The marketers in this paper rated ethics their #1 concern — so why does almost nothing in the set materials tell you what to actually do about it?
The module rests its academic weight on one Opinion Paper. Taught plainly, it maps AI marketing onto dynamic capability theory, three capability groups, and six themes — with ethics rated highest. Weighed honestly, it is a modest survey resting on a descriptive theory — and the most examinable rule in the module (APP 1.7, 10 Dec 2026) appears nowhere in it.
The paper ties AI marketing to dynamic capability theory: advantage comes from a firm’s ability to sense change, seize it, and reconfigure around it. It sorts AI capabilities into three groups — analytical, technological, strategic efficiency — and draws out six research themes: customer insights, measuring performance, automated strategies, ethical implications, customer experience, and growth.
The paper points to immersive / AR / XR / metaverse marketing as the next surface (Theme 5) — which is exactly where the set case is silent, so it’s your opening on the 7.5 Q2. And disclosure is becoming law almost everywhere except, for now, Australia:
| Jurisdiction | Rule | From |
|---|---|---|
| China | AI-content labelling in force | Sep 2025 |
| EU + California | EU AI Act Art. 50 · SB 942 — label AI content | Aug 2026 |
| Australia | Privacy Act APP 1.7 — disclose automated decisions | 10 Dec 2026 |
| Australia | No general AI-labelling law yet | — |
APP 1.7 (10 Dec 2026) is the most examinable local date in the module, and it appears nowhere in the set materials. Australia is the current outlier — and the commercial case for disclosure already runs ahead of the legal one.
What theory does the required reading use, what are its three capability groups and six themes, and which theme ranked highest?
What are the methodological limits of the paper, and the better-evidenced alternative theory?
Give the AI-disclosure regulation timeline, and the most examinable Australian date.