Abstract
Sport companies frequently make product claims in advertisements to influence consumer purchase decisions. Sport beverages, in particular, often tout health benefits and performance claims. Unfortunately, some sport beverage claims may be false or misleading, persuading consumers to erroneously purchase products due to incorrect information. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibits any deceptive advertising resulting in a material effect on the consumer. Consumer behaviorists, however, rarely consider the FTC’s guidelines in measuring consumer deception. Therefore, drawing upon consumer behavior theory and the FTC’s guidelines, this paper examines the material effects of deceptive sport beverage advertisements. The authors identify and define three types of materiality: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Employing a within-subjects experimental design, two studies were conducted: print and Facebook. The results reveal both types of deceptive advertisements had positive and statistically significant effects on all three types of materiality. These findings substantiate the determination of a violation by the National Advertising Division (NAD) and support further investigation of deceptive sport beverage advertising and marketing practices by the FTC.
欺骗性运动饮料广告的物质影响的跨学科研究
体育用品公司经常在广告中声明产品主张, 以影响消费者的购买决定。特别是运动饮料, 常常吹嘘健康益处和性能要求。不幸的是, 某些运动饮料声称可能是虚假的或具有误导性的, 由于信息不正确而诱使消费者错误地购买产品。联邦贸易委员会(FTC)禁止对消费者造成重大影响的任何欺骗性广告。但是, 消费者行为主义者很少考虑联邦贸易委员会(FTC)的指导方针来衡量消费者的欺骗行为。 因此, 本文根据消费者行为理论和联邦贸易委员会(FTC)的指导方针, 研究了欺骗性运动饮料广告的实质影响。作者确定并定义了三种类型的重要性:认知, 情感和行为。利用受试者内部实验设计, 进行了两项研究:印刷和Facebook。结果表明, 两种欺骗性广告均对这三种类型的重要性产生了积极的和统计学上的显著影响。这些调查结果证实了国家广告部(NAD)判定违规的事实, 并支持FTC对欺骗性运动饮料广告和营销实践的进一步调查。
Notes
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 The National Advertising Division is a self-regulatory body that can independently review deceptive advertising claims and refer cases to the Federal Trade Commission.
2 Advertisements are deemed deceptive by the NAD and FTC “if there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment” (FTC, Citation1983, pt. I).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Natasha T. Brison
Natasha T. Brison (JD, Ph.D, University of Georgia, U.S) is an assistant professor of Sport Management in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at the College of Education & Human Development, Texas A&M University. Dr. Brison’s research focuses on brand management and the legal aspects of sport marketing such as consumer advertising deception, endorsement regulations, and athlete image rights.
Thomas A. Baker
Thomas A. Baker III (JD, Loyola University New Orleans, Ph.D, University of Florida, U.S) is an associate professor of Sport Management in the Department of Kinesiology at the College of Education, University of Georgia. Dr. Baker’s research primarily focuses on the application of law to sport, and within that focus how commercial laws influence sport marketing, such as legal issues concerning brand image/management and the regulation of marketing through social media.
Kevin K. Byon
Kevin K. Byon (Ph.D, University of Florida, U.S) is an associate professor of Sports Marketing and Management in the Department of Kinesiology in the School of Public Health, Indiana University. Dr. Byon’s research is in the area of sport consumer behavior with an emphasis on psychological and environmental variables affecting consumer behavior within sport marketing and sport tourism.
Nathaniel J. Evans
Nathaniel J. Evans (Ph.D, University of Tennessee, U.S) is an assistant professor in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia. Dr. Evans’ research interests include persuasion knowledge, disclosures, native advertising, advergames, advertising regulation, and children’s advertising.