Using the informative view of advertising as their theoretical lens, the authors propose that advertising provides information to investors in financial markets, analogous to its role for customers in product markets. The authors extend previous marketing-finance research, which has focused on how advertising affects firms’ risk and returns, and investigate a novel outcome variable, stock price synchronicity. Consistent with their proposed theory, the authors find that firms which advertise more relative to competitors have lower stock price synchronicity, implying that these firms’ stock price movements are driven more by information that is specific to the firm rather than general industry- and market-wide trends. The effect of advertising investments on stock price synchronicity is moderated by the information demand versus supply about firms in financial markets given firms’ product characteristics and ownership structure, and the likelihood of spillover effects between product and financial markets given firms’ marketing strategies. The authors illustrate the relevance of their findings for marketing managers through an event study in which they demonstrate that firms with high stock price synchronicity are “tarred with the same brush” and experience negative abnormal returns when competitors have a product recall, whereas firms with low stock price synchronicity are not affected.

作者使用广告的信息观点作为其理论视角，作者建议广告为金融市场的投资者提供信息，类似于其在产品市场中对客户的作用。作者扩展了先前的市场营销金融研究，该研究侧重于广告如何影响公司的风险和回报，并研究了一个新颖的结果变量，股票价格同步性。与他们提出的理论一致，作者发现相对于竞争对手做更多广告的公司具有较低的股价同步性，这意味着这些公司的股价走势更多地是由该公司的特定信息而非一般的行业和市场信息所驱动。趋势广泛。广告投资对股票价格同步性的影响可以通过考虑到公司产品特征和所有权结构的金融市场中公司的信息需求与供应之间的关系以及给定公司营销策略的产品与金融市场之间溢出效应的可能性来控制。作者通过一项事件研究说明了他们的发现与市场营销经理的相关性，在事件研究中，他们证明了具有高股价同步性的公司被“用相同的笔刷弄脏了”，并且当竞争对手召回产品时经历了负的异常收益，而竞争者的产品召回率却较低。股票价格同步性不受影响。以及在给定公司营销策略的情况下产品与金融市场之间溢出效应的可能性。作者通过一项事件研究说明了他们的发现与市场营销经理的相关性，在事件研究中，他们证明了具有高股价同步性的公司被“用相同的笔刷弄脏了”，并且当竞争对手召回产品时经历了负的异常收益，而竞争者的产品召回率却较低。股票价格同步性不受影响。以及在给定公司营销策略的情况下产品与金融市场之间溢出效应的可能性。作者通过一项事件研究说明了他们的发现与市场营销经理的相关性，在事件研究中，他们证明了具有高股价同步性的公司被“用相同的笔刷弄脏了”，并且当竞争对手召回产品时经历了负的异常收益，而竞争者的产品召回率却较低。股票价格同步性不受影响。