Journal of Marketing 1976
A Reply …
Abstract
Professor Preston's comment is welcome because it allows the restatement of several important pieces of information that I believe are critical to an understanding of deception in advertising. First, however, let me say that the main thrust of my article' was an attempt to define deception in advertising in a way that complements the legal definition used by the Federal Trade Commission. Second, my impressions of the manner in which the Federal Trade Commission used consumer research up through 1973 were based on experience working with its Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation in 1972-1973. Preston singles out three points in his comment. He comments on the approach not being "based on what the law says and on what lawyers do," on the act of deception, and on the use of "direct consumer evidence." My recommended approach to studying deception is quite consistent with the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, Sections 5 and 12 as amended. Unfortunately, Preston, while implying this author's unfamiliarity with what lawyers do, fails to mention that lawyers are often unfamiliar with research. This not only results in its underutilization, but also in its misuse and occasionally in the use of incorrect designs and questions.i That knowledge is also a very important part of
- DOI
- 10.1177/002224297604000311
- Sources
- semanticscholar openalex