-
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing.
http://www.jstor.org
Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach Author(s): David
M. Gardner Source: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Jan.,
1975), pp. 40-46Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250801Accessed: 27-03-2015 03:48
UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015
03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
David M. Gardner
Deception in Advertising:
A Conceptual Approach Deception in advertising needs further
definition and procedures
for measurement-Gardner's conceptual approach offers suggestions
for both.
T HE recent activity of the Federal Trade Com- mission and the
complaints of numerous consumer interest groups have focused great
awareness and interest on deceptive advertising. Unfortunately, it
is not adequate, for either the advertiser or the regulator, merely
to know that deception is wrong. What is needed is, first, a common
understanding of deception that focuses on the consumer. Then,
accepted ways of detecting deception must be devised.
The purpose of this article is to offer a conceptual approach to
understanding and categorizing decep- tion in advertising and to
suggest several research approaches that might aid in the
measurement of deceptive advertising.
What is Deception? The Need for a Definition
Deception in advertising is far from a new con- cern. Claims
made for remedies hundreds of years ago were often so deceitful
that by today's stan- dards they are humorous. While common law
dealt with false advertising, the maxim of caveat emptor was in
full sway for many years. Traditionally, courts have been quite
lenient and have tended to hold that the consumer should have
examined the goods in question more adequately, or that the
advertisements merely represented "matters of opinion" and should
have been treated with skepti- cism.
In 1914 the Federal Trade Commission was formed, and the FTC has
been involved in the regulation of advertising from its very first
com- plaint. Unfortunately, even though the commis- sion has issued
many rulings since 1914, it is not
clear that the FTC, or anyone else, has an adequate
understanding of deceptive advertising that is based on a sound
conceptual model and backed with good research studies. The Federal
Trade Commission has, in general, held that deception exists when
an objectively ascertainable material fact is presented falsely, is
ambiguous, or is mis- leading. Out of these rulings has grown a
body of law that deals with specific situations. This body of law,
however, is the product of case-by-case rul- ings. Therefore, the
law is prescriptive rather than proscriptive. The result is that no
overall definition or classification of deception in advertising
exists. This has become painfully obvious since 1970, as the FTC
has moved in new directions with regard to advertising. The
commission's spectacular lack of success in this area has resulted
in the failure to rule against any major advertiser, with the
possible exception of several consent decrees. This situation is
directly traceable to the lack of a working defini- tion and a
proscriptive classification of deception in advertising.
In the last several years, a number of authors have focused on
specific problems involving false advertising. Dyer and Kuehl1 and
Hunt2 explored aspects of corrective and counter advertising. But
corrective and counter advertising imply that de- ceptive
advertising can be identified. At the Univer- sity of Minnesota,
Haefner studied consumers' understanding of deception." His
analysis indicated a strong correlation between advertisements
that
1. Robert F. Dyer and Philip G. Kuehl, "The Corrective
Advertising Remedy of the FTC: An Experimental Evaluation," JOURNAL
OF MARKETING, Vol. 38 (January 1974), pp. 48-54.
2. H. Keith Hunt, "Effects of Corrective Advertising," Journal
of Advertising Research, Vol. 13 (October 1973), pp. 15-22.
3. James Haefner, "The Perception of Deception in Televi- sion
Advertising: An Exploratory Investigation" (Ph.D. diss., University
of Minnesota, 1972). Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 (January 1975),
pp. 40-46.
40
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015
03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach 41
were "seen" as deceptive and the same advertise- ments being
described as annoying, offensive, and insulting to the
intelligence. Yet, Haefner also found that consumers' perceptions
of deception did not agree with those of FTC attorneys for the same
products.
Recent Definitional Efforts In regulating advertising, the
Federal Trade
Commission has primarily been concerned with "protecting
competition." This has led the FTC to look primarily at advertising
practices that allowed a given competitor to gain business at the
expense of others because of untruthful advertising. As a result,
much effort has been devoted to regulating price claims. Likewise,
considerable attention has been given to fraudulent claims that for
all practical purposes are outright lies. Consequently, the Fed-
eral Trade Commission has often been embroiled in questions of the
number of people who need to be affected for deception to exist and
how intel- ligent a consumer must be to be protected.4
Cohen suggests that the emphasis may switch from "protecting
competition" to "protecting con- sumers," as the Federal Trade
Commission pur- sues the unfairness doctrine as applied to
deceptive advertising.5 However, Cohen fails to point out that this
pursuit most likely will be subject to the same problems as former
approaches, because there has been little concern for incorporating
the consumer into any understanding of deception in advertising.
This is still largely true, inasmuch as most evidence used in
deceptive advertising com- plaints comes from "experts" who testify
based on their special training and experience. These experts
testify as to their expectations of what consumers are likely to
believe. Likewise, other experts testify on the technical aspects
of the product. It is not hard to imagine that "qualified" experts
can be found to support each side of a case. This being so, the
facts of the case often get lost in attempts by both sides to
discredit expert witnesses and to win the case on legal procedures.
Legal practice at- tempts to find "truth" by determining the
asser-
tions and evidence that can withstand cross-ex- amination. Legal
truth, therefore, is different from truth as viewed by the layman
and certainly differ- ent from truth in the scientific method
sense. It should be clearly understood that the lawyer be- lieves
that the adversary relationship is a very satisfactory way to find
"truth." Since inferential research is so easily subject to attack,
many law- yers do not like to use any evidence that is in any way
inferential.6
It should be pointed out that one effort by the Federal Trade
Commission and another by the Food and Drug Administration are
directly related to deception in advertising. Both efforts are
based on the assumption that more information will allow the
consumer to be better informed and, hence, less vulnerable to
incomplete or misleading adver- tising claims.7 First, since 1971
the Federal Trade Commission has asked certain industries to docu-
ment the claims made in their advertisements. Unfortunately,
procedural problems and misunder- standings have to date kept this
strategy from providing the consumer with more information. Second,
the Food and Drug Administration has proposed labeling regulations
that would require extensive nutritional labeling on the package
and certain inclusions in advertising.8 It is hoped that, with this
information, the consumer will be in a better position to evaluate
products on their own merits and not solely on the basis of
advertised claims.
Many consumers think they recognize deception in advertising.
However, their understanding of deception must be translated into
appropriate legal terms and practices if deceptive practices are to
be stopped by legal procedures. The problems of translation are
immense and at least two-fold. First, what is deception? Is a lie
that virtually everyone recognizes as a lie deceptive? Conversely,
is an advertisement that contains no literal lies but that results
in deceptive perceptions deceptive? These are questions of
"deceptive to whom?" Second, can deception be measured? Can people
identify which advertisements are deceptive? There are many other
problems, of course, such as the question of advertising
effectiveness and, in par- ticular, of deceptive advertising
effectiveness. As shown above, past efforts to define and measure
deception suffer from the lack of consideration of how consumers
process and use information avail- able to them in
advertisements.
4. David A. Aaker, "Deceptive Advertising," in Consumer- ism,
2nd ed., David A. Aaker and George S. Day, eds. (New York: Free
Press, 1974), pp. 137-145.
5. Dorothy Cohen, "The Concept of Unfairness as It Relates to
Advertising Legislation," JOURNAL OF MARKETING, Vol. 38 (July
1974), pp. 8-13.
6. Aaker, same reference as footnote 4, pp. 146-150. 7. Aaker,
same reference as footnote 4, p. 154. 8. Warren A. French and Hiram
C. Barksdale, "Food Label-
ing Regulations: Efforts Toward Full Disclosure," JOURNAL OF
MARKETING, Vol. 38 (July 1974), pp. 14-19.
* ABOUT THE AUTHOR. David M. Gardner is associate professor of
business administration at the University of Illinois, Urbana. He
recently served as a consultant to the Federal Trade
Commission.
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015
03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
42 Journal of Marketing, January 1975
A Conceptual Approach to Deception Few writers have attempted to
define deception
in advertising. Of those who have, their attempts fall into two
categories: the act of deceiving by the advertiser, and the
consumer's perception of the advertisement. For instance, Webster
suggests that deception is "the act of misleading through false-
hood and misrepresentation."9 This definition suf- fers, as does
the present legal approach, in one major respect. It focuses on the
act of deceiving by the advertiser, rather than the effect of the
message on the consumer. With this understanding of de- ception,
the likelihood is great that some advertise- ments will be judged
deceptive when, in fact, they are not because they have no
deceptive impact on the consumer. At the same time, other
advertise- ments are judged not deceptive although their impact on
the consumer is deceptive.
Aaker tried to incorporate perception into the definition by
saying that deception is
found when an advertisement is the input into the perceptual
process of some audience and the output of that perceptual process
(a) differs from the reality of the situation and (b) affects
buying behavior to the detriment of the con- sumer.10
What Aaker has not explicitly spelled out is that it is
imperative that any definition of deception in advertising
recognize the interaction of the adver- tisement with the
accumulated beliefs and exper- iences of the consumer. On the other
hand, Aaker's definition is highly commendable because it focuses
on buying behavior, which is something the Federal Trade Commission
has largely ignored.
In an attempt to have a definition that is both operationally
and behaviorally oriented, the fol- lowing is offered:
If an advertisement (or advertising campaign) leaves the
consumer with an impression(s) and/or belief(s) different from what
would nor- mally be expected if the consumer had reason- able
knowledge, and that impression(s) and/or belief(s) is factually
untrue or potentially mis- leading, then deception is said to
exist. Within this definition, three categories of decep-
tion in advertising are proposed. These three cat- egories are
not distinct; they tend to overlap, and all three focus on
deception from the consumer's viewpoint. While the focus is not on
the act of deceiving, it appears that present laws are compat- ible
with this behavioral approach.
Unconscionable Lie To be classified as deceptive in this
category, an
advertisement would make a claim that is com- pletely false. The
key to differentiating this classifi- cation from those that follow
is that the claim could not be true even if properly qualified.
There would be no way for consumers to achieve the claimed
benefits. For instance, a claim that an automotive carburetor
device would increase gasoline mileage to over 50 m.p.g. would be
an unconscionable lie.
Claim-Fact Discrepancy An advertisement would be classified as
decep-
tive in this category if some qualification must be placed upon
the claim for it to be properly under- stood and evaluated. If the
claimed benefits are only available to those consumers who use the
product in a given manner, with proper precau- tions, or if the
consumer can only understand the claim if he knows the exact
information on which it was based, a claim-fact discrepancy exists.
The former is illustrated by dandruff shampoo, which may work as
claimed for people with a certain type of problem, but that problem
is not the predomi- nant dandruff-causing problem. The latter is
illus- trated by claims that three out of five doctors found X. If
the consumer knew what types of doctors, how many were surveyed,
and what questions were asked, he would then be able to evaluate
the claim accurately.
Claim-Belief Interaction Deceptive advertising classified as
"claim-belief
interaction" is that in which an advertisement or advertising
campaign interacts with the accumulat- ed attitudes and beliefs of
the consumer in such a manner as to leave a deceptive belief or
attitude about the product or service being advertised, with- out
making either explicit or implied deceptive claims. For example,
suppose detergent manufac- turers discovered that just putting red
and blue crystals in some detergents resulted in a significant
number of housewives attributing more cleaning power to those
detergents with crystals than those without. Therefore, the simple
statement that Brand X had blue crystals would be deceptive even
though no claims about increased cleaning power were made.
It should be reiterated that the three categories of deception
outlined above are not distinct. There is a good deal of overlap.
For instance, it is hy- pothesized that "claim-belief interaction"
is pres- ent to some extent in all types of deception. And
certainly there is overlap between "unconscionable lie" and
"claim-fact discrepancy" types of decep- tion because, to a certain
extent, they are two points on a continuum.
9. Frederick E. Webster, Jr., Social Aspects of Marketing
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 33.
10. Aaker, same reference as footnote 4, p. 139.
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015
03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach 43
Research Approaches The unconscionable lie type of deception is
not
based on any sophisticated understanding of be- havior, but
rather on the economic assumption that to lie in an advertisement
is anticompetitive and unfair to consumers. Therefore, the
traditional method of seeking out gross lies appears to be
sufficient and appropriate. The investigator works backward from
the advertising claims to determine if there is reasonable evidence
to support the claims. A claim of reduced price can be checked to
see if, in fact, the item has ever been sold at a higher price; or
a watch can be checked to see if it does, indeed, have 21 jewels.
Note that this proce- dure makes no value judgments about whether
the product was a good buy at the supposedly reduced price or
whether the watch was a good buy even though it might not have 21
jewels. Successful prosecution of this type of deception does not
need to prove intent to deceive or even that anybody was in fact
deceived; where a lie is present, only the potential to deceive
need be proved. A Behavioral Hypothesis
The suggested research approaches for both claim-fact
discrepancy and claim-belief interaction types of deception are
based on the assumption that deception of this type involves
consumer atti- tudes. Furthermore, it is assumed that an attitude
toward a product is a function of beliefs about that product and
the evaluations of each belief. A single measure may deal only with
one component; nonetheless, the context is that of consumer atti-
tudes.
A multiattribute attitude model seems appro- priate to serve as
the basis for a detailed study of deception in advertising that
will lead to a mea- sure(s) of deception. This type of model seems
applicable for two reasons. First, based on the works of
Rosenberg11 and Fishbein,12 a multiat- tribute attitude model
suggests that an individual's attitude toward any product or
service can be seen as a function of: (a) the strength or
importance of his beliefs about the product, that is, those beliefs
in his response hierarchy; and (b) the evaluation of those beliefs,
that is, the evaluation of associated responses.
Applying the Rosenberg-Fishbein logic to con- sumers, one finds
that consumers learn to associate
certain product attributes with a given product class and brands
within that class. Furthermore, these product attributes are each
valued on some dimen- sion by individual consumers. For instance,
con- sumers may learn that for men's socks, the at- tributes of
durability, construction, materials, and appearance are highly
relevant. And for each of these attributes, the consumer will learn
a positive or negative evaluation. The sum of these evalua- tions
for relevant (salient) attributes represents the affect associated
with that product. The more posi- tive the affect, the more
positive the attitude toward the product; the more negative the
affect, the more negative the attitude toward the product.
The second reason that a multiattribute attitude model seems
appropriate is that its use offers the potential of being able to
(1) make operational any measure(s) of deception in advertising,
and (2) relate findings to other theories through this well- known
approach.
To apply this logic to consumer deception, it must first be
recognized that most promotional strategies attempt either to
change existing beliefs about a product and brand (i.e., how these
beliefs are evaluated) or to introduce a new belief or make an
existing belief more salient or important. There- fore, it seems
probable that deception can occur in either of two ways:
1. The promotional communication influences the probability that
a particular belief will be associated with an attitude toward a
brand.
2. The promotional communication influences the evaluation of a
particular belief associated with a brand.
For instance, a promotional communication could attempt to
increase the probability that a belief about "low cost" will be
associated with a particular brand. Or the communication could
attempt to increase the positive evaluation of a belief about
"construction." Of course, whether deception is the actual result
depends on several issues. These will be discussed below.
An important assumption of the proposed ap- proaches is the
classification of product attributes into two categories. This is
essential because of the absolute necessity of allowing the
advertiser to introduce attributes and work towards positive
evaluation of those attributes that merely influence affect but add
nothing, otherwise, to factual prod- uct evaluation. Therefore, it
is assumed that there are "functional" and "nonfunctional" product
at- tributes. Functional attributes are those that relate to
design, wear, performance, guaranties, and the like; nonfunctional
attributes relate to style, ap- pearance, and other "nonobjective"
attributes. At-
11. Milton J. Rosenberg, "Cognitive Structure and Atti- tudinal
Affect," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 53
(November 1956), pp. 367-372.
12. Martin Fishbein, "A Behavior Theory Approach to the
Relations Between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude Toward
the Object," in Readings in Attitude Theory and Mea- surement,
Martin Fishbein, ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967), pp.
389-399.
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015
03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
44 Journal of Marketing, January 1975
tributes that have typically been classified as "psy-
chological" or "well-being" could potentially fall into either
classification.
A Plan for Detecting Deception What follows is an attempt to
transfer the logic
presented above into a set of approaches that can be used to
screen advertisements for possible de- ceptive impact on consumers.
At this stage of development, not enough is known about these
approaches to suggest that they can detect decep- tion in
advertising. However, they should be able to spot potential abuses
that can be explored in detail, using behavioral research
procedures that lend themselves to the specific problem at
hand.
All three of the procedures proposed here have as their
foundation the following two assumptions:
a. If a functional attribute has acquired a high probability of
being associated with a specific brand when, in fact, objective
evidence is to the contrary or needs qualification to be true, and
this belief is positively evaluated, then, by either of the
previously mentioned defini- tions, deceptive beliefs exist.
b. If a nonfunctional attribute is viewed by con- sumers as a
functional attribute and positively evaluated, deceptive beliefs
exist.
Normative Belief Technique. This technique is based on the
assumption that there is some "op- timal" set of functional product
attributes for each product class. Optimal is defined as that group
of attributes that is necessary and adequate to define a product
class and would represent the consensus of consumers who were
adequately informed. Ade- quately informed consumers are those who
have had the opportunity to acquire extensive informa- tion about
the product class. A further assumption necessary for this
technique is that there exists an "acceptable" range of
probabilities associated with each attribute. Acceptable is defined
as the range of probabilities for each attribute associated with a
product, arrived at by a consensus of adequately informed
consumers.
The normative belief technique would be made operational in the
following manner. First, product class norms for product attributes
must be estab- lished. This is a delicate process and one filled
with a number of problems. As reflected in a recent paper by Wilkie
and Weinreich, the measurement of salient product attributes is in
a state of flux.13
For this technique, a variety of structured and unstructured
techniques should be used to gather salient product attributes from
a wide variety of product class users. These data would be supple-
mented by data from appropriate experts from the particular product
class under study. The experts would provide a comprehensive range
of attributes free from consumer attitudes and expectations.
Second, research needs to be conducted that will show which
product attributes are functional and which are nonfunctional.
Consumer beliefs and the use of experts would both be appropriate
at this stage.
The third step is to establish acceptable ranges of
probabilities for functional attributes associated with a product,
and acceptable ranges of evalua- tion. The reason for establishing
ranges of evalua- tion will become clear in the next step.
The fourth step is to show advertisements for various brands
within a product class to consumers and have them (a) estimate
probabilities of each attribute being associated with the brand
being advertised, and (b) give their evaluation of each
attribute.
Then, those advertisements that produced pro- bability and
evaluative estimates within the accept- able range for functional
attributes would be deemed nondeceptive. However, it is clear that
standards of sample proportion within acceptable ranges must be
established.
As an example, for the product class hair sham- poo, salient
product attributes might be: cleaning, soft hair, manageability,
nondry scalp, dandruff control, pleasant smell, and conditioning.
Investi- gation of the physical characteristics of the product,
plus interviews with adequately informed con- sumers on how and why
the product is used would serve to determine which of these
attributes are functional. By asking a wide range of adequately
informed consumers how probable it is that this product has each of
the attributes, a point and interval estimate would be computed.
For instance, a likely result would be that the probability of this
product possessing dandruff control falls within the range of .35
and .49 for 95% of the surveyed consumers.
Then, after advertisements for specific brands of hair shampoo
have been shown to a wide range of consumers, the analysis would
consist of looking for those specific brands within the product
class (i.e., hair shampoo) that exceeded the interval estimate.
Those brands that had estimates that fell within or below the
previously determined range (i.e., .49 for dandruff control) would
be deemed nondeceptive. Those that exceeded the interval estimate
would be singled out for further investiga-
13. William L. Wilkie and Rolf P. Weinreich, "Effects of the
Number of Attributes Included in an Attitude Model: More is not
Better" (Institute Paper, Institute for Research in the Behavioral,
Economic and Management Sciences, Krannert Graduate School of
Industrial Administration, Purdue Universi- ty, June 1972).
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015
03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach 45
tion. Extenuating circumstances may result in a given brand
having high estimates on a particular attribute, but the
determination of its deceptive impact would be assessed by further
testing.
In general, an advertisement could be judged deceptive, using
this procedure, for several rea- sons. It could be judged deceptive
because con- sumers rated the probability of a functional at-
tribute being associated with the product as very high when, in
fact, the product had no levels or meaningless levels of that
attribute. Likewise, it could be judged deceptive if functional
product attributes, either individually or collectively, re- ceived
a more positive evaluation than was indicat- ed by product class
norms. This second reason is highly speculative and warrants
rigorous research before it can be advanced as a definite measure
of deception.
Consumer Impression Technique. This technique is based on the
assumption that consumers learn to respond to stimuli in consistent
and predictable ways. They tend to see what prior experiences have
taught them. Therefore, this technique centers on learned consumer
impressions. This is not a so- phisticated technique, but a
practical one that could be implemented after only a short period
of pretest- ing to develop appropriate questionnaires and pro-
cedures. In this approach, consumers would be shown advertisements
and then asked to state (using properly designed and controlled
proce- dures) what they felt the advertisement was tell- ing them.
Some questions would be quite general, others quite specific. The
information gained from consumer reactions would be compared with
the actual fact and claim of the advertisement to deter- mine if
the necessary qualifications were under- stood in such a way as to
make the total adver- tisement either deceptive or not deceptive.
This procedure is roughly similar to that used by many advertisers
to pretest a given advertisement.
For instance, consumers could be shown an advertisement for a
health club. A general question would be to ask what they feel the
advertisement is saying. Then, they would be asked more specific
questions directly related to the advertisement, such as: Will you
become healthier by joining this club? Will your cost be $15.00 or
less per month? Will you have an exercise program tailored specifi-
cally for you?
Expectation Screening Procedure. The third meth- od is based on
the fact that, cognitively, consumers exposed to an advertisement
are engaged in a comparison process. At the minimum, consumers are
comparing what they perceive the advertise- ment to be saying with
(1) expectations of what they anticipate seeing for a given
product, brand,
usage combination; and (2) appropriate evaluative frames of
reference. For instance, most people who see an advertisement for a
television set anticipate certain things about any set; that is, it
has a cabinet, it works, and it has some type of warranty or
guarantee.
The technique for this procedure is simple. First, norms of what
people expect to see for a given product class can be developed by
asking con- sumers what they expect to find when they evalu- ate
that product. It is hypothesized that these norms would all be
functional in nature. However, should they be nonfunctional, they
would be treated with special care.
After norms of expectations are developed, re- sponses to a
given advertisement can be compared with norms for a given product
class. If the re- sponses to a given advertisement are
significantly different from the product class norms, that adver-
tisement should be singled out for a very specific and thorough
investigation. Special effort should be made to determine if the
total advertisement is interacting with the existing belief
structure of consumers in such a way that it produces a decep- tive
impact.
Criteria for Evaluation The three procedures outlined above, and
any
proposed procedures for the determination of de- ception in
advertising, should meet the following criteria:
1. Measurement focused on consumer reaction 2. Allows the
advertiser to be creative 3. Allows the advertiser to use truthful
product
claims 4. Is flexible enough to be adaptable to special
situations in the marketplace The three procedures proposed
above are in-
tended to meet these criteria, but only extensive research will
demonstrate whether, in fact, they do.
Conclusion Decisions about what deceptive advertising is,
and which advertising is deceptive, will be made by public
agencies and the courts with or without research evidence. The
classification of deception in advertising presented here should be
viewed only as a hypothesis that needs testing and verification.
Yet, if agencies such as the Federal Trade Commis- sion and the
Food and Drug Administration are to make informed rulings on cases
involving alleged deceptive advertising, it is in everyone's best
inter- est for them to have research evidence and research
procedures available. It still will be up to the
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015
03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
46 Journal of Marketing, January 1975
agencies and courts to decide what evidence and what research
procedures to use, but at present they have only legal procedures,
so they operate on the basis of "fireside" inductions.14
It is also apparent that as advertisers learn more about
deception, they will learn more about the process by which
consumers process advertising information. This should result not
only in fewer deceptive advertisements, but in more effective
advertising in general. If advertisements were pre- tested for
deceptive impact, a potentially significant side benefit could be
that a number of advertise- ments and campaigns would be found
lacking on other criteria, such as recall and awareness levels,
thereby leading to redesign before expenditure on less efficient
advertisements.
One potential side benefit of the classification used here, and
the use of the normative belief technique, is that it would
encourage advertisers to rely more on "functional" attributes in
their adver- tising and, hence, convey more factual informa- tion.
At the same time, those advertisers whose products lack objective
criteria and, therefore, are best sold by increasing positive
affect would not be penalized.
There are many potential problems associated with the techniques
advanced here. The halo effect problem, carryover from other brands
and other products, and consumer expectations are just a few. Also,
there is one major question that should be raised.
Gardner and Ross1i suggest that any advertise-
ment is going to be deceptive to some consumers because of the
claim-belief interaction process specified earlier. Therefore, a
brand that has been on the market (successfully) for the longest
time compared to others will likely occupy the "reliable" position
in the consumer's frame of reference. The advertiser need only
mention the brand name and a substantial percentage of the audience
may un- derstand the message as, "Here we are again, old reliable
Gerbers, the safest, most nutritious, most reliable baby food your
baby can eat." If that claim were made explicitly, it would be
deceptive. But Gerbers does not have to make that claim; con-
sumers get the message without being told. It is quite possible
that the procedures mentioned here will find such advertising
deceptive in some man- ner. Why should an advertisement that merely
repeats the brand name be judged deceptive? But why should this be
any the less "deceptive," if you go along with the Gerbers example,
than a cam- paign for a new baby food product that explicitly makes
such a claim? No ready solution to this dilemma can be advanced.
However, the dilemma cries out for research.
Finally, the legal question of deception in adver- tising and
the classifications and techniques ad- vanced here largely ignore
the advertising/sales relationship. Certainly, it would be nice to
know the nature of this relationship. It is perfectly clear,
however, that it is logical to assume that those advertisements
that are deceptive will produce more sales for the advertiser than
he would other- wise expect. Until that issue is disproved,
consumer activists and government agencies will continue to be
concerned with deceptive advertising.
Deceptive advertising can be defined and mea- sured. It must be.
But it will require large resources and inputs from many directions
and an open mind on the part of all.
14. Paul E. Meehl, "Law and the Fireside Inductions: Some
Reflections of a Clinical Psychologist," Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 27, No. 4, 1971, pp. 65-100.
15. David M. Gardner and Ivan Ross, "Potential Contribu- tions
of Consumer Psychology to Deceptive Advertising Deter- minations
and Corrective Measures" (Paper presented at the 44th Annual
Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.,
May 3, 1973).
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015
03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Article Contentsp. 40p. 41p. 42p. 43p. 44p. 45p. 46
Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, No. 1
(Jan., 1975), pp. i-xvi+1-128Front Matter [pp. i-xvi]JM Introduces
a New Section [p. 1]The Marketing Researcher as a Decision Maker:
Myth or Reality? [pp. 2-7]Four Subtle Sins in Marketing Research
[pp. 8-15]Newprod: The Design and Implementation of a New Product
Model [pp. 16-23]Marketing Applications of MDS: Assessment and
Outlook [pp. 24-31]Organizational Determinants of the Industrial
Salesman's Role Conflict and Ambiguity [pp. 32-39]Deception in
Advertising: A Conceptual Approach [pp. 40-46]Identifying Buyers of
a Major Automotive Innovation [pp. 47-53]The Role of Trading-Up in
the Development of the Retailing System [pp. 54-62]Marketing Notes
and CommunicationsMarketing Strategy under Conditions of Economic
Scarcity [pp. 63-67]Discovering New Product Opportunities with
Problem Inventory Analysis [pp. 67-70]Role Clarity and the Salesman
[pp. 71-74]The Underestimated Potential of the Canned Sales
Presentation [pp. 75-78]A Cautionary Note on "Difference in
Attribute Importance for Different Industrial Products" [p. 79]A
Reply to "A Cautionary Note on 'Difference in Attribute Importance
for Different Industrial Products' " [p. 80]
Applied MarketingCamouflage Can Be Made to Do Double Work [pp.
81-84]Copy Testing in a Competitive Environment [pp.
84-86]Diagnosis. The Handmaiden of Prediction [pp. 87-89]The
Purchase Intention Question in New Product Development: A Field
Test [pp. 90-92]
Legal Developments in Marketing [pp. 93-104]Marketing Abstracts
[pp. 105-116]Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 117-118]Review:
untitled [p. 118]Review: untitled [pp. 118-119]Review: untitled [p.
119]Review: untitled [p. 120]Review: untitled [pp. 120-121]Review:
untitled [p. 121]Review: untitled [pp. 121-122]Review: untitled [p.
122]
Back Matter [pp. 123-128]