Business & Entrepreneurship

How privacy rules meant to protect consumers may hurt small businesses

Katy Hill — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 18:47:13 +0000

How privacy rules meant to protect consumers may hurt small businesses Katy Hill Tue, 10/07/2025 - 12:47

Katy Marquardt Hill

Laws designed to safeguard Americans’ online privacy may come with hidden costs to small businesses, according to new research co-authored by John G. Lynch Jr., a consumer behavior expert at the Leeds School of Business.

John Lynch

While rules modeled on Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, have given people more control over their data, Lynch and his co-authors found that they can also reduce innovation, raise compliance costs and worsen inequities among consumers. The findings arrive as nearly 20 U.S. states have passed comprehensive privacy laws and Congress continues to debate federal standards.

“Privacy protections are important, but we need to recognize the trade-offs,” said Lynch, a Distinguished Professor at Leeds. “When regulations are written without considering how consumers and small firms actually use data, they can end up favoring big business and incumbents and stacking the deck against the little guy.”

These rules don't just affect businesses. They change what products reach consumers. For example, entrepreneurs have used digital targeting to launch products in markets that had previously been ignored—from nonalcoholic beer to specialized beauty products for Black women. Lynch cited Black Travel Box and Athletic Brewing Company as examples of companies that grew by reaching niche customers through personalized ads.

The study, published in August by the Marketing Science Institute, pulls together findings from dozens of research papers on privacy rules worldwide. Among the findings:

Small businesses bear the brunt. After Europe’s GDPR went into effect, smaller firms saw data storage costs rise disproportionately. One analysis found compliance raised costs by more than 20%. Moreover, small firms bear greatly increased costs of marketing and customer acquisition compared to large firms, Lynch said.
Innovation slows. Regulations restricting the use of consumer data have been linked to a decline in new apps, venture capital investment and disruptive products. “Before digital advertising, only companies with massive budgets for TV advertising could reach consumers. Privacy rules risk rolling back the clock,” Lynch said.
Consumers lose personalization and access. Privacy limits make it harder for firms to tailor offerings. That can reduce value for people with niche interests and sometimes exclude marginalized groups from opportunities like credit, jobs or housing. For poorer consumers, the problem is that firms unintentionally exclude them, Lynch said. Companies don’t have enough information to know those customers are likely to buy, so they don’t bother advertising to them, he said.
The benefits tilt to the well-off. Research shows that wealthier, older and more educated consumers value privacy most. By contrast, younger and lower-income consumers often benefit more from data sharing because it gives firms the information they need to serve them better.

One of the key concerns about personalized marketing is that it will lead to discrimination against low income consumers—for example via personalized pricing, Lynch said. “In general, personalized pricing, as in airline pricing, leads to higher prices for those most able to pay: While wealthier passengers may pay more, lower-income consumers can often gain access at a price they can afford through personalized fares,” he said.

Privacy rules that limit targeted advertising, Lynch warned, risk closing off those opportunities for both consumers and small businesses. He argued that the common perception of personalization as predatory misses the bigger picture—that data often helps expand access rather than restrict it.

“It’s not that personalized marketing is ripping off consumers,” Lynch said. “The net effect is you get more coverage of the market, so poorer people can get things they previously either were not offered or couldn’t afford.”

Fairness and privacy

The paper also notes that emerging privacy-enhancing technologies, such as Google’s “Privacy Sandbox,” could balance protections with innovation. But these tools are expensive to adopt, giving large tech firms an edge while smaller companies struggle to keep pace.

Lynch said the key is designing smarter rules. “We don’t have to choose between privacy and innovation,” he said. “But regulators need to weigh unintended consequences so that protecting consumers doesn’t come at the expense of fairness, competition and opportunity.”

Europe is already reconsidering the impact of GDPR as investment and competitiveness lag, Lynch noted. The U.S. has an opportunity to learn from those missteps.

Lynch, who in 2025 received the American Marketing Association’s highest honor for distinguished marketing educators, said he hopes his team’s research will help guide policymakers toward solutions to protect people’s data without stifling the innovation that makes the digital economy thrive.

Aside from Lynch, the study’s researchers include Jean-Pierre Dubé of the University of Chicago; Dirk Bergemann of Yale University; Mert Demirer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Avi Goldfarb of the University of Toronto; Garrett Johnson of Boston University; Anja Lambrecht of London Business School; Tesary Lin of Boston University; Anna Tuchman of Northwestern University; and Catherine Tucker of MIT.

New research finds that laws designed to safeguard personal data can backfire, slowing innovation, raising costs and leaving disadvantaged consumers behind.

Traditional

White

Protect your discoveries before you publish them

Elizabeth Lock — Mon, 29 Sep 2025 17:54:10 +0000

Protect your discoveries before you publish them Elizabeth Lock Mon, 09/29/2025 - 11:54

As a researcher, creator or inventor at CU Boulder, protecting your innovations may be necessary to ensure they reach their full potential, benefiting society while securing recognition and opportunities for you.

Traditional

White

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.

CU Boulder 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.

CU Boulder 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. CU Boulder 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

CU Boulder launches new master's degrees in sustainable business, engineering

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

CU Boulder 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 CU Boulder, uniting expertise from business, engineering and the natural sciences to prepare students for the global demand for sustainability jobs. The launch also builds on CU Boulder’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 CU Boulder 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 CU Boulder’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 CU Boulder, 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 CU Boulder’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 CU Boulder 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

CU Boulder spinout Infleqtion going public with $1.8B valuation

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

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

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

Traditional

White

CU Boulder ranked No. 1 in startups based on university discoveries

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

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

CU Boulder 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 CU Boulder 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? CU Boulder 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 CU Boulder’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, CU Boulder 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

Business & Entrepreneurship

How privacy rules meant to protect consumers may hurt small businesses

Fairness and privacy

Related Articles

Protect your discoveries before you publish them

Related Articles

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

CU Boulder launches new master's degrees in sustainable business, engineering

A campus rooted in sustainability

How to apply

Related Articles

CU Boulder spinout Infleqtion going public with $1.8B valuation

Related Articles

CU Boulder 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 CU Boulder’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