make decisions ourselves. Now AI can do that for us—it can generate options and suggestions that might not have occurred to us.

This can be good and bad. On the one hand, it saves time and makes things easier. On the other hand, it might make us rely too much on the system and stop questioning whether these suggestions are the best fit for us.

You’ve studied how digital tools shape consumer decision-making. What are some benefits and risks of relying on AI when shopping?

There are two sides to AI use. One is on the supply side—how sellers use it. For example, they might use AI models to customize how a product looks on a virtual model.

But consumers are still wary of AI models. They may think they look fake or that a company using AI-generated images has something to hide.

The other side is on the consumer side. We can use AI as an assistant—for example, to compare products or summarize reviews. Amazon and social media platforms are already starting to use AI to summarize the reviews they have. So consumers can easily see the pros, cons and common themes without reading hundreds of posts. That makes reviews more informative—you don’t have to read every single text to understand what’s going on.

So tools like ChatGPT can actually help with shopping decisions?

Yes. I bought a desktop recently, and I had no idea where to start. I just sent the product specifications to ChatGPT and asked it to help me compare.

But there’s a caveat. When we rely on a single source of information—like Google before it—eventually that source can become a place for advertising. Google started with objective results, then sellers began paying to appear higher in the search. The same thing could happen with AI. Sellers will spend money to ensure they’re included in AI-generated answers.

People use AI because they trust that it’s objective, but whenever there is traffic, there is marketing. So as AI becomes more popular, it’s important to remember that what looks like a neutral answer might eventually be influenced by advertisers.

Livestream shopping has also exploded lately, especially on TikTok. Why is it catching on?

Livestream shopping started in Asia, where it became almost a mainstream way to promote products. It combines entertainment, social interactions and shopping, which makes it feel more engaging.

There are real functional benefits. Hosts select products for you, explain them in simple, relatable ways, and often offer exclusive discounts. But there’s also a huge social and emotional component. You see the host and audience members interacting in real time—it feels like a community.

People feel social pressure when they see others buying, and that creates excitement. The hosts also use tactics—for instance, ‘Stay, stay, stay, in 30 seconds we’ll have a new discount!’—to keep you watching and buying. So while it might seem like you’re saving time from selecting products and looking for the best deals, the system is actually designed to keep you there longer.

That sounds like a recipe for impulse buying. What’s your advice for people who get caught up in the moment?

It’s very hard to overcome because every remedy we come up with, sellers learn quickly.

For livestream shopping, there are real benefits—prices are often genuinely lower. So consumers face a hard choice: Use self-control and skip the deals, or stay and risk buying things you don’t really need.

I personally just don’t go to the livestreams for the “lower” price. I find myself spending hours there, and I just don’t think it’s worth my time. I get so excited—‘Wow, so pretty!’—and then I end up with 10 packages I return later. It’s a double waste of time. I’d rather pay a small price premium and avoid that cycle.

You also study sustainable consumption. How does that connect to these new digital shopping trends?

Sustainable consumption has become a popular topic in marketing research. We know we overconsume things like fast fashion or holiday decorations we buy every year and only use once. It’s not just a waste of products but a waste of time and money.

The idea of sustainable consumption is to buy something that might cost more but is more durable—and then stop buying. Use what you have and buy things for the long term. Even luxury brands are adopting this idea—designing classic pieces that last rather than chasing short-lived trends.

At some point, we stop buying things we want and start buying just to buy. The key is to think about what you already have and what you’ll actually use.

So what’s your top advice for shoppers this holiday season?

Use AI for inspiration, not persuasion. Enjoy the convenience, but keep control over your decisions.

We can’t change what’s going on in the world, but we can change how we view it, how much we accept it, and how much we resist it. Allow a little room—it’s fine to be slightly influenced—but don’t let yourself be overly manipulated.

Learn how to navigate holiday shopping with tips from ��ɫ��Ƶ marketing expert Ying Zeng.

Traditional

White

Do gun manufacturers have a duty to prevent violence?

Katy Hill — Wed, 05 Nov 2025 18:56:51 +0000

Do gun manufacturers have a duty to prevent violence? Katy Hill Wed, 11/05/2025 - 11:56

Katy Marquardt Hill

Gun manufacturers have long maintained they aren’t responsible for gun violence—people are. But a new paper by Levente Szentkirályi, assistant teaching professor in the Social Responsibility and Sustainability Division of the Leeds School of Business, challenges that view. In “Run, Hide, and Fight?! A Precautionary Business Ethics to Hold Manufacturers Accountable for Preventing Gun Violence,” published in the Journal of Business Ethics in July 2025, Szentkirályi argues that companies have a moral duty to prevent harm even when the causes of violence are uncertain. He spoke with ��ɫ��Ƶ Today about his “precautionary ethics” framework and why it’s time to rethink corporate responsibility in the face of America’s gun crisis.

Levente Szentkirályi

What motivated you to explore the ethical responsibilities of gun manufacturers?

Gun violence has become one of the leading causes of death among Americans under 44, yet the debate around responsibility to prevent these deaths remains stuck. Manufacturers routinely claim they can’t be held morally responsible because they don’t directly cause harm—people do. The empirical causes of gun violence are complex, but in response to this dismissive talking point, I wanted to explore whether there’s a moral justification for holding them accountable even if we cannot scientifically prove causal responsibility.

How does your framework differ from traditional risk regulation in the U.S.?

Our current system of risk regulation requires proof of imminent harm before regulation can be justified. My precautionary approach actually returns to pre-1980s risk regulation in the United States and argues that when there is some potential for harm, even if the details remain scientifically uncertain, we have justification for acting preventively. Acting proactively is especially important when we consider the welfare of vulnerable community members, like children in our schools and our dedicated first-responders who face disproportionate risk of harm from mass shootings.

You argue that traditional theories of moral responsibility let companies off the hook. How do the “ethics of precaution” change that?

Traditional ethical theories and current public policies governing risk require adequate evidence of likely harmful consequences of a person’s actions and the probability that harm will occur before we can determine if the action poses an “unreasonable” risk to others. It is only if an action constitutes an unreasonable risk that we are morally justified to interfere with the actions of others. But this overlooks numerous possibilities of harm that others may impose on us, for which we lack evidence of the probability and nature of the potential for harm. This leads to a confusing moral standard that under these conditions of uncertainty, we have to wait for an actual harm to occur before we can retroactively work to prevent it.

The ethics of precaution, by contrast, is forward-looking. It holds that even under uncertainty, businesses have duties of due care to take reasonable measures to help to safeguard the public from possible harm. Rather than waiting for proof that a product causes deaths, companies should take reasonable steps to prevent those deaths in the first place.

What would that look like for gun manufacturers?

Duties of due care are reciprocal. The goal isn’t to create unreasonable burdens on gun manufacturers. The idea is to balance the interests and rights of the public not to be exposed to potential gun violence (my focus in this paper is on mass shootings), with the interests and rights of gun manufacturers to engage in production of firearms.

Examples of duties of due care might include measures like redesigning firearms to prevent them from being altered into automatic weapons, investing in smart-gun technologies, implementing stricter distribution controls to vendors, or ending marketing strategies that glorify violence or target vulnerable groups. The goal is not to ban guns but to expect that manufacturers take reasonable precautions to reduce the potential for harm to innocent community members.

The gun industry often argues that broader social factors like mental health or poverty are to blame for violence. How do you respond?

Naturally, the causes of mass shootings are complex and diverse. This makes it very challenging to find common ground to solve this problem, which has become highly politicized and polarized.

Nevertheless, shifting the focus away from what gun manufacturers can reasonably do to prevent mass shootings to other causes is a diversionary tactic that what we’ve historically seen in other industries—like tobacco and vaping, oil, and pharmaceuticals. And if we view corporations as members of our communities, then we should be able to expect them to be part of the solution.

What lessons can other industries take from this argument?

Precautionary ethics raises the bar for corporate responsibility. It asks companies to stop gambling with public welfare just because the empirics aren’t settled.

What do you hope policymakers and the public take away from your work?

That moral responsibility doesn’t begin and end with direct causation. Even in uncertainty, businesses have a duty not to expose the public to potential and preventable harm by acknowledging the interests of the communities that are affected by their business practices.

In this spirit of equality and reciprocity, it is essential that we respect each other and find common ground to collaboratively work to address the pressing issue of gun violence in our communities.

A ��ɫ��Ƶ ethicist argues that it’s time to rethink corporate responsibility when it comes to preventing gun violence.

Traditional

White

��ɫ��Ƶ drives $5B boost to Colorado's economy

Megan Maneval — Wed, 29 Oct 2025 20:33:54 +0000

��ɫ��Ƶ drives $5B boost to Colorado's economy Megan Maneval Wed, 10/29/2025 - 14:33

Katy Marquardt Hill

��ɫ��Ƶ generated $5 billion across the state during the last fiscal year, up from $4.6 billion the previous year, according to a study by the Business Research Division of ��ɫ��Ƶ’s Leeds School of Business.

The study looked at the 2024–25 fiscal year, when ��ɫ��Ƶ employed 25,006 faculty, staff and students earning $1.4 billion in salaries and benefits. Excluding the number of student workers, ��ɫ��Ƶ employed 12,180 people.

CU system climbs to $12.2B in economic impact across state

��ɫ��Ƶ delivers impactful research and creative work, despite federal funding uncertainty

��ɫ��Ƶ’s direct economic impact, which includes employing workers, buying from local vendors, importing investment, educating the local workforce and exporting research discoveries, totaled $2.3 billion. The campus’s indirect and induced impact, which includes facilitating company growth and job creation through research, technology transfer and spinoff companies, totaled $2.7 billion.

“��ɫ��Ƶ’s impact reaches well beyond campus boundaries,” said Chancellor Justin Schwartz. “These findings show how our research, education and innovation power Colorado’s economy and improve lives across the Front Range and beyond.”

��ɫ��Ƶ’s research expenditures, including equipment, construction, operations and labor, were estimated at $725 million during fiscal year 2024–25, while the economic contribution of these activities totaled $1.3 billion for Colorado’s economy, according to the study.

The university recorded $882 million in nonlocal student and visitor spending in the state during the latest fiscal year, according to a survey of students. This includes spending on rent, groceries, transportation, child care, recreation and health care.

Direct campus spending during this period totaled an estimated $1.2 billion. Among the largest projects systemwide was the Hellems Arts and Sciences and Mary Rippon Outdoor Theatre renovation projects at ��ɫ��Ƶ.

Systemwide, the University of Colorado’s four campuses and its two affiliate hospitals generated a combined $20 billion in economic impact throughout the state during the 2024–25 fiscal year. The system supported 106,000 jobs, mostly in the Boulder, Denver and Colorado Springs metropolitan areas.

Total economic impact figures include employee and student worker earnings, operating expenditures, construction, research and visitor spending. The study also acknowledged additional impacts from innovation, technology transfer, skills and training, and alumni contributions.

��ɫ��Ƶ enrolled 39,138 students in fall of 2024 and accounted for 57% of student enrollment across the CU system. CU Denver accounted for 18% of system enrollment, followed by UCCS (15%) and CU Anschutz (10%).

In fiscal 2023–24, the CU system awarded 18,336 degrees, including double majors, to 18,402 recipients. ��ɫ��Ƶ accounted for over half of those awarded degrees.

A new report from the Leeds School of Business shows ��ɫ��Ƶ's statewide economic contribution over the previous fiscal year.

Traditional

White

The penny's days are numbered: What the change means for your wallet

Katy Hill — Wed, 22 Oct 2025 15:59:33 +0000

The penny's days are numbered: What the change means for your wallet Katy Hill Wed, 10/22/2025 - 09:59

Katy Marquardt Hill

The U.S. government is phasing out the penny, ending more than 200 years of production for the one-cent coin. Lawmakers say it’s a matter of fiscal responsibility: The penny now costs about 4 cents to make, and its usefulness in everyday transactions has dwindled. But what will the change mean for consumers, and could it be a step toward eliminating other coins?

Edward Van Wesep

��ɫ��Ƶ Today caught up with Edward Van Wesep, professor and chair of the finance division at the Leeds School of Business, to break down what you need to know.

Why is the government ending penny production now, and what’s the economic rationale behind it?

The penny costs more to produce than it is worth and doesn't offer much value for buyers and sellers of goods and services. Prices can be rounded up and down to the nearest five cents for cash transactions. For noncash transactions, we can continue to use "the penny" as our minimum unit of a final transaction's value. As I am sure readers know, we use even smaller denominations than a penny despite the fact that final transaction values get rounded to the penny. Gas, for example, is usually priced to the tenth of a penny. Simply put, the value pennies provide is less than their hassle and producing them costs the government money.

What does it mean for consumers when cash transactions are rounded to the nearest five cents?

Not much. The effect, on average, is essentially zero because rounding goes both up and down.

Are there any historical or international precedents for eliminating low-value coins?

There are plenty. In the U.S., we had a coin called the half penny that was phased out over 150 years ago. Inflation since then means that a half penny was worth far more in 1857 than the penny is today, but people made do. Canada got rid of the penny in 2012. Governments that experience higher inflation get rid of lower denomination coins and bills all the time.

How might this affect low-income consumers or people who rely more on cash?

I doubt that there would be much of an effect on low-income consumers. As I mentioned, transaction values round both up and down. On average, there wouldn't be much effect. If there were a lot of things priced at less than 2.5 cents, then you could see some effect because stores would have to round those prices up but it has been a long time since you could buy any single items for 2.5 cents! For those of us who don't use cash much, there is little hassle from dealing with pennies but for those who do, pennies are a hassle.

Could getting rid of the penny impact prices or inflation in any meaningful way?

No. It's just not worth enough to matter and, again, rounding goes both ways.

What are the logistical challenges businesses and banks might face in transitioning to a penniless economy?

I don't think that there will be serious challenges. Businesses can simply stop accepting pennies if they want. Presumably, as pennies will still be in circulation, businesses will be free to accept them or offer them as change if they see fit. (I'm not aware of any mandatory phasing out of pennies, as we saw with gold and silver certificates when we went off the gold standard.) I expect that many businesses will stop accepting them and that will slightly simplify their operations. Cash has been phasing out in general. I doubt that the phaseout of pennies specifically will be more complex.

Beyond manufacturing cost, are there other arguments for or against keeping the penny—like tradition, symbolism or jobs?

I have a hard time thinking of benefits of the penny. Most people will not pick up a penny that is lying on the street.

Looking ahead, could this set the stage for phasing out other coins—like the nickel—or accelerating a move toward a cashless economy?

The nickel is next. It is far more expensive than 5 cents to produce a nickel, and nickels are heavy. A pocketful of nickels is a pain! I could imagine more pushback to phasing out the nickel because you could imagine 10 cents here and there adding up over time. The arguments for phasing out the penny mostly apply to the nickel, though, and as we become more cashless those arguments will only get stronger. I don't think that phasing out either coin will push people away from cash.

What should we do with the pennies we have at home? Will they become worth more or collectable?

As for pennies at home, I doubt that they will ever be worth anything more than a penny, and the value of a penny goes down every day due to inflation. There are lots out there and I doubt that demand for them as collectables will ever exhaust the supply—certainly not in our lifetimes. I suggest saving a few if they bring you joy and turning the rest in. As a side benefit, it's good for the environment to recycle copper rather than mining more out of the ground!

��ɫ��Ƶ finance expert explains the phaseout, rounding rules and what the end of the penny means for consumers.

Traditional

White

How to outsmart online scammers in the age of AI, according to a cybersecurity expert

Katy Hill — Tue, 14 Oct 2025 14:28:59 +0000

How to outsmart online scammers in the age of AI, according to a cybersecurity expert Katy Hill Tue, 10/14/2025 - 08:28

Katy Marquardt Hill

October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month, but staying secure online is a year-round challenge, especially as criminals use new tools like generative AI to create sophisticated phishing emails, fake websites and even cloned voices.

Sebastian Schuetz

Sebastian Schuetz, an assistant professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at the Leeds School of Business, studies how leadership and human behavior shape cybersecurity outcomes. ��ɫ��Ƶ Today spoke with Schuetz about why people fall for scams even when they know better and what both individuals and leaders can do to reduce risk.

Why do so many people still fall for phishing emails and online scams, even when they know to be cautious?

Awareness alone isn’t enough to avoid phishing emails. Spotting scams depends not just on knowing what to look for, but on paying attention to subtle cues. Research shows that both knowledge and mindfulness when handling emails strongly influence people’s ability to spot phishing attempts.

Under time pressure, mindfulness decreases, making people more vulnerable to scams. Meanwhile, phishing tactics are evolving: Cues that once signaled phishing—like poor formatting, grammar mistakes or generic greetings—are increasingly rare. With generative AI, attackers can now craft sophisticated, targeted phishing emails at scale, leaving most of us less equipped to spot the difference.

What are some of the most common mistakes people make when it comes to passwords and online security?

One of the most common mistakes is failing to enroll in multi-factor authentication (MFA). While it can feel cumbersome and isn't foolproof, MFA is highly effective at strengthening account security by making it much harder for criminals to exploit stolen credentials.

Another frequent error is reusing passwords. Although convenient, reuse is particularly risky because the security of all accounts using the same credentials depends on the weakest link. When passwords are reused, even accounts on platforms with strong security measures can be compromised if attackers obtain credentials from less secure websites. The best way to improve online security is to enable MFA and to use password managers (e.g., Keychain, 1Password) to generate unique passwords for each website.

How have cybercriminals’ tactics evolved, especially as more of our shopping and banking happens online?

Generative AI has enabled cybercrime in three important ways. First, it helps even inexperienced scammers create convincing, error-free phishing emails. Second, it has made large-scale attacks cheaper and faster—what once took hours of manual work can now be done instantly. Third, AI-generated voices and videos allow criminals to impersonate real people on calls or video chats.

Together, these advances mean consumers must stay more alert than ever.

With the holidays approaching, what are the biggest digital threats consumers should watch for when shopping or donating online?

Online retail is particularly prone to scams. We all know the stories about people buying empty boxes, receiving counterfeit goods or never receiving their purchases at all. Scammers take advantage of the convenience of online shopping by creating fake storefronts, offering too-good-to-be-true prices or hijacking legitimate marketplaces to mislead buyers.

The holiday season makes this even worse. High demand and limited stock create urgency that criminals exploit. Consumers should shop with known retailers and marketplaces that provide clear refund or dispute processes.

In terms of the human side of cybersecurity, what does research tell us about how habits and emotions shape our digital safety decisions?

The human factor often gets blamed for cybersecurity failures—and for good reason, since many breaches stem from our own actions. It’s natural to trust too easily, skip updates or password changes, or click too quickly out of hope or fear. These instincts make us human, but they’re also what criminals exploit. Research shows that people who stay mindful and cautious by default are the most resilient to cybercrime.

Are there small, practical steps that make a big difference in protecting personal data—things people can do today without extra software or tech skills?

Be cautious with how you share information online. Avoid sharing sensitive or personal information through unencrypted channels like email or text. If someone asks you to provide documents or information, upload them only through the organization's official website, where appropriate security controls are more likely to be in place.

Never click on links in emails—go directly to the site by typing the address into your browser. When creating passwords, make them long. Each additional character exponentially increases password strength—even increasing from 10 to 12 characters makes a dramatic difference.

For companies or leaders, what role does culture or leadership play in keeping employees vigilant against attacks?

Culture is everything. Leadership sets the tone for cybersecurity. When managers model good security habits and treat data protection as part of doing the job well, employees follow suit.

Our research shows that organizations with strong security cultures are less vulnerable to attacks because people see protecting data as part of their core responsibilities. The opposite is also true—when leaders don’t prioritize security, security measures often fall flat.

Ultimately, a leader’s attitude toward cybersecurity ripples through the entire organization. Top leaders, in particular, set expectations for behavior—not only through communications and policies but also by modeling the right actions themselves. Research shows that when managers take security seriously, their subordinates do too.

If you could correct one major misconception about cybersecurity, what would it be?

The biggest misconception is that cybersecurity is just about technology. It’s not—it’s about strategic choices. No one can be 100% secure, and security requires effort and sacrifices. The real challenge is deciding what to prioritize and what risks you’re willing to live with. That’s as true for companies as it is for all of us at home.

As cybercriminals use generative AI to craft more convincing scams, Leeds School of Business expert Sebastian Schuetz shares tips for protecting yourself.

Traditional

White

How privacy rules meant to protect consumers may hurt small businesses

Katy Hill — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 18:47:13 +0000

How privacy rules meant to protect consumers may hurt small businesses Katy Hill Tue, 10/07/2025 - 12:47

Katy Marquardt Hill

Laws designed to safeguard Americans’ online privacy may come with hidden costs to small businesses, according to new research co-authored by John G. Lynch Jr., a consumer behavior expert at the Leeds School of Business.

John Lynch

While rules modeled on Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, have given people more control over their data, Lynch and his co-authors found that they can also reduce innovation, raise compliance costs and worsen inequities among consumers. The findings arrive as nearly 20 U.S. states have passed comprehensive privacy laws and Congress continues to debate federal standards.

“Privacy protections are important, but we need to recognize the trade-offs,” said Lynch, a Distinguished Professor at Leeds. “When regulations are written without considering how consumers and small firms actually use data, they can end up favoring big business and incumbents and stacking the deck against the little guy.”

These rules don't just affect businesses. They change what products reach consumers. For example, entrepreneurs have used digital targeting to launch products in markets that had previously been ignored—from nonalcoholic beer to specialized beauty products for Black women. Lynch cited Black Travel Box and Athletic Brewing Company as examples of companies that grew by reaching niche customers through personalized ads.

The study, published in August by the Marketing Science Institute, pulls together findings from dozens of research papers on privacy rules worldwide. Among the findings:

Small businesses bear the brunt. After Europe’s GDPR went into effect, smaller firms saw data storage costs rise disproportionately. One analysis found compliance raised costs by more than 20%. Moreover, small firms bear greatly increased costs of marketing and customer acquisition compared to large firms, Lynch said.
Innovation slows. Regulations restricting the use of consumer data have been linked to a decline in new apps, venture capital investment and disruptive products. “Before digital advertising, only companies with massive budgets for TV advertising could reach consumers. Privacy rules risk rolling back the clock,” Lynch said.
Consumers lose personalization and access. Privacy limits make it harder for firms to tailor offerings. That can reduce value for people with niche interests and sometimes exclude marginalized groups from opportunities like credit, jobs or housing. For poorer consumers, the problem is that firms unintentionally exclude them, Lynch said. Companies don’t have enough information to know those customers are likely to buy, so they don’t bother advertising to them, he said.
The benefits tilt to the well-off. Research shows that wealthier, older and more educated consumers value privacy most. By contrast, younger and lower-income consumers often benefit more from data sharing because it gives firms the information they need to serve them better.

One of the key concerns about personalized marketing is that it will lead to discrimination against low income consumers—for example via personalized pricing, Lynch said. “In general, personalized pricing, as in airline pricing, leads to higher prices for those most able to pay: While wealthier passengers may pay more, lower-income consumers can often gain access at a price they can afford through personalized fares,” he said.

Privacy rules that limit targeted advertising, Lynch warned, risk closing off those opportunities for both consumers and small businesses. He argued that the common perception of personalization as predatory misses the bigger picture—that data often helps expand access rather than restrict it.

“It’s not that personalized marketing is ripping off consumers,” Lynch said. “The net effect is you get more coverage of the market, so poorer people can get things they previously either were not offered or couldn’t afford.”

Fairness and privacy

The paper also notes that emerging privacy-enhancing technologies, such as Google’s “Privacy Sandbox,” could balance protections with innovation. But these tools are expensive to adopt, giving large tech firms an edge while smaller companies struggle to keep pace.

Lynch said the key is designing smarter rules. “We don’t have to choose between privacy and innovation,” he said. “But regulators need to weigh unintended consequences so that protecting consumers doesn’t come at the expense of fairness, competition and opportunity.”

Europe is already reconsidering the impact of GDPR as investment and competitiveness lag, Lynch noted. The U.S. has an opportunity to learn from those missteps.

Lynch, who in 2025 received the American Marketing Association’s highest honor for distinguished marketing educators, said he hopes his team’s research will help guide policymakers toward solutions to protect people’s data without stifling the innovation that makes the digital economy thrive.

Aside from Lynch, the study’s researchers include Jean-Pierre Dubé of the University of Chicago; Dirk Bergemann of Yale University; Mert Demirer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Avi Goldfarb of the University of Toronto; Garrett Johnson of Boston University; Anja Lambrecht of London Business School; Tesary Lin of Boston University; Anna Tuchman of Northwestern University; and Catherine Tucker of MIT.

New research finds that laws designed to safeguard personal data can backfire, slowing innovation, raising costs and leaving disadvantaged consumers behind.

Traditional

White

Protect your discoveries before you publish them

Elizabeth Lock — Mon, 29 Sep 2025 17:54:10 +0000

Protect your discoveries before you publish them Elizabeth Lock Mon, 09/29/2025 - 11:54

As a researcher, creator or inventor at ��ɫ��Ƶ, protecting your innovations may be necessary to ensure they reach their full potential, benefiting society while securing recognition and opportunities for you.

Traditional

White

Why we laugh—or lash out—at political jokes

Katy Hill — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 21:07:48 +0000

Why we laugh—or lash out—at political jokes Katy Hill Wed, 09/24/2025 - 15:07

Katy Marquardt Hill

Political humor can amuse, provoke or even spark outrage, as seen in Jimmy Kimmel’s recent suspension.

��ɫ��Ƶ Today spoke with Peter McGraw, director of the Humor Research Lab (HuRL) and a marketing and psychology professor in the Leeds School of Business, about why humor works when it’s threatening yet safe and why political jokes can split audiences between laughter and outrage.

Peter McGraw

How can comedy function as a political tool, and what makes some political jokes more risky than others?

To answer this, it’s important to understand what makes things funny in the first place. My research suggests humor arises when something is both wrong and OK at the same time—a violation that is also seen as benign. Miss one of those ingredients and you get either yawns (all benign, no violation) or outrage (all violation, not benign).

The effectiveness is obvious: We are delighted (and impressed) by people who can create benign violations and make us laugh—no easy task. In political comedy, a joke about events or figures can be used satirically (e.g., to speak truth to power) or to cope with upsetting events. However, the more divisive the topic, the harder it is to thread the needle and create something wrong and OK. Even when a comedian “succeeds” and some people are laughing, others can still be upset—they view the joke as wrong and not OK (all violation, not benign).

Are there patterns in how people respond emotionally to jokes about serious real-world events?

Yes. The common quip, “too soon,” is used when a comedian jokes about a tragedy that has just occurred. It’s harder to appraise a joke as “OK” when it is proximal in time (just happened), physical close (nearby), or social close (happened to us or our in-group). As distance increases—time passes, location is far, victim is a stranger or adversary—the situation is less threatening. Benign appraisals rise and laughter becomes a more likely outcome.

Do political affiliations shape how audiences perceive humor, and if so, how?

Yes. In-group versus out-group effects may be at play. The same line lands differently depending on who says it: When my side makes it, I might grant the benefit of the doubt; when their side makes it, I might hear an attack.

Moreover, research suggests that different political affiliations have different moral weightings, which alter what counts as a “violation” and what can be “benign.” Typically, liberals are more tuned into harm and fairness, whereas conservatives are more focused on loyalty, authority and purity. These are generalities and subject to individual differences, but as far as average group responses, these moral priorities affect what is viewed as wrong versus OK—again creating a situation where the same joke is met with laughter from some and outrage from others.

How does the media environment influence reactions to political comedy?

A 24/7 news cycle and the near-constant stream of social media that the average person consumes exposes more people to jokes that were once only viewed by the audience they were intended for. Their “non-audience” never heard the joke because there was no Twitter.

Political polarization also plays a role. With more people clustered at the extremes (on both left and right), there are simply more people with strongly opposing views. Combined with news that caters to one side or the other (rather than the middle—i.e., moderates), there is much more amplification of controversy than in the past.

What makes comedy build trust versus alienate or polarize audiences?

Intent and vulnerability of the target matter: Is the comedy meant to divide or unite, and who is the “victim” of the joke—someone in power or a true victim? All of this is subjective and interpreted differently depending on the audience.

In short, comedy is difficult to create. Even the best jokes don’t make everyone laugh. A host of factors—setting, intent, political affiliation, identity of the target and distance from the event—conspire to make something more or less funny.

��ɫ��Ƶ Today regularly publishes Q&As with our faculty members weighing in on news topics through the lens of their scholarly expertise and research/creative work. The responses here reflect the knowledge and interpretations of the expert and should not be considered the university position on the issue. All publication content is subject to edits for clarity, brevity and university style guidelines.

Jimmy Kimmel's suspension shows how quickly political humor can spark outrage. ��ɫ��Ƶ professor and humor researcher Peter McGraw explains why some punchlines delight audiences while others trigger backlash.

Traditional

White

How does growing up poor influence financial decision-making? New study sheds light

Katy Hill — Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:11:39 +0000

How does growing up poor influence financial decision-making? New study sheds light Katy Hill Tue, 09/23/2025 - 14:11

Katy Marquardt Hill

Does growing up poor shape the way people make financial choices later in life? A well-known 2011 study argued yes, finding that people who experienced childhood poverty were more likely to take financial risks and chase short-term rewards under conditions of uncertainty and threat. But new research from the Leeds School of Business suggests the reality is more complicated.

In a study published in July in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, former Leeds assistant professor of marketing Joe Gladstone and Leeds Ph.D. students Mallory Decker and Meredith Lehman aimed to replicate the 2011 study with a more representative and robust sample. They found that only part of the original research held up.

Their study showed that people who grew up in lower-income households were somewhat more likely to take financial risks in situations where they may feel threatened. But unlike in the earlier study, they did not consistently prefer short-term over long-term payoffs.

Childhood poverty explained less than 1% of the differences in risk-taking behavior, the researchers found.

“These results, while significant, were so small that it's hard to really say that they would make a meaningful difference to anyone in terms of their decision making,” Decker said.

The new study involved more than 1,000 U.S. adults recruited online, far more than the 71 university students included in the original study. Participants in the new study were about 40 years old on average and represented a wide range of incomes and education levels.

“Our findings show replication is important,” Lehman said. “With a larger and more diverse sample, we saw much smaller effects than the original study. That should cast doubt on whether we should be using small-sample studies as foundational without replicating.”

Mirroring the original study, the new study randomly assigned participants to one of two groups. One read a news-style article describing recent trends toward violence and death in the U.S. The other read a neutral story about someone losing their keys. Afterward, participants completed two decision-making tests: One measured risk-taking by asking them to choose between a guaranteed payout or a gamble for more. The other measured their tendency to favor immediate rewards over larger ones later.

The new study asked about participants’ socioeconomic background in both childhood and adulthood, while the original focused solely on childhood. Questions covered whether families had enough money growing up, how wealthy their neighborhood felt, and how they compared themselves to peers. In the new study, similar questions assessed their current financial circumstances.

A subtler effect than headlines suggest

The new findings suggest that growing up poor does leave a mark on financial behavior in stressful situations—but it is not destiny. “We don’t want people to think they’re doomed to make riskier choices because of their background,” Decker said. “The effect is subtle compared to all the other factors that influence financial behavior.”

That nuance matters, the researchers argue, because small-sample studies can exaggerate the importance of a result. “When you scale up, you often see the effects shrink,” Lehman explained. “That doesn’t mean the original work was wrong—it just means we need to be cautious about applying it too broadly without replication.”

More complex than one theory

The 2011 study was rooted in the Life History Theory, which suggests that people adapt decision-making strategies to their early-life environments. Under that model, growing up in scarcity pushes people toward taking risks and seeking immediate rewards when threats loom.

The new study only partially supported that explanation. Risk-taking did increase slightly for participants from poorer backgrounds when put in a position where they may feel threatened. But the tendency to favor short-term payoffs over long-term gains did not materialize.

Age may play a role: With an average age around 40, the new sample looked different from the group of college students in the earlier study.

“We think age and life stage might matter a lot more than the original framework accounts for,” Decker said. “That’s a question future research should dig into.”

Why replication matters

The study took root in Gladstone’s doctoral seminar on marketing research, which focused on the “replication crisis” in the social sciences. In recent years, psychologists, economists and others have raised concerns that many high-profile findings don’t hold up when repeated with new samples.

As students in Gladstone’s seminar, Lehman and Decker helped select the widely cited 2011 study to focus on. Despite two other subsequent attempts in small samples, no one has been able to replicate those original findings. What started as a class project grew into a multi-year research effort and ultimately, publication.

“Replication is not as incentivized within research. It’s not as flashy as discovering something new,” Lehman said. “But replication is really important for making sure we have a solid foundation for the research and what it really means on a practical level in people's daily lives.”

Research has long linked childhood poverty to financial risk-taking in adulthood. But a new analysis casts doubt on this stereotype.

Traditional

White

Business & Entrepreneurship

Government reopens but economic uncertainty lingers: What consumers should know

Let’s start with the big picture: What is an “economic data blackout,” and what happens when it lifts?

Why should everyday consumers care that these reports were delayed?

How do tariffs factor into that uncertainty?

With the government reopening, what does the broader picture look like for holiday spending?

Could continued uncertainty make consumers rely more on credit?

Now that the shutdown is over, how should consumers and businesses think about the economy?

As the government starts coming back online, what’s the most important data to be watching?

Related Articles

Use AI to shop smarter—not spend more—this holiday season

How is AI influencing the way people shop online this year?

You’ve studied how digital tools shape consumer decision-making. What are some benefits and risks of relying on AI when shopping?

So tools like ChatGPT can actually help with shopping decisions?

Livestream shopping has also exploded lately, especially on TikTok. Why is it catching on?

That sounds like a recipe for impulse buying. What’s your advice for people who get caught up in the moment?

You also study sustainable consumption. How does that connect to these new digital shopping trends?

So what’s your top advice for shoppers this holiday season?

Related Articles

Do gun manufacturers have a duty to prevent violence?

What motivated you to explore the ethical responsibilities of gun manufacturers?

How does your framework differ from traditional risk regulation in the U.S.?

You argue that traditional theories of moral responsibility let companies off the hook. How do the “ethics of precaution” change that?

What would that look like for gun manufacturers?

The gun industry often argues that broader social factors like mental health or poverty are to blame for violence. How do you respond?

What lessons can other industries take from this argument?

What do you hope policymakers and the public take away from your work?

Related Articles

��ɫ��Ƶ drives $5B boost to Colorado's economy

Related Articles

The penny's days are numbered: What the change means for your wallet

Why is the government ending penny production now, and what’s the economic rationale behind it?

What does it mean for consumers when cash transactions are rounded to the nearest five cents?

Are there any historical or international precedents for eliminating low-value coins?

How might this affect low-income consumers or people who rely more on cash?

Could getting rid of the penny impact prices or inflation in any meaningful way?

What are the logistical challenges businesses and banks might face in transitioning to a penniless economy?

Beyond manufacturing cost, are there other arguments for or against keeping the penny—like tradition, symbolism or jobs?

Looking ahead, could this set the stage for phasing out other coins—like the nickel—or accelerating a move toward a cashless economy?

What should we do with the pennies we have at home? Will they become worth more or collectable?

Related Articles

How to outsmart online scammers in the age of AI, according to a cybersecurity expert

Why do so many people still fall for phishing emails and online scams, even when they know to be cautious?

What are some of the most common mistakes people make when it comes to passwords and online security?

How have cybercriminals’ tactics evolved, especially as more of our shopping and banking happens online?

With the holidays approaching, what are the biggest digital threats consumers should watch for when shopping or donating online?

In terms of the human side of cybersecurity, what does research tell us about how habits and emotions shape our digital safety decisions?

Are there small, practical steps that make a big difference in protecting personal data—things people can do today without extra software or tech skills?

For companies or leaders, what role does culture or leadership play in keeping employees vigilant against attacks?

If you could correct one major misconception about cybersecurity, what would it be?

Related Articles

How privacy rules meant to protect consumers may hurt small businesses

Fairness and privacy

Related Articles

Protect your discoveries before you publish them

Related Articles

Why we laugh—or lash out—at political jokes

How can comedy function as a political tool, and what makes some political jokes more risky than others?

Are there patterns in how people respond emotionally to jokes about serious real-world events?

Do political affiliations shape how audiences perceive humor, and if so, how?

How does the media environment influence reactions to political comedy?

What makes comedy build trust versus alienate or polarize audiences?

Related Articles

How does growing up poor influence financial decision-making? New study sheds light

A subtler effect than headlines suggest

More complex than one theory

Why replication matters

Related Articles