Deceptive Marketing Outcomes: A Model for Marketing Communications
Deceptive marketing is pervasive, and it is fundamentally different from deception in many other contexts. This chapter examines how planned communications and the profit motive drive advertising and marketing deception. It looks at deception’s emergence as a key issue for the marketing disciple, the role of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in shaping a legal definition of deception, categorical ways messages are crafted to mislead, and how material injury to the consumer determines when marketing deception has actually occurred. The chapter examines the idea that outcome, rather than deceptive intent, is crucial to deception in the commercial environment. The discussion concludes with the deceptive marketing outcomes model, which places marketing deception into the broader framework of mainstream theory and research on human deception, and suggests avenues for additional theoretical development.
KeywordsAdvertising Marketing Federal Trade Commission FTC Material injury Outcomes Deception Misleading Puffery
Eric Ortbal deserves substantial credit for his contribution to this chapter’s review and synthesis of the marketing deception literature. Tim Levine provided crucial insight during the development of the DMO model. Tony Docan-Morgan is to be commended for his patience and superb editorial guidance.
- Aaker, D. A. (1974). Deceptive advertising. In D. A. Aaker & G. S. Day (Eds.), Consumerism: Search for the consumer interest (pp. 137–156). New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
- American Marketing Association. (2013). Definition of marketing. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx.
- Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. (1977). 433 U.S. 350.Google Scholar
- Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
- Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (2009). Deception in the marketplace: The psychology of deceptive persuasion and consumer self-protection. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Burgoon, J. K., & Levine, T. R. (2010). Advances in deception detection. In. S. Smith & S. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication (pp. 201–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence, science, and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Dahlen, M., Lange, F., & Smith, T. (2010). Marketing communications: A brand narrative approach. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Dillon, T. (1973). What is deceptive advertising? Journal of Advertising Research, 13(5), 9–12.Google Scholar
- Dyer, R. F., & Kuehl, P. G. (1974). The “corrective advertising” remedy of the FTC: An experimental evaluation. The Journal of Marketing, 38(1), 48–54.Google Scholar
- eMarketer. (2017). Worldwide ad spending: eMarketer’s updated estimates and forecasts for 2016–2021 [Online executive summary]. Retrieved from https://www.emarketer.com/Report/Worldwide-Ad-Spending-eMarketers-Updated-Estimates-Forecast-20162021/2002145.
- Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. (as amended 2006). Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/federal-trade-commission-act.
- Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
- FTC Policy Statement on Deception. (1983). Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm.
- Gardner, D. M., & Ross, I. (1973, May). Potential contributions of consumer psychology to deceptive advertising determinations and corrective measures. Presented at 44th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Godin, S. (2005). All marketers are liars: The power of telling authentic stories in a low-trust world. New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, D. A. (2006). The best puffery article ever. Iowa Law Review, 91, 1395–1448.Google Scholar
- Houser, N., & Kloesel, C. (Eds.). (1992). The essential Peirce: Volume 1: Selected philosophical writings (1867–1893). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications (Working Paper Series, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, No. 06-3). Boston, MA: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.Google Scholar
- Pappalardo, J. K. (1997). The role of consumer research in evaluating deception: An economist’s perspective. Antitrust Law Journal, 65(3), 793–812.Google Scholar
- Petty, R. D. (2014). International advertising law and regulation: A research review and agenda—The devil is in the details. In H. Cheng (Ed.), The handbook of international advertising research (pp. 395–410). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Preston, I. L. (1996). The great American blow-up: Puffery in advertising and selling. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
- Rotfeld, H. J., & Rotzoll, K. B. (1981). Puffery vs. fact claims—Really different? Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 4(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
- Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Serota, K. B. (2014). Marketing, deceptive. In T. R. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (Vol. 2, pp. 643–647). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Serota, K. B., & Levine, T. R. (2013, July). Truth bias and the detection of marketing deception. Presentation at the 35th ISMS Marketing Science Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
- Upshaw, L. (2007). Truth: The new rules for marketing in a skeptical world. New York: AMACOM.Google Scholar