Today’s episode is a special one. It’s a cross-collaboration with Beyond the Degree, the podcast from Haile Graduate Programs — so if you like hearing how executives and researchers actually make decisions, that show belongs in your feed too.

My guest is Dr. Jose Saavedra Torres, my next-door neighbor at Haile College of Business and one of my closest collaborators on campus. Jose studies why we trust the people who sell to us online, and every time you buy something because someone on your phone told you to, you’re making an economic decision without realizing it. That’s what we unpacked on the show.

Here’s the distinction Jose kept coming back to, and it’s the one most people get wrong. Credibility is about knowledge — can I trust this person’s expertise? Authenticity is about honesty — is this person being true to their own values?

Those two things sound similar. They’re not. Marketers have been optimizing for credibility for years. Jose’s research says authenticity is the bigger lever.

The reason authenticity moves people is something called a parasocial relationship — a one-sided bond where you feel like you know someone who has no idea you exist. Jose put it well: Cristiano Ronaldo has 900 million followers who feel like his buddies. He doesn’t know a single one of them.

This changes the actual mechanics of a purchase. Normally you search, compare, then decide. When an influencer you trust recommends something, you skip straight to the decision — your brain already did the research for you, because it thinks that person is your friend. I’ve done this myself. I’ve bought books off a single video, no research, because I trusted the person recommending it. Sometimes it’s great. Sometimes it’s a total miss for my taste. That’s the trade-off of buying on trust instead of evidence.

Jose’s advice for anyone building an audience, or any brand hiring one: authenticity lives or dies on consistency. Pick almost any big influencer — Mr. Beast is his go-to example. If Mr. Beast showed up tomorrow promoting anti-aging skincare, you’d feel the mismatch immediately. There’s no story connecting who he is to what he’s selling, and that gap is exactly what triggers skepticism.

This isn’t just a hunch Jose has from watching his daughters trust an influencer he was skeptical of — though that’s literally how the research started. It’s now a peer-reviewed finding. Jose and his co-authors surveyed 504 consumers and found that influencer authenticity significantly predicts both brand engagement and parasocial relationships, and that the fit between an influencer and the product they’re pushing measurably strengthens that effect.

Banerjee, N., Rawal, M., Saavedra Torres, J. L., & Bagherzadeh, R. (2025). Beyond the Facade: Exploring the Authenticity of Social Media Influencers and Its Influence on Consumer Brand Engagement and Advocacy. Journal of Promotion Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2025.2571948

I think we’ve been asking the wrong question about influencer marketing. Everyone wants to know if an influencer is credible. The better question is whether they’re authentic — because credibility gets you a sale, authenticity gets you a customer for life. Brands chasing follower counts are optimizing for reach. Jose’s research says the money is in fit and honesty, not fame.

• Credibility vs. authenticity: credibility is expertise, authenticity is honesty — they’re not the same thing, and authenticity is the stronger driver of trust.

• Parasocial relationships change the decision process: consumers skip the research phase entirely when they trust the person recommending the product.

• Consistency protects authenticity: the moment an influencer’s endorsement doesn’t match who they are, skepticism kicks in.

• The data backs it up: read the full study — Beyond the Facade: Exploring the Authenticity of Social Media Influencers, Journal of Promotion Management (2025).

Here's what the data doesn't say: saving for retirement at 22 has an opportunity cost. Every $7,500 someone parks in a Roth IRA is $7,500 that isn't going toward tuition, a certification, or the thing that increases their income over the next twenty years. I've watched students skip a semester of school to save money. That is not what I would call financial literacy. We have pushed this generation to be savers at the expense of income potential. After 2008, we spent fifteen years telling people that the average American doesn't understand personal finance. We weren't wrong. But the lesson that we taught didn’t focus on understanding your options; it was to save every dollar, distrust Social Security, and never touch a Roth IRA. Gen Z is doing just that."Gen Z isn't saving optimally for the future. They're responding to fears that they won't have one."We also discussed Oman’s budget and strategy, and Alan Greenspan’s legacy. We ended the podcast with an audience question. Thank you for sharing those. If you have more, leave them in the comments. Subscribe to www.DecodeEcon.com• 00:00 — Is Gen Z saving too much, too early? The opportunity cost nobody talks about • 11:41 — The Roth IRA deep dive: tax advantages, income limits, and why personal finance is personal • 13:30 — The Oman case study: logistics diversification, Dutch disease, and the easy dollar problem • 23:35 — Alan Greenspan: moral hazard, irrational exuberance, and the AI parallel • 32:30 — Audience question

Wednesday's digest flagged the Levi's logo story in two sentences. This week's episode is the full decode — and it's worth watching, not just reading about.

Quick recap of where we left it: FIFA strips every sponsor logo off a host stadium, no exceptions. Levi's got blacked out like everyone else — except their silhouette happened to read like a comic-book bat symbol, someone turned it into a joke online, and Levi's leaned all the way in. Profile picture, and Reels. The post blew up. Their stock hit a two-year high the day after.

What Wednesday's digest didn't have room for: why this actually worked, economically. On the episode, Claire — who runs our Instagram — walks through the marketing mechanics in real time, and I get into why this is brand differentiation doing exactly what it's supposed to do. The value was never in how much logo space Levi's bought. It was in how distinct the moment felt next to every other forgettable sponsor placement. That's what lets a brand extract producer surplus — pull more value out of the market — without spending another marketing dollar to do it. Jack puts it best on the episode: stop measuring ad spend, start measuring ad outcomes.

We also discussed Levi's actual stock price the day after the post went viral, on camera — and the real story behind that number is messier than "marketing stunt moved the stock." That part doesn't read well in a newsletter recap. You kind of have to watch us work through it.

Then we move from the World Cup to the World Cup's other economics story this week (hydration breaks are not about hydration), and close out with our take on Kevin Warsh's first Fed press conference.

00:30 – Welcome Back to Decode Econ (Claire's 2nd Episode)

02:54 – How Levi's Turned a Logo Ban Into a Viral Moment

05:20 – Did It Actually Move Levi's Stock?

07:40 – FIFA's Hydration Breaks: Player Safety or Ad Revenue?

10:05 – For-Profit vs. Nonprofit: Why FIFA Still Maximizes Profit

12:27 – Is the World Cup Becoming Four Quarters?

14:50 – Kevin Warsh's First Fed Press Conference

17:06 – Should the Fed Say Less? Prediction Markets & Transparency

19:25 – Claire on Learning Economics Before Forming Opinions

21:51 – Claire Summer & Team Reflections

22:25 – Takeaways: Be Like FIFA