You're deciding how much weight to put on "the research says" when a team pushes back on a plan. Findings from academic marketing research cut against the instinct that marketing evidence is softer than the established social sciences: pooled across the field, marketing explains about as much of market behavior as pooled reviews of psychology explain of theirs. Evidence strength is uneven across topics, though, so the practical question is which areas to lean on and which to test locally before you bet a decision on them.
Marketing research explains about as much of market behavior as psychology does.
A pooling of 176 marketing meta-analyses across eight subject areas puts marketing's average predictive power on par with, or slightly ahead of, long-established fields like psychology and social psychology. The strength is uneven by topic: pricing and consumer-behavior findings are the strongest, methods and new-product findings the weakest.
Data chart
Evidence strength differs sharply by topic, so leaders should trust pricing and consumer-behavior findings more than methods or new-product findings.
Key takeaway
Pooled across the field, marketing research explains about as much of market behavior as long-established social sciences do.
Source
Eisend, M. (2015). Have we progressed marketing knowledge? A meta-meta-analysis of effect sizes in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0288
Evidence strength: Strong. The study pools 176 marketing meta-analyses (1,841 effect sizes from more than 7,500 primary studies, 1918-2012); it measures how much marketing research as a body of knowledge explains market behavior, not the financial return or ROI of any specific marketing action. The slowdown trend covers growth through 2012 only, with no projection beyond that period.