---

name: jm-topic-selection description: Use when choosing or sharpening a research question for the Journal of Marketing (JM) — testing whether it is substantive, managerially/societally relevant, and JM-fit (vs. JMR, Marketing Science, or JCR). Locks the question; it does not build the conceptual logic (jm-theory-development) or frame the contribution (jm-contribution-framing).

Substantive Topic Selection (jm-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• You have a dataset, a phenomenon, or a managerial puzzle but no sharp JM-fit question
• You are unsure whether the idea belongs in JM versus JMR, Marketing Science, or JCR
• A coauthor says "this is interesting" but no one can name who outside academia should care
• Your question feels like "X also matters in setting Y" (a new-context risk)

The JM fit test

JM exists to publish the most impactful, thought-leading substantive research in the marketing discipline — knowledge about real-world marketing questions useful to scholars, educators, managers, policy makers, consumers, and other societal stakeholders. A JM-fit question must clear three bars at once:

1. Substantive importance — it is about a real, consequential marketing phenomenon (a market, a customer, a brand, a channel, a policy, a societal outcome), not a methodological curiosity.
2. New insight — it offers a compelling new understanding, not a replication of existing theory or an application of known findings to a fresh context. JM explicitly rejects "merely applies an existing set of findings to a new context."
3. Dual relevance — it bridges the scholarly and the practical: a manager, policy maker, or society can act differently because of the answer. This is required, not optional.

JM is a "big tent" on data and champions an empirics-first stance: a question can start from a striking real-world phenomenon and let the empirics lead, rather than forcing a theory-first template. This is a legitimate, even encouraged, route into JM.

Sharpen the question

• Name the decision maker and the decision your answer changes (brand manager, CMO, regulator, platform, consumer).
• State the phenomenon in one sentence a practitioner would recognize.
• Identify the outcome that matters (sales, CLV, welfare, equity, trust, well-being) — not just a psychological process.
• Pressure-test novelty: "If a reviewer says 'we already know this, you just changed the setting,' what is my answer?"

Is it JM — or a sibling?

Signal	Likely venue
Substantive marketing insight a manager/policy maker can use	JM
Core contribution is a new method, measure, or model property	JMR
Core contribution is an analytical/structural model	Marketing Science
Core contribution is interdisciplinary consumer-behavior theory	JCR
General-management question, not marketing-specific	Out of scope (management journals)

Worked example: sharpening a dataset into a JM question

Starting point (data-first, unsharpened): "We have loyalty-program transaction data from a grocery chain — does personalization increase spending?"

JM-sharp version: "When does personalized promotion depth build profitable purchase habits versus teach customers to wait for deals — and which segments should a retail CMO exempt from targeting altogether?"

The sharpened question names a genuine tension in customer management, an outcome managers actually track (margin-adjusted customer lifetime value, not clicks), and a concrete decision (whom to target, whom to leave alone). The vague version invites the new-context verdict; the sharp one promises marketing knowledge that ends in a prescription.

Early screening questions

Answer these honestly before investing in design — they mirror how JM's first readers triage:

• Could you brief a CMO or a regulator on this question in ninety seconds and hold their interest without mentioning your data?
• Would the answer genuinely surprise a well-read marketing scholar, or only re-confirm intuition in fresh clothing?
• Does the phenomenon exist at market scale — across categories, customer bases, or platforms — so the evidence can travel beyond one setting?
• Can the big-tent toolkit (experiment, field, survey, secondary, qualitative) plausibly deliver credible evidence within your time and access constraints?

Checklist

• One-sentence substantive question a practitioner recognizes
• Named decision maker + decision the answer changes
• Outcome that matters to managers/policy/society identified
• Novelty defended against the "new-context replication" challenge
• Fit confirmed as JM (not JMR / Marketing Science / JCR / a management journal)
• Data feasibility sketched (big-tent: experiment / field / survey / secondary / qualitative)

Anti-patterns

• New-context replication: "Effect X, already shown, now in industry/country Y."
• Method-first framing: leading with an estimator or model rather than a phenomenon.
• Process-only: a psychological mechanism with no consequential marketing outcome.
• No actionable audience: nobody outside academia changes a decision.

Output format

【Substantive question】[one sentence]
【Decision maker / decision changed】[...]
【Outcome that matters】sales / CLV / welfare / well-being / ...
【Novelty vs. new-context replication】[defense]
【JM fit vs. JMR / Mktg Sci / JCR】fit: [...]
【Empirics-first viable?】yes/no — phenomenon: [...]
【Next step】jm-theory-development