Business & Entrepreneurship

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

��ɫ��Ƶ launches new master's degrees in sustainable business, engineering

Katy Hill — Mon, 22 Sep 2025 18:08:20 +0000

��ɫ��Ƶ launches new master's degrees in sustainable business, engineering Katy Hill Mon, 09/22/2025 - 12:08

Katy Marquardt Hill

Beginning fall 2026, students can enroll in the Master of Science in Sustainable Business through the Leeds School of Business and the Master of Science in Sustainable Engineering through the College of Engineering and Applied Science.

The University of Colorado Board of Regents approved the nine-month programs in June 2025. The degrees represent a new model of cross-college collaboration at ��ɫ��Ƶ, uniting expertise from business, engineering and the natural sciences to prepare students for the global demand for sustainability jobs. The launch also builds on ��ɫ��Ƶ’s reputation as a national leader in sustainability education offering graduate students immersive, interdisciplinary programs designed for real-world impact.

“These two new master’s degree programs mark major milestones in our ongoing efforts to respond to student demand by incorporating sustainability—one of our four campus priorities—into our curriculum and preparing them to create lasting positive impacts in their communities,” said ��ɫ��Ƶ Vice Chancellor for Sustainability Andrew Mayock. “Efforts like this to produce the next generation of sustainability leaders complement our holistic campus work in the areas of groundbreaking research, campus operations and campus and public engagement.”

Each program requires 30 credit hours and emphasizes immersive, interdisciplinary learning. Students will gain skills to lead sustainability initiatives in corporate, engineering and policy environments, building on ��ɫ��Ƶ’s decades-long reputation as a global leader in sustainability.

The Master of Science in Sustainable Business gives students the analytical and leadership skills employers are seeking as they navigate the transition to a more sustainable economy, said Vijay Khatri, the Tandean Rustandy Endowed Dean of the Leeds School of Business. “What sets this program apart is the way it brings together expertise across campus to prepare graduates to embed sustainability into business strategy in ways that strengthen organizations and create value for their communities,” Khatri said.

“These new programs prepare students to lead in sustainability and to think critically, communicate effectively and solve complex problems across contexts,” said Daryl Maeda, interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. “At ��ɫ��Ƶ, we’re committed to preparing students with the skills and perspectives they need to thrive in their careers and throughout their lives. These immersive, interdisciplinary programs will empower students to contribute to building a more sustainable world.”

Drawing on faculty innovation and Boulder’s thriving research and entrepreneurship ecosystem, the program is preparing the next generation of sustainability-focused engineers, said Keith Molenaar, dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Colorado.

"The future of our planet depends on how we engineer the systems that power, build and sustain our world,” said Molenaar. “This new program empowers students to lead with purpose—embedding sustainability into every design decision while balancing technical excellence, ecological responsibility, economic resilience and human-centered outcomes.”

A campus rooted in sustainability

Sustainability is one of ��ɫ��Ƶ’s four institutional priorities, and the campus has been recognized nationally for its research, operations and student life. Recent achievements include:

STARS Gold rating for campus sustainability efforts (2025)
Top 15 national ranking for sustainability among U.S. universities (2024)
No. 1 ranking for plant-based dining and sustainability (2025)
Establishment of the Buckley Center for Sustainability Education to lead campus-wide curriculum innovation and student engagement in sustainability (2025)

The new master’s programs build on that tradition, preparing graduates to navigate the fast-changing world of sustainability, from shifting regulations and investor expectations to climate challenges.

“These new master’s programs in sustainable business and sustainable engineering follow a rich vein of similar interdisciplinary programs that have been launched at ��ɫ��Ƶ over the past few years,” said E. Scott Adler, dean of the Graduate School and vice provost for graduate affairs. “I applaud the colleges for coming together to take this innovative approach to train and educate the next generation of sustainability leaders.”

How to apply

Applications for the first cohort of both programs are already open. More information on admissions, program structure and deadlines for the Masters of Science in Sustainable Business is available on the Leeds School of Business website. Information for the Masters of Science in Sustainable Engineering is available on the College of Engineering and Applied Science’s website.

The university is strengthening its role in sustainability education with two new graduate programs to prepare students for the growing demand for sustainability expertise.

Traditional

White

��ɫ��Ƶ spinout Infleqtion going public with $1.8B valuation

Megan Maneval — Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:28:59 +0000

��ɫ��Ƶ spinout Infleqtion going public with $1.8B valuation Megan Maneval Wed, 09/17/2025 - 07:28

Infleqtion, a ��ɫ��Ƶ quantum technology spinout valued at $1.8 billion, has announced a merger to go public, becoming the 10th "unicorn company" out of ��ɫ��Ƶ.

Traditional

White

��ɫ��Ƶ ranked No. 1 in startups based on university discoveries

Elizabeth Lock — Mon, 15 Sep 2025 18:16:16 +0000

��ɫ��Ƶ ranked No. 1 in startups based on university discoveries Elizabeth Lock Mon, 09/15/2025 - 12:16

��ɫ��Ƶ launched 35 startups based on university intellectual property in fiscal year 2024, more than any other U.S. campus that year. The achievement also places ��ɫ��Ƶ at No. 2 for the most startups launched in any single year by a U.S. campus.

Traditional

White

Want to get ahead at work? Learn to be funny

Katy Hill — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 14:02:00 +0000

Want to get ahead at work? Learn to be funny Katy Hill Wed, 09/10/2025 - 08:02

Katy Marquardt Hill

Humor in the workplace has long been seen as a soft skill, useful for breaking the ice or bonding over awkward moments on Zoom. But Tony Kong, professor in the Leeds School of Business, believes it’s far more than that. A leading researcher on workplace humor, he sees it as a powerful leadership tool that could help professionals navigate power dynamics, build trust and even elevate their status on the job.

Tony Kong

“Humor is a life skill. It’s great at a party, and it’s great in a meeting. But it’s not just about being funny. It’s about understanding your audience, your timing and your intent,” said Kong, who also directs Leeds’ Business Leadership Certificate program. “When done right, humor can increase trust, boost creativity, promote emotional well-being and even facilitate conflict resolution.”

An emerging field

Once dismissed as more playful than practical, humor is gaining traction as a serious subject of study in management. Researchers have been exploring its impact—both positive and negative—on leadership, negotiations, team dynamics and workplace culture.

Kong has spent a decade studying humor in professional settings and has published numerous papers on its role in leadership and organizational settings.

“There’s been a surge in research,” said Kong. “People are realizing humor plays an important role in negotiations, leadership, teamwork and culture. It’s also important to people’s health and well-being.”

His latest research proposes a framework for understanding workplace humor that shifts the focus from the content of the joke to the motive behind it. Instead of labeling humor as sarcastic, dry or self-deprecating, he classifies it by purpose: Is the humor meant to build connection, ease tension, impress others or cover up discomfort?

That perspective echoes what leadership coaches have noted—that humor can build inclusion, ease tension and break down hierarchies, but it’s also often misunderstood. Kong’s advice: Think more about how your intent will be received. “One should take the perspective of the audience and think ahead whether and how a joke can convey a constructive motive and thus be appreciated in a given situation,” he said.

Humor is a powerful but risky tool, Kong added, especially in diverse or global workplaces.

“Humor can be inclusive or exclusive,” Kong said. “It can strengthen bonds or reinforce hierarchies. That’s why we need to study it more seriously, especially in diverse and cross-cultural settings.”

10 reasons we tell jokes at work

Researchers classify our reasons for telling jokes into two broad categories: agentic motives, which aim to advance personal goals or influence others, and communal motives, which focus on connecting with people and building relationships.

Agentic motives:

Attack or demean third parties
Attain status
Ingratiate
Motivate
Relay information
Subvert authority

Communal motives:

Alleviate boredom
Build rapport
Seem more approachable
Signal solidarity and inclusion

Intent matters

Kong’s newest research on workplace humor, published online in May in the Journal of Management Studies and co-authored by Cecily D. Cooper of the University of Miami in Florida and Sharon B. Sheridan of Clemson University in South Carolina, draws on six studies and more than 1,000 participants. The goal: to rethink how humor is measured and studied in organizations and to build a stronger foundation for future research. The findings suggest that whether humor helps or harms depends less on the joke itself and more on how it is perceived.

For example, a roast or teasing among colleagues might seem risky on the surface, but when interpreted as communal (for example, relationship-building) rather than self-serving or aggressive, it can build trust. One study cited in the paper found that “putdown humor” among police officers fostered team cohesion when framed as a sign of group belonging.

“Humor is all about how it’s received,” Kong said. “The same joke can land very differently depending on who tells it, who hears it, when and how it’s told, and what the perceived motive is.”

That perception can matter in high-stakes situations, too, like job interviews. A well-placed joke, particularly one that reveals self-awareness, can be disarming and memorable. However, a bad joke or over-use of jokes can undermine one’s credibility and create awkwardness.

“Answering ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ with a bit of humor can work—if it shows authenticity and emotional intelligence,” Kong said.

But humor can also backfire. Kong points to recent research by organizational scholars showing that employees often feel pressured to laugh at a boss’s jokes, regardless of whether they’re funny. That kind of “forced laughter,” Kong says, can contribute to emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction.

A teachable tool

So what does this mean for ambitious professionals? As Kong sees it, humor is a strategic skill worth developing.

He believes business schools—and business leaders—should take humor seriously, as it’s a fundamental element of interpersonal communication and it intersects with power, status, inclusion, creativity, trust, ethics, psychological safety and well-being.

“Business schools have a lot to gain from incorporating humor into their curriculum,” Kong said. “I’ve been exploring and ideating how to teach it through both research-based insights and interactive learning experiences in business schools in different regions of the world.”

Some MBA programs are beginning to explore humor more formally. For example, Stanford’s business school offers a course on humor in business, focused on using levity to build stronger teams and drive innovation.

While the goal isn’t to turn business school students into comedians, Kong said, teaching future leaders to read the room, build genuine and healthy connections with humor, lead with authenticity, and help others enhance emotional well-being can give them a competitive edge in today’s dynamic, fast-changing and stressful workplaces.

Plus, humor can help people laugh together, and leaders should laugh with others. Humor, when used appropriately, can create a more cohesive, egalitarian, and healthy workplace in which people thrive, Kong said lightheartedly, adding: “We take our work seriously, but can we not take ourselves too seriously?”

Organizational leadership expert Tony Kong says humor is a strategic skill that can help you lead, connect and stand out—and his research shows why intent matters more than the punchline.

Traditional

White

AI is headed back to school

Katy Hill — Tue, 26 Aug 2025 02:43:03 +0000

AI is headed back to school Katy Hill Mon, 08/25/2025 - 20:43

Katy Marquardt Hill

Artificial intelligence is everywhere, from Google search results to social media—and now it’s showing up in classrooms. How is AI changing the way students learn in 2025, and what does it mean for teaching? ��ɫ��Ƶ Today spoke with Jeremiah Contreras, associate teaching professor of accounting at the Leeds School of Business, about how AI is being integrated into courses, how students can use it responsibly and what skills will matter most in an AI-driven world.

Jeremiah Contreras

AI was the story of 2023 and 2024. How is it showing up in classrooms as students head back to school in 2025?

In 2025, AI is no longer a novelty—it’s becoming a core part of the educational experience. While students have been using it on their own at increasing rates, at Leeds, every student in our Business Core courses now engage with AI in some form, whether it’s using generative AI to analyze a case study, brainstorming ideas through dialogue with AI, or learning about a topic with a custom learning agent created by faculty. The goal in the classroom is to model effective uses of AI for learning, as opposed to simply having students get answers through these chatbots.

You’ve helped lead a campuswide effort to integrate AI across ��ɫ��Ƶ’s business curriculum. What lessons from higher ed should K–12 educators consider as they face pressure to adopt AI tools?

The biggest lesson is: Start with purpose, not tools. Don’t just add AI because it’s trendy. Decide what problem it’s solving or what skill it’s building. Provide teacher training before expecting classroom adoption, and integrate AI into existing learning goals rather than treating it as an add-on. At the same time, create a supportive space for experimentation: Pilot in a few classrooms, learn from the process, and scale up intentionally.

What are the biggest misconceptions parents, teachers or even students have about using AI in the classroom?

One misconception is that teaching students how to use AI to get answers is the most important aspect. The reality is that AI inherently reduces effort, but learning requires struggle. Students who use it well often work harder, because they’re iterating, fact-checking and refining their thinking. Finally, some believe AI will “replace” teaching, when the most effective uses can actually deepen teacher-student interaction.

How do you teach students not just to use AI, but to use it ethically and critically?

There is a huge difference between learning to use AI and using AI to learn. We not only need to teach students how to use AI (known as AI literacy), but when we embed AI into a course, we should be using the power of AI to ask questions of the student as opposed to simply providing an answer.

This is the magic behind custom learning agents, which are just AI that have been given a task. We give AI the job of walking a student through a learning process. Instead of providing answers to students, it helps them think about a topic and guides them through the learning process. With more complexity, these agents can create entire simulations where students can engage with different characters throughout an assignment.

We should also explicitly address ethics in our AI-related activities, rather than isolating it to one lecture. Students should learn to ask: Where did this data come from? Who benefits? Who might be harmed?

Some educators fear AI will discourage original thinking or be used for shortcuts. What have you seen in practice? Are students getting lazier … or sharper?

When AI is used appropriately, students can actually learn more deeply. We’ve seen them explore ideas in more depth, test different approaches to a problem, and take risks when learning. There is far less fear talking with an AI to explore a topic than talking with a teacher or even a teaching assistant. The problem comes when assignments are purely product-focused, such as grading a paper that could be written with AI in an unchecked environment. When we take the time to assess the process a student goes through and the thinking behind the work, AI becomes a tool for deeper engagement rather than simply a shortcut to an answer.

Colorado recently passed one of the nation’s first comprehensive AI laws. How should schools—K-12 and universities—start preparing for a regulated AI environment?

Schools need to get comfortable with documenting and explaining how AI is used. That means knowing which tools are being deployed, where the data goes, and how decisions are made. This shouldn’t just be about compliance, but rather about building a culture of responsible AI use that can stand up to public scrutiny. If AI is used to assist in any type of assessment, that process must be disclosed and have a way for students to question the process. The Colorado law covers any AI system that affects the “well-being or opportunities” of individuals, which includes grades.

You’ve emphasized that AI should be a helper, not a crutch. What are some concrete ways students can use AI to boost and not bypass their learning?

Students should learn to use AI for brainstorming, cleaning up their outlines, or helping review their writing. It should not be used as a replacement for learning to do those things. There are also very powerful new learning tools in many of the AI products, such as ChatGPT’s “Study and Learn” feature or Gemini’s “Guided Learning” tool. This can help students use AI as a coach for practice problems or to simulate a debate partner that challenges your arguments. And most importantly, use it to get feedback on drafts or ideas, then decide which feedback to keep. AI should expand our thinking, not replace it.

What advice do you have for school administrators or faculty who feel overwhelmed by the pace of AI change and don’t know where to start?

Start now. You can start small or take some big steps forward, but ensure you have an approach that is adding to effective uses of AI in education, not just throwing AI into the mix in an uncoordinated way. Pick one or two use cases that solve real pain points: maybe grading rubrics or re-writing lesson plans. Build a peer learning group so educators can share wins and challenges. The perfect AI plan doesn’t exist; momentum comes from experimenting, reflecting and iterating. It takes having people who are willing to play with the tools and begin experimenting.

Looking ahead, what skills will define the most successful students in this AI-driven world and how can schools help nurture them right now?

The most successful students will be those who can ask better questions, evaluate AI outputs critically and adapt quickly to new tools. Most importantly, they will need strong human skills around collaboration, communication, creativity, ethical reasoning and learning to trust their judgment. Schools can nurture this by making AI a regular part of projects, emphasizing reflection and encouraging students to work on problems with no single right answer.

Leeds professor and AI-in-education expert Jeremiah Contreras explains how classrooms are using artificial intelligence and what the rest of us can learn from it.

Traditional

White

Your next airline ticket could be priced by AI

Katy Hill — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:43:05 +0000

Your next airline ticket could be priced by AI Katy Hill Wed, 08/20/2025 - 09:43

Katy Marquardt Hill

Delta is testing technology that could charge you more (or less) for the same flight based on what it predicts you’re willing to pay. While lawmakers are calling it “pain point pricing” and putting privacy at risk, the airline says it’s not using personal data and that the tool simply helps fine-tune prices the airline would already be adjusting.

Övünç Yılmaz

Experts say Delta’s move marks a major shift and a glimpse of where pricing is headed. To unpack what this means for travelers, ��ɫ��Ƶ Today spoke with Övünç Yılmaz, assistant professor of operations and a pricing expert at the Leeds School of Business. He’s spent years studying revenue management for airlines, hotels and events, and he sees Delta’s latest move as a window into the future—one that is both interesting but may raise questions about fairness, transparency and consumer trust.

What exactly is Delta’s new AI-driven pricing, and how does it differ from the pricing strategies airlines already use?

Airlines have been using dynamic pricing for years to adjust ticket prices in real time based on demand and availability. The price you see can depend on a few key factors, like how early you are booking and how many seats are still available. For example, if a flight from Denver to New York is filling up quickly, the price will probably go up. But if there are still lots of empty seats close to departure, the airline might lower the fare to attract more buyers.

What’s new about Delta’s approach is that they’re using AI to take pricing a step further, potentially tailoring fares to individual customers. There are really two sides to what they’re doing. On one side, they’re using AI to assist the work of human pricing analysts. That feels natural to me, and I expect we’ll see more of this as AI can help humans make faster and better decisions.

On the other side, they could show two people different prices for the same flight, even if they’re searching at the same time, based on things like their previous bookings or browsing history. That’s what we call personalized pricing, and it’s a big shift from how airline pricing has traditionally worked.

Personally, I think it’s a bold move, and we’re going to see a lot of debate around it.

Historically, have we ever seen this kind of highly personalized pricing in airlines or other industries?

We’ve seen some forms of personalized pricing before, especially in e-commerce, but this kind of AI-driven personalized pricing is still new when it comes to airlines. One early case that got a lot of attention was Amazon in the early 2000s. People noticed that different customers were seeing different prices for the same DVD, and it caused immediate backlash. Amazon said it was just a pricing test, but they quickly pulled back.

Since then, companies have been more subtle. Instead of clearly showing different prices to different people, they’ve been using targeted promotions. You can see these everywhere: ride-sharing apps offering special deals to select users and online retailers sending personalized discount codes based on browsing history. These are generally accepted because they’re presented as discounts rather than personalized pricing.

The Federal Trade Commission is currently studying these kinds of practices, which it refers to as surveillance pricing. Its initial findings suggest that the practice is already widespread, with data covering industries from grocery to apparel, among many others.

Does AI-driven personalized pricing risk exploiting consumers or pushing prices to their “pain point”? What protections are in place, and are there potential upsides for travelers?

Hypothetically, if AI could perfectly estimate each customer’s true willingness to pay, it could absolutely be used to extract more revenue. For example, if a flight is normally priced at $100 and AI identifies that one customer is willing to pay $200, it might try to charge them that amount. At the same time, another customer who appears more price-sensitive might be offered a lower fare, like $80, to secure the sale.

Of course, accurately predicting how much someone is willing to pay is extremely difficult. But AI can make educated guesses based on browsing data and online behavior. For example, the first customer might have recently purchased a luxury bag, suggesting a higher willingness to pay. Meanwhile, the second customer may have been comparing prices across multiple airline websites, signaling price sensitivity.

Without knowing the exact details of how Delta’s AI-driven pricing works, it’s hard to say how far they’re going in terms of the information they use. After the initial public backlash, Delta stated, “There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized prices based on personal data.” So, for now, we’ll just have to wait and see how this develops.

What changes do you anticipate in the coming years? Will AI and personalized pricing become even more widespread, or could public backlash or regulatory pressure slow down their adoption?

These days, nearly every click and scroll on the way to a purchase is tracked, so it’s not surprising that companies use that data to inform pricing. Over time, I think people will also get used to it. We’ve already seen this happen with dynamic pricing. What once felt strange or even unfair has gradually become pretty common.

That said, it’s still not well-defined how much data companies should be allowed to use, and what exactly they can use it for. Companies can’t legally discriminate based on protected characteristics, but beyond that, the boundaries are unclear. I think we’ll start seeing more legal and policy discussions around what’s fair, what’s allowed, and where the line should be. But in the meantime, I believe it would benefit everyone if companies are transparent about how they use data in pricing.

Is there anything else consumers should know about these strategies?

Yes—first, there’s Delta’s recent comment about “amazingly favorable unit revenues” from the tests they’ve been running. It might be worth taking a closer look at what’s actually driving those results. Is it simply that AI is doing a better job with dynamic pricing compared to their previous system? Or is some of the lift coming from price personalization? I think that distinction really matters.

Second, consumers tend to get savvier over time, especially if they feel pricing isn't working in their favor. If people start to suspect they’re being charged more based on personal data, they might switch devices, clear cookies or use incognito mode. Some may even move toward companies that feel more transparent. In the long run, trust and clarity can be just as important as short-term revenue, especially in industries like air travel where customer loyalty and lifetime value are critical.

Delta is testing an AI-powered pricing system that could charge two travelers different fares even if they are purchasing at the same moment. Pricing strategy expert Övünç Yılmaz explains what this shift means for consumers—and why we should expect more of it.

Traditional

White

Wanted: Entrepreneurs to launch startups based on ��ɫ��Ƶ innovations

Megan Maneval — Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:07:23 +0000

Wanted: Entrepreneurs to launch startups based on ��ɫ��Ƶ innovations Megan Maneval Fri, 08/15/2025 - 06:07

��ɫ��Ƶ's Embark Deep Tech Startup Creator will hire up to seven Embark Startup Founders to serve as CEOs of new deep tech companies built around technology developed in ��ɫ��Ƶ's world-class research enterprise.

Traditional

White

'Selling anger': How cable news profits from outrage

Katy Hill — Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:38:35 +0000

'Selling anger': How cable news profits from outrage Katy Hill Wed, 07/30/2025 - 10:38

Katy Marquardt Hill

It’s no secret that cable news networks have partisan reputations: Fox News on the right, MSNBC on the left and CNN somewhere in between. But new research shows the divide extends beyond which party a network appears to support. Over the past decade, these networks have increasingly focused on criticizing the opposing political party, a tactic researchers say is less about informing viewers and more about “selling anger.”

“These networks are more interested in talking about the opposing political party rather than their own candidates. This was not the case 15, 20 years ago,” said Diego Garcia, the Burridge Endowed Chair in Finance in the Leeds School of Business and co-author of the working paper.

Diego Garcia

Garcia and his co-authors—Ryan Lewis, associate professor of finance at Leeds, and Maximilian Rohrer, associate professor of finance at the Norwegian School of Economics—analyzed closed-caption data from six major cable news networks between 2012 and 2024, including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg TV, and Fox Business using a form of AI called natural language processing. They tracked which public figures were mentioned, matched those names to Wikipedia data to classify traits like political affiliation, race and gender, and assessed whether the coverage was positive or negative based on the 150 words surrounding each mention.

The findings show that politics dominates cable news, accounting for about 60% of all named individuals mentioned—rising to over 75% during election years. But more revealing is who gets talked about: MSNBC spends more time discussing Republicans than Democrats, while Fox News focuses more heavily on Democrats. In 2024, Fox covered Democrats 60% of the time, with MSNBC showing the reverse.

The trend holds for business channels too. Fox Business mirrors Fox News, with more frequent and more negative coverage of Democrats compared to Republicans, according to the researchers. CNBC and Bloomberg show more balanced and less political coverage overall.

While the study didn’t explore what’s driving the shifts in coverage, Garcia has a theory: “Social media has made it very easy for these media firms to experiment with what sells. And anger is very powerful,” he said. “It seems to work to increase engagement.”

Garcia speculates that cable networks began to test different kinds of content when social media became widespread in the mid-2010s, and discovered that outrage boosts viewership.

“I think Fox was the first one to figure this out, and they started pushing this negative rhetoric in their news,” he said. “They’re actually now the No. 1 cable news channel in the U.S. by far.”

Indeed, Fox News now commands over 60% of the cable news audience—a dramatic jump from a more evenly split landscape a decade ago.

Beyond politics: race, gender, and LGBTQ coverage

The researchers also examined coverage of other identity groups. Women made up just 17% of all people mentioned on cable news—far below their share of the population. Fox News mentioned women more than other networks but focused largely on female politicians (mostly Democrats). CNN gave slightly more attention to women who were not politicians, while MSNBC was more positive in tone toward female political figures.

Black Americans were mentioned in roughly 11% of daily coverage, closely mirroring their share of the U.S. population. But sentiment varied widely: MSNBC was the most positive, especially toward Black people who were not politicians. Fox News, on the other hand, showed significantly more negative sentiment, particularly during moments of racial tension, such as the George Floyd protests.

“LeBron James, Fox News really doesn’t like him at all,” Garcia noted. “If you look at a sentiment score on LeBron, it’s actually very negative on Fox.”

Coverage of LGBTQ individuals was sparse at under 2% overall. CNN and MSNBC offered more frequent and more positive mentions. Fox News provided the least coverage and displayed a consistently negative tone, particularly around issues like Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, which prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools.

Supreme Court justices were rarely mentioned—making up just 0.5% of all people named—but their coverage spiked during key rulings. Fox News significantly reduced coverage of the Court after it agreed to hear the case that eventually overturned Roe v. Wade. CNN and MSNBC, in contrast, increased coverage during that period.

“Fox News is very quiet about the Supreme Court, even though it was big news,” Garcia said.

Tuning out bias

Garcia, who describes himself as socially left-leaning and economically conservative, said the findings changed how he consumes media.

“I force myself to try to listen to different sources because of these very strong biases,” he said.

He believes political coverage should shift away from stoking outrage and emphasize fair coverage of real issues.

“We should be discussing immigration. We should be discussing climate change,” he said. “Not conspiracy theories and trash talk.”

His advice for viewers: Don’t rely solely on your favorite cable station for your news. “If you just go to the source that caters to your confirmation bias, there’s going to be very negative news about the opposing party,” Garcia said. “That’s the business model right now.”

Major networks increasingly focus on criticizing the opposing party–fueling division to boost ratings, according to a 12-year study of TV news.

Traditional

White

Business & Entrepreneurship

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

��ɫ��Ƶ launches new master's degrees in sustainable business, engineering

A campus rooted in sustainability

How to apply

Related Articles

��ɫ��Ƶ spinout Infleqtion going public with $1.8B valuation

Related Articles

��ɫ��Ƶ ranked No. 1 in startups based on university discoveries

Related Articles

Want to get ahead at work? Learn to be funny

An emerging field

Intent matters

A teachable tool

Related Articles

AI is headed back to school

AI was the story of 2023 and 2024. How is it showing up in classrooms as students head back to school in 2025?

You’ve helped lead a campuswide effort to integrate AI across ��ɫ��Ƶ’s business curriculum. What lessons from higher ed should K–12 educators consider as they face pressure to adopt AI tools?

What are the biggest misconceptions parents, teachers or even students have about using AI in the classroom?

How do you teach students not just to use AI, but to use it ethically and critically?

Some educators fear AI will discourage original thinking or be used for shortcuts. What have you seen in practice? Are students getting lazier … or sharper?

Colorado recently passed one of the nation’s first comprehensive AI laws. How should schools—K-12 and universities—start preparing for a regulated AI environment?

You’ve emphasized that AI should be a helper, not a crutch. What are some concrete ways students can use AI to boost and not bypass their learning?

What advice do you have for school administrators or faculty who feel overwhelmed by the pace of AI change and don’t know where to start?

Looking ahead, what skills will define the most successful students in this AI-driven world and how can schools help nurture them right now?

Related Articles

Your next airline ticket could be priced by AI

What exactly is Delta’s new AI-driven pricing, and how does it differ from the pricing strategies airlines already use?

Historically, have we ever seen this kind of highly personalized pricing in airlines or other industries?

Does AI-driven personalized pricing risk exploiting consumers or pushing prices to their “pain point”? What protections are in place, and are there potential upsides for travelers?

What changes do you anticipate in the coming years? Will AI and personalized pricing become even more widespread, or could public backlash or regulatory pressure slow down their adoption?

Is there anything else consumers should know about these strategies?

Related Articles

Wanted: Entrepreneurs to launch startups based on ��ɫ��Ƶ innovations

Related Articles

'Selling anger': How cable news profits from outrage

Beyond politics: race, gender, and LGBTQ coverage

Tuning out bias

Related Articles