In-N-Out has a 4.03-star rating. Chick-fil-A sits at 3.36. Adjust for company size, and Chick-fil-A jumps to 4.06.
This week, Elena, Angela and Rob unpack a Journal of Marketing study on why bigger brands get tougher reviews, even when the product is just as good. The researchers credit empathy. People root for small brands. They expect big ones to deliver. Learn how to read a rating that trails a scrappier rival, why word of mouth can't be your whole growth plan and how to match your advertising proof to your size.
Topics covered:
[02:00] In-N-Out vs Chick-fil-A: the ratings gap
[04:00] How personal replies close the gap
[07:00] Reading a rating that trails a rival
[10:00] Why word of mouth isn't a growth plan
[13:00] Matching advertising proof to brand size
[16:00] Penetration over passionate advocates
[18:00] Could AI search bake in the size bias?
To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter.
Resources:
2026 AMA Article: https://www.ama.org/2026/06/01/why-do-small-brands-get-better-reviews-the-hidden-bias-in-word-of-mouth/Journal of Marketing Study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222429251320603 Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
