Spoofing: social commentary or effective marketing tool? Testing promotion vs. prevention message frames in college students’ fight against obesity

Abstract

Spoofs parody regular advertisements in an attempt to discourage consumers from using or buying certain products. Using regulatory focus theory, the overarching question in this paper was whether spoofs (promotion vs. prevention) act as anti-consumption messages to fight obesity among college students. In Study 1, a repeated measures design was employed where participants were shown the regular ad followed by either spoof, while in Study 2, a between-subjects design was used and participants were exposed to either one of the three ads. Findings from both studies confirmed that spoofing potentially impacts brands, specifically, purchase intentions. Effectiveness of either spoof varies with respect to the presentation order of the ads and levels of anti-commercial consumer rebellion. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

Keywords:

• Spoof advertisements
• parody
• regulatory focus
• anti-commercial consumer rebellion
• obesity
• college students

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015), more than one-third of U.S. adults are obese. The United States is facing an obesity epidemic where being overweight kills more people than being underweight. A considerable body of research has cited fast-food advertising as a culprit, though not necessarily the sole cause, of weight gain (e.g., Lvovich, 2003). Some have even suggested that the mere proximity of fast food restaurants is associated with significant weight gain in ninth graders (e.g., Currie, DellaVigna, Moretti, & Pathania, 2009). One limiting factor is that many of these studies focus either on children or older adults and fail to examine an influential market that is susceptible to obesity: young adults attending college (18–24 years).

Majority of students gain weight during their college tenure and this can begin a trend toward long-term weight gain (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009). According to a Gallup Poll, young adults eat fast food most often compared to other age groups and 57% visited a fast-food restaurant at least weekly (Dugan, 2013). One possible reason is that college campuses are not set up to promote healthy habits (Sparling, 2007). Between 2009 and 2010, statistics from a recent NCHS Data Brief showed that 32.6% of adults (20–39 years old) were obese (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2012). While there are multiple factors that influence obesity, the fact that the obesity rate doubles as a generation enters adulthood raises a red flag.

Young consumers are a lucrative target market with a spending power of $1.3 trillion (McGrath, 2014). College students are primary targets for advertisers and account for billions of dollars of revenue each year (Knutson, 2000). Unsurprisingly, the fast-food industry spends enormous resources on advertising. A recent report from Yale’s Rudd Center found that in 2012 alone, U.S. fast-food restaurants spent a total of $4.6 billion on advertising (Harris et al., 2013). The same report found that McDonald’s poured $972 million into advertising in 2012, outspending all other fast-food chains and spending nearly three times as much as “all fruit, vegetable, bottled water, and milk advertisers combined” (p. vi).

Perhaps paradoxically, the vast amount of fast-food advertising might present health activists with a communication opportunity while posing a potential problem to fast-food brands. Thanks to recent developments in communication technologies, consumers and health activists can easily respond to fast-food marketing messages by parodying or spoofing their advertisements into anti-consumption messages. The overarching question is whether these ad parodies or spoofs actually discourage consumption or simply remind college students of the featured brands and unintentionally promote consumption. Departing from previous theoretical approaches, this study uses self-regulatory focus theory to investigate whether two types of spoofs—one that emphasizes risks (prevention) and one that emphasizes benefits (promotion)—have a negative or a positive influence over college students’ advertising attitudes and purchase intention (PI) for a fast-food brand.

Literature review

Spoof advertisements as ad parodies

Nowadays, why are brands increasingly becoming the focus of consumer activism? Holt (2002) suggests that corporations land in this sort of a marketing dilemma when corporate interests trump consumer rights. More specifically, authenticity is affected, which postmodern consumers seek in their purchases as part of their identity construction. Culture jamming steps in to “attack disjuncture between brand promises and corporate actions” (p. 85). According to Dery (1993), “culture jamming is an act of defiance directed against an even more intrusive, instrumental techno culture whose operant mode is the manufacture of consent through the manipulation of symbols” (para. 19). Jammers labor to not only reveal the corporate strategy to profit at consumers’ expense but to also prevent corporate ideologies from seeping into the consumer psyche (Klein, 2002).

Both academic research and circumstantial evidence indicate that advertisements have the power to influence consumer decision-making, a tendency that social and political activists have come to acknowledge. In response, when spoof advertising (culture jamming tactic) is employed, the advertising message is transformed into commentary about or parody on the product, brand, or even suspect practices of the advertiser (Lasn, 1999).

According to Zinkhan (1994), a parody is “an artistic work that broadly mimics an author’s characteristic style (and holds it up to ridicule)” (p. III). The original work must be easily recognizable to the audience in order to appreciate or deduce the meaning of the parody. According to Vanden Bergh (2003), two types of parody are used in advertising: “parodic ads” use parody for commercial purposes such as selling a product and “ad parodies” use parody to target a brand campaign. Spoof ads fall under the latter by using humor disparagement (Speck, 1991) where humor is used as a “tool for social criticism, censure, and control” (Vanden Bergh, Lee, Quilliam, & Hove, 2011, p. 111). Thus, spoof ads can be defined as fictional ad parodies, typically humorous in nature, that are created by individuals or organizations to discourage consumers from using the targeted brand. Spoof ads appear identical in most respects to their targets, but some aspect of the message (e.g., logo, visuals) is twisted to create a subversive effect.

Though parody has become a prominent form of expression in cultural exchange (Jenkins, 2006), there is a lack of empirical research on ad parodies in academic journals (Berthon & Pitt, 2012; Vanden Bergh et al., 2011), specifically, the potent effects of parody and spoofing toward the targeted brand.

Previous studies on the effects of advertising spoofs have yielded mixed results. Some researchers found that spoofs have little influence on attitudes toward the brand being parodied. Harold (2004) suggested that “pranking” used in spoof advertising does make consumers sit up and take notice but fails to have lasting effects on brand attitudes. Using social media, which has facilitated in creating a “hyperactive” audience, average consumers can now create and upload their own critique of original works (Ortega, 2014; Strangelove, 2010; Williams, 2012). Vanden Bergh et al. (2011) found ad parodies on social media to have no impact on brand attitude; however, they might influence consumer attitude toward the ad parodies themselves and the decision to disseminate them (Vanden Bergh et al., 2011). On the contrary, an analysis of Starbuck’s “doppelgänger” brand image showed that brand avoidance can occur when a trusted brand’s emotional-branding promise is found to be inauthentic (Thompson, Rindfleisch, & Arsel, 2006, p. 50). Jean (2011) showed that exposure to spoof ads is related to negative attitudes toward the parodied brand. Sabri and Michel (2014) found humorous spoofs that make credible claims increased attention and attitude toward the parodied brand, diminished attitude toward the original brand, and had no effect on intention to purchase the original brand again. These effects were observed also among consumers who were highly committed to the parodied brand.

Due to these contradictory findings, the research question considers whether spoof ads work as intended. Furthermore, previous research has explored the impact of simple ad parodies created by brand competitors or by amateurs on social media and not by counterculture organizations such as Adbusters Media Foundation whose sole aim is to oppose prevailing norms. Here, spoofs by Adbusters not only target the brand but also the issue for which the brand is a cause. Considering that these anti-consumption messages are devoid of commercialism, they might be perceived differently, thus, warranting investigation.

RQ:

Will spoof ads by Adbusters lower advertising attitudes (Aad, Ab) and PI for the brand compared to a regular ad?

Framing and regulatory focus theory

Apart from using parody, emphasis should be given to how the spoofed message is presented. As per framing theory, a frame organizes and presents message information to an audience in a way that elicits a specific meaning and further influences the choices people make about processing the information (Goffman, 1974). People react to a particular choice in a different way depending on how it is presented, i.e., as a loss or a gain (Plous, 1993). For example, people tend to avoid risk when a positive or gain frame is presented but seek risks when a negative or loss frame is presented (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

Helping explain the effectiveness of message framing in advertising, regulatory focus theory suggests that individuals fashion their behavior based on a goal focused on promotion (positive outcomes) or prevention (avoid negative outcomes) (Higgins, 1997). Given a promotion-focused goal, individuals strive for advancement and accomplishment and are more tuned to positive emotions related to success. Individuals with a prevention-focused goal will avoid negative outcomes or failure to reach a desired outcome due to non-compliance and are more sensitive to the successful or unsuccessful avoidance of undesired outcomes (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997; Higgins & Tykocinski, 1992). Past research has confirmed that the persuasiveness of advertising messages is enhanced when the self-regulatory focus of the individual and the message were congruent (Evans & Petty, 2003; Kim, 2006).

Past studies have focused only on spoofing’s negative aspect (Jean, 2011; Sabri & Michel, 2014). In their ridicule, spoof ads typically highlight the negative outcomes of consuming specific brands or products. Are these negative frames (prevention) always effective? Telling consumers what is right for them could have a negative effect on their attitudes and behavior and eventually tune them out. On the other hand, can spoofs employ humor disparagement to highlight benefits (promotion) and still subtly function as effective anti-consumption messages? No research to date has examined the impact of message framing on consumer responses to spoof advertising, thus, highlighting the importance of the current study.

Anti-commercial consumer rebellion

In today’s competitive market, the number of ads has increased, and the exploitation of consumers’ psychic spaces has led to skepticism and defiance (Ozanne & Murray, 1995; Rumbo, 2002). Consumers typically hold a negative attitude toward advertising in general due to its social consequences: false or deceptive advertising, materialism, and the impact on cultural values (Pollay & Mittal, 1993). College students in general have low expectations of advertising, distrust advertising due to misleading claims, and strongly believe advertising makes one buy products they don’t need (Beard, 2003).

Considering the activism dimension of spoof ads and the rising skepticism toward advertising, the current study focuses on an individual’s level of “anti-commercial consumer rebellion” (ACR) as a possible independent variable. According to Austin, Plouffe, and Peters (2005), ACR is “consumers’ open and avowed resistance to institutionalized marketing practices” (p. 62). If viewed as a continuum, an extreme example of ACR could be the “Occupy Wall Street” protest movement while a more benign form of ACR would be anti-consumption (Lee, Motion, & Conroy, 2009). Nonetheless, if rebellious strategies such as brand avoidance are practiced by a growing number of consumers, then brand reputation and sales could be damaged. As a construct, ACR consists of four major dimensions: artifice, avoidance, cynicism, and manipulation (Austin et al., 2005); and culture jamming (e.g., spoof advertising) aligns with these underlying tenets. To the best of our knowledge, only one study has examined the impact of ACR in ad parody. Using the rivalry between Apple and SanDisk, Jean (2011) tested an existing parody of the former brand by the latter. Findings showed that college students had a negative attitude toward the parodied brand and that ACR acted as a moderator in this relationship.

Apart from increased message elaboration, past research has indicated that message persuasiveness is heightened when it is negatively rather than positively framed (e.g., Weinberger, Allen, & Dillon, 1981), features salient information (strong rather than weak arguments), and a high level of perceived consequence (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). Considering the consequences of obesity and the current climate of skepticism toward advertising, it could be hypothesized that college students with high levels of ACR may be more sensitive to the health risks involved from consuming fast food and thus, may find a prevention frame more persuasive. Thus, the following hypothesis was posed:

H:

A prevention-focused spoof (vs. promotion-focused spoof) will be more persuasive in lowering Aad, Ab, and PI for individuals who have a high ACR (vs. low ACR).

Method

Stimuli

Fast-food brands have become synonymous with obesity. Targets of the counterculture movement are primarily the most successful brands in the relevant product category (Henthorne, Latour, & Nataraajan, 1993) and “McDonald’s” was selected as the brand of choice. To further assess this selection, a convenience sample of participants (n = 30) was asked about their pre-existing perceptions toward the brand (Lee, Haley, & Yang, 2013). Participants responded to six, five-point bipolar adjective items: Whether the brand McDonald’s is unpleasant/pleasant, unethical/ethical, bad/good, unlikeable/likeable, dishonest/honest, and disrespectful/respectful? Results showed that participants indeed had neutral attitudes toward McDonald’s (M = 2.81, SD = .88). Using the brand McDonald’s, the regular and corresponding spoof ads were created (see Figures 1–3).

Figure 1. Regular ad for McDonald’s.

Figure 2. Spoof ad with promotion focus for McDonald’s.

Figure 3. Spoof ad with prevention focus for McDonald’s.

In order to test whether the ads (regular, promotion, and prevention) were perceived humorous, a convenience sample of students was recruited (n = 79) and each participant was randomly shown one of the three ads. Humor toward the ad (Cline, Altsech, & Kellaris, 2003) was measured using a five-point semantic differential scale with the bipolar adjectives—not humorous/humorous, not funny/funny, not amusing/amusing, and dull/not dull. The scale was found reliable (α = .94). A one-way ANOVA showed significant differences between the groups (F (2, 76) = 16.50, p < .001). Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed that the promotion (M = 3.19) and prevention (M = 3.07) spoofs were more humorous than the regular ad (M = 1.61) (p < .001). No differences were found between the spoofs (p > .05).

Study 1

Sample

A convenience sample of students (N = 306; promotion (n) = 156 and prevention (n) = 150) was recruited from various majors at two large southern universities. The mean age of the participants was 20.39 years and 71.6% were women. The majority of the sample was White or Caucasian (66.3%), followed by African-American (13.7%), Asian or Asian American (9.5%), and Hispanic or Latino (5.6%).

Procedure

Professors of the respective classes distributed the online survey link to student volunteers. The two surveys (promotion and prevention) were randomly distributed so that participants responded to one or the other. Participants in each condition were first exposed to the regular ad for McDonald’s and then answered questions measuring their attitudes and PI. The same participants were then exposed to either the promotion-focused or prevention-focused spoof ads and asked to respond to the same set of measures. The reason to show both the original and corresponding spoof ad was to make sure the participants could deduce the meaning of the parody based on the original (Zinkhan, 1994). Toward the end of the survey, participants were asked to provide their demographic information, along with their full name and student ID for extra-credit purposes.

Variables and measures

Three dependent variables were used to assess the effectiveness of the advertisements. Each variable was measured using semantic differential scales. The variables were Aad (negative, bad, unfavorable vs. positive, good, favorable; Homer & Yoon, 1992), Ab (negative, bad, unfavorable vs. positive, good, favorable; Muehling & Laczniak, 1988), and PI (unlikely, improbable, impossible vs. likely, probable, possible) (Haley & Case, 1979). All scale reliabilities were found to be satisfactory: Aad, regular (α = .82) and spoofs (α = .88); Ab, regular (α = .91) and spoofs (α = .94); and PI, regular (α = .95) and spoofs (α = .95).

ACR was measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) (Austin et al., 2005). The scale consisted of 20 items and an example item included, “I avoid purchasing products from companies that do not respect consumers.” The scale was found reliable (α = .84).

For issue involvement, participants were asked how important the issue of obesity was to them. The six-point semantic differential scale was self-made and consisted of a single item (not at all important vs. extremely important).

Results

Manipulation check

Results from a t-test showed significant differences for gaining health benefits (t (284.15) = 5.36, p < .001); participants in the promotion-focused condition (M = 3.91, SD = 1.07) thought that the spoof ad conveyed ideas about gaining health benefits more so than those in the prevention-focused condition (M = 3.16, SD = 1.35). For avoiding disease risks, significant differences were found (t (256.66) = 9.91, p < .001); participants in the prevention-focused condition found the spoof ad conveyed ideas about avoiding disease risks (M = 4.35, SD = .80) more than the promotion-focused condition (M = 3.11, SD = 1.33).

Main analysis

With a repeated measures design, change scores were calculated by computing the difference between the pre-test and post-test treatments (e.g., Aad_Spoof – Aad_Regular) and for each regression analysis the change score was used as the dependent variable (Dalecki & Willits, 1991). Results were interpreted as follows—an unstandardized coefficient with a positive difference implies that the dependent variable for the spoofs is higher relative to the regular ad, while a negative difference indicates the spoofs were lower relative to the regular ad. Each dependent variable was regressed onto ad type (0—prevention and 1—promotion), ACR (centered), the interaction term (promotion × ACR), and the covariate, issue involvement (centered).

For Aad, significant main effects were found (F (4, 301) = 7.28, p < .001) for ACR (B = .84, SE = .30, p < .01) and issue involvement (B = .32, SE = .08, p < .001). So, for 1 unit increase in ACR and issue involvement, the expected difference between Aad for spoof and regular increased by 0.84 and 0.32 units, respectively, with all other variables held constant. Thus, with increasing ACR and issue involvement, both spoof ads helped generate more favorable attitudes toward the ad relative to the regular ad. For Ab, no significant main or interaction effects were found.

For PI, a significant main and interaction effect was found (F (4, 301) = 1.60, p > .05). ACR had a significant main effect (B = –.48, SE = .20, p < .05), i.e., for 1 unit increase in ACR, the expected difference between PI for spoof and regular decreased by 0.48 units with all other variables held constant. This implies that with increasing ACR, PIs for spoofs were lower relative to the regular ad.

To interpret the interaction effect—promotion × ACR (B = .52, SE = .26, p = .05)—regression equations based on the model are provided below. The indicators (0—prevention and 1—promotion) were used to derive equations (2) and (3).(1) (2) (3)

From (2) and (3), the statistically significant interaction caused the slope for ACR and intercept values to change. Specifically, for the promotion group, 1 unit increase in ACR caused the PI difference to increase by 0.04 units; however, for the prevention group, 1 unit increase in ACR caused the PI difference to decrease by 0.48 units. In other words, as ACR increases, the prevention ad would be more effective in lowering PI; however, as ACR decreases, the promotion ad would be more effective in lowering intentions. Based on the analyses, compared to a regular ad neither spoofs helped lower Aad, Ab, and PI (RQ). However, when considering ACR, the hypothesis for PI alone was supported.

Study 2

To mitigate any possibility of demand characteristics in Study 1, a second study was undertaken with a between-subjects design. Using the same stimuli, the three surveys (i.e., regular, promotion, and prevention conditions) were randomly distributed through Qualtrics and participants responded to one of the three ads. After ad exposure, participants in each condition then answered questions measuring their attitudes, PIs, and ACR. Instead of issue involvement, body mass index (BMI) was measured as a potential covariate.

Pre-test

Using the same stimuli, a pre-test was conducted to test the manipulations. A convenience sample of students (n = 100) was recruited and the ad exposure was randomized. The results from t-tests showed significant differences (t (95.69) = 2.10, p < .05) where participants found the promotion ad to convey ideas about gaining health benefits (M = 3.90, SD = 1.09) more than avoiding disease risks (M = 3.40, SD = 1.28). For the prevention ad, significant differences were found (t (95.23) = 5.15, p < .001); participants found the spoof to convey ideas of avoiding disease risks (M = 4.23, SD = 1.05) more than gaining health benefits (M = 3.02, SD = 1.32).

Sample

A convenience sample of students (N = 242; regular (n) = 78, promotion (n) = 81 and prevention (n) = 83) was recruited and given extra credit for their participation. Pre-test participants were not included in the main study. The mean age of the participants was 20.05 years and 63.6% were women. The majority of the sample was White or Caucasian (69.4%), followed by Asian or Asian American (13.2%), Hispanic or Latino (8.7%), and African-American (5.4%).

Variables and measures

Variables and measures were similar to Study 1 and all scales were reliable—Aad (α = .83), Ab (α = .88), PI (α = .92), ACR (α = .84), and ad humor (α = .93). For BMI, participants were asked to provide their height (cms) and weight (pounds). Using the formula ([weight (kg) / height (cm) / height (cm)] × 10,000), the BMI was calculated.

Results

To ensure that participants found the spoof ads to be humorous, an ANOVA was conducted. Significant differences were found between the groups (F (2, 39) = 22.32, p < .001). Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed that the promotion (M = 2.81) and prevention (M = 2.68) ads were more humorous than the regular ad (M = 1.78) (p < .001). No differences were found between the spoof ads (p > .05).

Effectiveness of ACR on dependent measures by ad type

Multiple regressions were conducted to test the main and interaction effects between ad type and ACR on the dependent measures: Aad, Ab, and PI, while controlling for BMI. Using the procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991), the dependent variables were regressed on ad type (0—regular and 1—promotion and prevention), ACR and BMI (mean-centered), and the respective interaction terms.

For Aad, a significant main effect of the prevention spoof was found (F (6, 233) = 2.43, p < .05). Findings showed that compared to a regular ad, the prevention ad significantly lowered ad attitudes (B = –.41, SE = .17, p < .05). For Ab, no significant main or interaction effects were found.

For PI, significant main and interaction effects were observed (F (6, 233) = 2.28, p < .05). Compared to a regular ad, the promotion spoof helped lower PI (B = –.51, SE = .18, p < .01). Since the interaction term (promotion × ACR) was significant (B = –.77, SE = .39, p = .049), simple slopes were tested for low (–1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of ACR. Findings revealed that compared to the regular ad, the promotion ad reduced PIs at high ACR (B = –.68, SE = .21, p < .01), while no significant differences were observed between both ads at low ACR (B = –.08, SE = .20, p > .05) (see Figure 4). Based on the analyses, compared to a regular ad, a prevention spoof lowered Aad while a promotion spoof lowered PI (RQ). When accounting for ACR, promotion was effective in lowering PI at high ACR only; thus, the hypothesis was not supported.

Figure 4. Interaction effects between ad type and ACR on PI.

Discussion

Overall, the results indicate that spoofing can negatively impact a brand, specifically, by lowering PI. The contribution of the current study is that the effectiveness of promotion and prevention spoofs varies depending on the order in which the ads are presented—(a) regular followed by spoof or (b) spoof alone, and levels of ACR.

In the repeated measures design, for those with high ACR, both spoofs were effective in generating more favorable ad attitudes than a regular ad. Though this contradicts our initial assumption, it can be attributed to the influence of parody in advertising as participants did find both spoofs to be more humorous than the regular. Furthermore, the spoofs were using parody to denounce the brand, making it more appealing for individuals with high ACR. Interestingly, for those with high ACR, a prevention spoof was more effective in lowering PIs. Spoof ads are intended as a social commentary on commercialism and often as its criticism. When resistance toward marketing practices is high, then consumers maybe more willing to evaluate the prevention ad and the risks involved from consuming McDonald’s. In this sense, spoofing did seem to have the effect that the culture jammers assumed. However, as ACR decreases, an inverse effect can be found where a promotion spoof is more effective in lowering PIs.

Individuals with high ACR can be assumed to be prevention focused—they have a more collective consciousness and are concerned about achieving goals that would help “society” progress by avoiding consequences caused by capitalism’s different manifestations. The favorability of the prevention spoof can be attributed to it ultimately aiding in anti-consumption, which supports participants’ predisposition for activism. On the other hand, individuals with low ACR may be promotion focused—less concerned about the “societal” ramifications of capitalism and marketing on areas such as global economics, politics, culture, or the environment (Austin et al., 2005) and instead gravitate toward marketing that enhances the “self.” They may not be concerned about fast-food marketing’s contribution to rising obesity levels, instead, the effectiveness of the spoof maybe due to the greater importance being placed on self-enhancement goals (gain a healthy mind and body, a sense of well-being, and self-esteem) which have individual (vs. societal) relevance.

According to the belief-adjustment model (Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992), when an individual receives mixed information sequentially, then final beliefs and decisions are affected by information received at the end. When being exposed to the regular followed by the spoof, the speculation is that perhaps participants face the influence of two opposing messages. It can be suggested that a “recency” effect has occurred and participants deduced the meaning of the parody based on the original (Zinkhan, 1994) giving more weight to the spoof than the regular, thereby, causing the intended effect.

Demand characteristics may have been at play and participants may have understood the true nature of the experiment. Therefore, a between-subjects design was implemented and findings showed that both spoof ads impacted the outcome variables in different ways. Compared to the regular ad, only a prevention spoof was found to lower ad attitudes. Though humorous, the low favorability may be attributed to the ad’s focus on the risks involved from consuming fast food. However, the effect was not strong enough to carry over to brand attitude and PI. Promotion-focused spoof, emphasizing benefits gained by avoiding McDonald’s, seemed to work on participants’ PIs; this effect was strongly observed with increased ACR.

The general tendencies of culture jammers are to use spoofs that are “painstakingly seamless in their design and savage in their content” (Klein, 2002, p. 295). Based on the “negativity effect,” people tend to give more weight to negative information due to its diagnostic and informational value; thus, negatively framed messages are sometimes favored over positively framed messages (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). However, past research has shown that negatively framed messages can be perceived as inappropriate and unfair (Homer & Batra, 1994; Shiv, Edell, & Payne, 1997). Furthermore, strong arguments regarding perceived risk create discomfort and require greater cognitive effort to process the message (Schimmack, 2005), leading to message resistance (Sherif & Hovland, 1961). In addition to rising skepticism and irritation toward advertising, overtly negative themes, visuals, and copy might impede the effectiveness of spoof ads causing consumers to reject the ad’s message completely. This could explain why spoof advertising by counterculture organizations has not gained traction. Prevention spoofs maybe perceived similar to spoofs in general, thus proving to be ineffective in mitigating health risks. According to the results of Study 2, culture jammers should instead highlight “benefit” rather than “harm,” i.e., balancing humor disparagement with benefits (gain frame) might be a better alternative in curbing intentions to purchase fast food.

Though brand attitudes are not negatively impacted, fast-food brands still need to tread carefully as spoofing can potentially lower product sales. Counterculture organizations such as Adbusters should retain humor disparagement but ACR and regulatory focus needs to be considered in order for spoof frames to be effective. Using ad parodies might be a more novel and benign approach to attracting the attention of college students and promoting desirable attitudes and behavior. On-campus health centers can create standard PSA campaigns for obesity awareness and prevention by using humor in the form of spoofing to make their ads more effective. As per the literature, college students tend to have a high ACR (Beard, 2003), health centers have the option of creating a recency effect by showing students the regular ad for fast food followed by the prevention ad with an emphasis on avoiding negative outcomes, or directly show the promotion ad with a focus on benefits gained by avoiding fast food or eating healthy. To broaden its scope, social marketers who are involved in mitigating different social and health issues can also implement spoofing.

Given that advertising is a major source of revenue for mass media, corporations have asymmetrical control over content and information exchange; as a result, dissenting consumer viewpoints can be suppressed (Herman & Chomsky, 1988; Ozanne & Murray, 1995). However, nowadays, more investment is being made by cause-related organizations, both nonprofit and governmental, with a broader mission of societal amelioration. As a communication strategy, the findings of the current study can help social organizations gain a voice and have greater impact on the causes they support.

When implementing spoofing, care should be taken by social organizations to not cross legal boundaries with respect to trademark and copyright. Spoof ads do bring into play legal issues such as copyright and trademark infringement and dilution, but under the “fair use” doctrine, if the spoof parodies the brand for the sake of comment or criticism of the original and is truly a transformative work, then prohibitive sanctions can be avoided (Johnson & Spilger, 2000).

Limitations and future research

Although this study makes a significant contribution to a less explored area of advertising and counterculture, it has limitations. The population of interest was U.S. college students, and the focus was reducing fast-food consumption in this specific market segment. The study was administered to a convenience sample from two universities in the southern United States, so future studies should consider using a national sample to extend the validity of the findings. In terms of the issue, future studies could explore the impact of promotion and prevention-focused spoof ads on issues other than personal health, for example, environmental degradation. In the ad stimuli, the copy was manipulated to suit regulatory focus and humor disparagement while the visual remained constant. Future research could manipulate the visuals to see whether a humorous combination of promotion or prevention-focused copy and visuals might be more effective than a spoof ad featuring only copy, a spoof ad featuring only visual content, or a control.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Savitha Sidharth, Dr. Lucian Dinu, Dr. Eunjin Kim, Dr. Charles South, and Dr. Alan Elliott, for their invaluable assistance to help improve this paper.