Industries use persuasion strategies to gain public support when challenged by activist groups on consumer-relevant issues. This marketing practice, termed “direct-to-public persuasion,” has received limited attention in the field, and thus we have little understanding of when such campaigns fail or succeed. This research introduces a theoretically derived and empirically supported framework that draws from multiple areas, including marketing persuasion, political campaign strategy, sociopolitical legitimacy, and perceptual fit, to identify important differences in the effectiveness of these persuasion strategies on attitudes and voting behavior. The multimethod approach includes a field study of ballot measure voting during a national U.S. election and three experimental studies. The findings contribute new knowledge of asymmetries in public response to industry and activist arguments. Stronger arguments from both sides lead to more favorable outcomes, but activist groups benefit most. Suspicion of activist arguments weakens the impact on attitudes and voting; industry argument suspicion has limited impact, though it does increase the likelihood of voter switching. A financial argumentation strategy works best for the industry side, while societal argumentation is more effective for the activist side. The insights offer guidance for industries and activist groups as argument strategy success is contingent on the side that uses it.
American National Election Studies, University of Michigan, and Stanford University (2020), “ANES 2020 Time Series Study,” Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (July 19, 2021), https://electionstudies.org/data-center/2020-time-series-study/.
ArceneauxKevin (2012), “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments,” American Journal of Political Science, 56 (2), 271–85.
4.
AreniCharles S.LutzRichard J. (1988), “The Role of Argument Quality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, HoustonMichael J., ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 197–202.
5.
BagozziRichard P.YiYoujae (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74–94.
6.
BaumgartnerFrank R.BerryJeffrey M.HojnackiMarieLeechBeth L.KimballDavid C. (2009), Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BaurDorotheaPalazzoGuido (2011), “The Moral Legitimacy of NGOs as Partners of Corporations,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 21 (4), 579–604.
8.
BerryJeffrey M.WilcoxClyde (2018), The Interest Group Society, 6th ed. New York: Routledge.
9.
BitektineAlex (2011), “Toward a Theory of Social Judgments of Organizations: The Case of Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status,” Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 151–79.
10.
BoltanskiLucThévenotLaurent (2006), On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
BursteinPaul (2003), “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda,” Political Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 29–40.
12.
California Secretary of State (2016), Official Voter Information Guide. Sacramento: California Secretary of State Elections Division.
13.
CampbellMargaret C.KirmaniAmna (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69–83.
14.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N. (2010), “Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time,” American Political Science Review, 104 (4), 663–80.
15.
CohenJoshua (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge Academic.
16.
DarkePeter R.RitchieRobin B. (2007), “The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (1), 114–27.
17.
DruckmanJames N.FeinJordanLeeperThomas J. (2012), “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability,” American Political Science Review, 106 (2), 430–54.
18.
DruckmanJames N.PetersonErikSlothuusRune (2013), “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation,” American Political Science Review, 107 (1), 57–79.
19.
DrutmanLee (2015), The Business of America Is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
DunnWilliam N. (2012), Public Policy Analysis, 5th ed. London: Routledge.
21.
EesleyCharlesDeCellesKatherine A.LenoxMichael (2016), “Through the Mud or in the Boardroom: Examining Activist Types and Their Strategies in Targeting Firms for Social Change,” Strategic Management Journal, 37 (12), 2425–440.
22.
ForehandMark R.GrierSonya (2003), “When Is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 349–56.
23.
FornellClaesLarckerDavid F. (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50.
24.
FransenMarieke L.SmitEdith G.VerleghPeeter W.J. (2015), “Strategies and Motives for Resistance to Persuasion: An Integrative Framework,” Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1201.
GordonBrett R.LovettMitchell J.ShacharRonArceneauxKevinMoorthySridharPeressMichael, et al. (2012), “Marketing and Politics: Models, Behavior, and Policy Implications,” Marketing Letters, 23 (2), 391–403.
28.
GreeneWilliam H. (2003), Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
HayesAndrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression Based Approach, 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press.
30.
HeckmanJames J. (1979), “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error,” Econometrica, 47 (1), 153–61.
31.
HiattShon R.GrandyJake B.LeeBrandon H. (2015), “Organizational Responses to Public and Private Politics: An Analysis of Climate Change Activists and U.S. Oil and Gas Firms,” Organization Science, 26 (6), 1769–86.
32.
HumphreysAshlee (2010), “Megamarketing: The Creation of Markets as a Social Process,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (2), 1–19.
IsaacMathew S.GraysonKent (2017), “Beyond Skepticism: Can Accessing Persuasion Knowledge Bolster Credibility?” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 895–912.
35.
JungMinah H.CritcherClayton R. (2018), “How Encouraging Niceness Can Incentivize Nastiness: An Unintended Consequence of Advertising Reform,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (1), 147–61.
36.
KeesJeremyFitzgeraldPaulaDorseyJoshua D.HillRonald Paul (2020), “Evidence-Based Cannabis Policy: A Framework to Guide Marketing and Public Policy Research,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39 (1), 76–92.
37.
KirmaniAmnaCampbellMargaret C. (2009), “Taking the Target’s Perspective: The Persuasion Knowledge Model,” Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, 297–316.
38.
KleinJill G.AhluwaliaRohini (2005), “Negativity in the Evaluation of Political Candidates,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (1), 131–42.
39.
KleinJill GabrielleCraig SmithN.JohnAndrew (2004), “Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (3), 92–109.
40.
LaminAnnaZaheerSrilata (2012), “Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm Strategies for Defending Legitimacy and Their Impact on Different Stakeholders,” Organization Science, 23 (1), 47–66.
41.
LindellMichael K.WhitneyDavid J. (2001), “Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114–21.
42.
MaiselL. SandyBerryJeffrey M. (2010), “The State of Research on Political Parties and Interest Groups,” in The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, Sandy MaiselL.BerryJeffrey M., eds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 3–18.
43.
MartinKelly D.JosephsonBrett W.VadakkepattGautham G.JohnsonJean L. (2018), “Political Management, Research and Development, and Advertising Capital in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Good Prognosis?” Journal of Marketing, 82 (3), 87–107.
44.
McFaddenBrandon R.LuskJayson L. (2013), “Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 38 (2), 174–86.
45.
McKinsey and Company (2021), “The Next Normal Arrives: Trends that will Define 2021 – and Beyond,” in McKinsey Global Publishing. New York: McKinsey & Co.
46.
Meyers-LevyJoanMalaviyaPrashant (1999), “Consumers’ Processing of Persuasive Advertisements: An Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (4_suppl1), 45–60.
ObermillerCarlSpangenbergEricMacLachlanDouglas L. (2005), “Ad Skepticism: The Consequences of Disbelief,” Journal of Advertising, 34 (3), 7–17.
49.
Pew Research Center (2019), “Views of the Economic System and Social Safety Net,” in American Trends Panel Wave 53. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.
50.
PhillipsJoan M.UrbanyJoel E.ReynoldsThomas J. (2008), “Confirmation and the Effects of Valenced Political Advertising: A Field Experiment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 794–806.
51.
PodsakoffPhilip M.MacKenzieScott B.LeeJeong-YeonPodsakoffNathan P. (2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903.
52.
Public Policy Institute of California (2016), PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
53.
RichardsTimothyAllenderWilliamFangDi (2013), “Media Advertising and Ballot Initiatives: The Case of Animal Welfare Regulation,” Contemporary Economic Policy, 31 (1), 145–62.
54.
RobinsonStefanie RosenIrmakCaglarJayachandranSatish (2012), “Choice of Cause in Cause-Related Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 126–39.
SchlozmanKay L.VerbaSidneyBradyHenry E. (2012), The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
ScottJohn C. (2018), Lobbying and Society: A Political Sociology of Interest Groups. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
58.
ShacharRon (2009), “The Political Participation Puzzle and Marketing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (6), 798–815.
59.
SheingateAdam (2016), Building a Business of Politics: The Rise of Political Consulting. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
60.
SimmonsCarolyn J.Becker-OlsenKaren L. (2006), “Achieving Marketing Objectives Through Social Sponsorships,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 154–69.
61.
SuddabyRoyBitektineAlexHaackPatrick (2017), “Legitimacy,” Academy of Management Annals, 11 (1), 451–78.
62.
TrumbullGunnar (2012), Strength in Numbers: The Political Power of Weak Interests. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
WagnerTillmannLutzRichard J.WeitzBarton A. (2009), “Corporate Hypocrisy: Overcoming the Threat of Inconsistent Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 77–91.
65.
WalkerEdward T. (2014), Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs Consultants in American Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
WanEcho WenRuckerDerek D.TormalaZakary L.ClarksonJoshua J. (2010), “The Effect of Regulatory Depletion on Attitude Certainty,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (3), 531–41.
67.
WaterhouseBenjamin C. (2014), Lobbying America. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
68.
WernerTimothy (2015), “Gaining Access by Doing Good: The Effect of Sociopolitical Reputation on Firm Participation in Policy Making,” Management Science, 61 (8), 1989–2011.
69.
WonnacottThomas H.WonnacottRonald J. (1990), Introductory Statistics, Vol. 5. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
70.
XuAlison JingMoormanChristineQinVivian YueRaoAkshay (2020), “Four More Years: Presidential Elections, Comparative Mind-Set, and Managerial Decisions,” Academy of Management Journal, 63 (5), 1370–94.
71.
ZhaoXiaoquanStrasserAndrewCappellaJoseph N.LermanCarynFishbeinMartin (2011), “A Measure of Perceived Argument Strength: Reliability and Validity,” Communication Methods and Measures, 5 (1), 48–75.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
