Enduring consumer beliefs about advertising and mass media: implications for publicity and its impact

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to document conventional wisdom regarding publicity and its purported superiority to advertising, determine whether consumer scepticism of advertising endures, and compare skepticism of media with that of advertising. Across six decades, the four long-running textbooks reviewed herein exhibit striking continuity in their treatment of publicity – within and across editions. They assert that content in media is perceived by consumers to be objective, truthful, and credible because it is interpreted as news or editorial content; consumers trust news and editorial content more than advertising; and publicity is many times more powerful than advertising. Evidence suggests that consumers remain sceptical of advertising, exhibit increasing scepticism with regard to media, and perceive advertising practitioners and journalists as essentially equivalent with respect to honesty. A careful assessment of the efficacy of publicity is warranted as is an ethical evaluation of publicity as a covert marketing activity. These results serve as a reminder that the conventional wisdom conveyed in textbooks is often wrong at worst and lacks refinement at best.

Keywords:

• scepticism
• advertising
• publicity

Acknowledgements

The JELD WEN Foundation and the Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, provided financial support that made this research possible. Kathleen Weldon and her colleagues at the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research; Gary Klein at the Hatfield Library, Willamette University; and Kristy Cassell, Jennifer Hamilton Dale, Suketu Dudhat, and James Timbrell, all graduate students in the Atkinson School, made contributions to the design, execution, and verification of the search protocols reported herein. Herbert Jack Rotfeld provided constructive criticism and valuable insights on an earlier version of this manuscript. Jessica Ordonez made the manuscript easier to read and understand. My thanks to all.

Disclosure statement

The author has no actual or potential conflicts of interest. This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and has not been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Debra Jones Ringold

Debra Jones Ringold (Ph.D., University of Maryland – College Park) is Professor of Marketing, Dean Emeritus of the Atkinson Graduate School of Management, and JELD WEN Professor of Free Enterprise, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon, USA. Her research has appeared in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Macromarketing, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Journal of Consumer Policy, Journal of Public Affairs, Journal of Marketing Management, Psychology and Marketing, American Behavioral Scientist, and Journal of the Association of Consumer Research. Debra, with Janis K. Pappalardo, is a co-recipient of the Thomas C. Kinnear/Journal of Public Policy and Marketing Award for outstanding research. She serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Journal of Advertising, and Journal of Consumer Affairs. Debra was elected to the Board of Directors of the American Marketing Association (AMA) and ended her service as Chairperson of the AMA Board. She has provided survey research expertise to the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Debra has also been employed by, and served as a peer reviewer for, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission as an expert in content analysis and experimental design.