The AI paradox in marketing: Fascination, resistance, and reinvention

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Hayem A. Al Moosa , Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih , Imed Zaiem , Thamer Alzahrani , Eya A. Zouari , Ali Saleh Alshebami , Hussein N.E. Edrees , Amer A. Al-Qutaish
{"title":"The AI paradox in marketing: Fascination, resistance, and reinvention","authors":"Hayem A. Al Moosa ,&nbsp;Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih ,&nbsp;Imed Zaiem ,&nbsp;Thamer Alzahrani ,&nbsp;Eya A. Zouari ,&nbsp;Ali Saleh Alshebami ,&nbsp;Hussein N.E. Edrees ,&nbsp;Amer A. Al-Qutaish","doi":"10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this research explores how marketing professionals perceive AI adoption, examining the paradoxical tensions between technological fascination and professional resistance that challenge traditional TAM assumptions. This study draws on an exploratory qualitative approach involving 24 international marketing professionals (with 3–30 years of experience) from Africa, Europe, the United States, and the Gulf region. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, using purposive sampling, and continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data analysis is based on a thematic content analysis method. Our analysis reveals three paradoxical perceptions (favorable, unfavorable, ambivalent) and identifies a novel five-category benefit taxonomy (technological, organizational, psychological, economic, communicational) alongside six barrier categories, challenging the linear adoption models prevalent in existing literature. The results show that professionals perceive AI primarily as a complementary tool that improves their individual performance while fundamentally transforming their profession. Theoretically, this study extends TAM by incorporating professional resistance and paradoxical adoption patterns, highlighting the limitations of linear acceptance models when applied to AI adoption within creative professional contexts. The study identifies the marketing experts’ perspectives on the future of their profession, the areas with high potential for AI impact, as well as the skills needed to remain relevant in the face of increasing integration of this technology. Practically, our findings provide a framework for managing AI adoption resistance in emerging markets and guidelines for organizations navigating the AI transformation paradox. Managerial implications are formulated to guide marketing professionals in the investment and use of AI, integrating it consistently into their daily practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16678,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity","volume":"11 4","pages":"Article 100629"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2199853125001647","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this research explores how marketing professionals perceive AI adoption, examining the paradoxical tensions between technological fascination and professional resistance that challenge traditional TAM assumptions. This study draws on an exploratory qualitative approach involving 24 international marketing professionals (with 3–30 years of experience) from Africa, Europe, the United States, and the Gulf region. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, using purposive sampling, and continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data analysis is based on a thematic content analysis method. Our analysis reveals three paradoxical perceptions (favorable, unfavorable, ambivalent) and identifies a novel five-category benefit taxonomy (technological, organizational, psychological, economic, communicational) alongside six barrier categories, challenging the linear adoption models prevalent in existing literature. The results show that professionals perceive AI primarily as a complementary tool that improves their individual performance while fundamentally transforming their profession. Theoretically, this study extends TAM by incorporating professional resistance and paradoxical adoption patterns, highlighting the limitations of linear acceptance models when applied to AI adoption within creative professional contexts. The study identifies the marketing experts’ perspectives on the future of their profession, the areas with high potential for AI impact, as well as the skills needed to remain relevant in the face of increasing integration of this technology. Practically, our findings provide a framework for managing AI adoption resistance in emerging markets and guidelines for organizations navigating the AI transformation paradox. Managerial implications are formulated to guide marketing professionals in the investment and use of AI, integrating it consistently into their daily practice.
营销中的人工智能悖论:迷恋、抗拒和重塑
本研究以技术接受模型(TAM)为基础,探讨了营销专业人士如何看待人工智能的采用,考察了技术迷恋与挑战传统TAM假设的专业抵制之间的矛盾紧张关系。本研究采用了一种探索性质的方法,涉及来自非洲、欧洲、美国和海湾地区的24名国际营销专业人士(具有3-30年的经验)。数据收集通过半结构化访谈,使用有目的的抽样,并继续,直到达到理论饱和。数据分析基于主题内容分析方法。我们的分析揭示了三种矛盾的看法(有利、不利、矛盾),并确定了一种新的五类利益分类(技术、组织、心理、经济、沟通)以及六种障碍类别,挑战了现有文献中普遍存在的线性采用模型。结果显示,专业人士认为人工智能主要是一种辅助工具,可以提高他们的个人表现,同时从根本上改变他们的职业。从理论上讲,本研究通过纳入专业阻力和矛盾的采用模式来扩展TAM,突出了线性接受模型在创造性专业背景下应用于人工智能采用时的局限性。该研究确定了营销专家对其职业未来的看法,人工智能影响潜力巨大的领域,以及在人工智能技术日益整合的情况下保持相关性所需的技能。实际上,我们的研究结果为管理新兴市场中人工智能采用阻力提供了一个框架,并为组织导航人工智能转型悖论提供了指导方针。管理意义的制定是为了指导营销专业人员投资和使用人工智能,并将其始终融入他们的日常实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
196
审稿时长
1 day
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信