The Defensive Consumer John Milne

10/23/2011 7:18:00 PM Consider these examples: An advertisement for a photo-finishing service displays a well-known brand of filmpaper, but when the photos are ordered, they are actually printed on an inferior brand. A consumer reads an advertisement for a discount offer on computer printers but, on visiting the store, finds that the advertisement failed to mention that the printers were refurbished. A car dealership advertisement claims that a particular vehicle is wellequipped, with lots of options, but consumers who consult automotive magazines discover that it is actually a base model with only standard features. These are all examples of consumer complaints made to the industry regulatory agency Advertising Standards. Summary Deceptive advertising has long been condemned as unethical and harmful to consumers. The article I have read makes a strong case that it is also bad for marketers. In four experiments, the authors show that advertising deception makes consumers defensive toward marketing messages, causing them to distrust advertising in general. Being misled by an advertisement leads consumers to respond negatively not only to further advertising from the same deceptive source but also to advertising from other marketers. These effects are broad in their impact and generalize to advertisers from different geographic regions, different kinds of products, and different types of advertising claims. They are also powerful in that deceptive advertising undermines the effectiveness of subsequent marketing communications, even when the advertised product offers strong benefits or carries a well-known brand. The negative effects of ad deception are also relatively long lasting in the sense that they are observed for additional advertisements encountered 24 hours after the initial deception. The authors find that advertising deception evokes self-protective goals, motivating people to minimize the possibility of being fooled again. This occurs through two distinct processes. First, when exposed to new advertisements from the source that previously deceived them, consumers actively counterargue the advertisers claims (biased systematic processing).

Second, when the new advertisements come from another marketer, deception has previously activated and encouraged negative stereotypes in the consumers mind about advertising in general, which reduces the persuasive impact of subsequent advertisements (biased heuristic processing). The effects observed in this research suggest that deceptive advertising has the potential to be damaging to advertising in general and, by extension, to firms that rely heavily on advertising to sell their products. The findings make it clear that marketers have a powerful self-interest in upholding truth in advertising, not merely out of concern for fairness to consumers but also as a means of preserving the effectiveness of marketing communication as a whole. Reports of deceptive advertising appear to be increasing between 1997 and 2001, Advertising Standards recorded a twofold increase in the number of complaints it received. Such complaints focused on the failure of products to live up to the expectations that the advertisements created Several indicators suggest that consumers are becoming increasingly distrustful of business practices in general and of advertising in particular. The proportion of people who claim to distrust major corporations has more than doubled in the past 30 years. More recently, an Ipsos-Reid opinion poll revealed that a mere 17% of respondents trusted the advertising industry. Only the tobacco industry is less trusted. Advertisers are aware of these dismal facts, and fairly recently have made some efforts to get chummy with the consumer and comment on the silliness of certain deceptions.

10/23/2011 7:18:00 PM

10/23/2011 7:18:00 PM