In 1973, the Federal Trade Commission charged the manufacturer of Hawaiian Punch fruit drink with deceptive advertising of the proportion of natural fruit juice in the product. A consent order that specified the use of corrective advertising (affirmative disclosure) to correct suspected residual effects was agreed to. The order required that a consumer survey be conducted to demonstrate whether the residual effects had dissipated to an acceptable level. This study presents the results of 11 cross-sectional surveys taken over a nine-year period following the FTC order. The results indicate that residual effects have systematically declined over the nine-year period and are now at a level which meets one of the FTC's three criteria for termination of the affirmative disclosure advertising message.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BelchGeorge E., BelchMichael A., SettleRobert B., and De LucchiLisa M. (1982), “An Examination of Consumers’ Perceptions of Purpose and Content of Corrective Advertising,”Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 9, 327–32.
2.
DyerRobert E., and KuehlPhilip G. (1974), “The Corrective Advertising Remedy of the FTC: An Experimental Approach,”Journal of Marketing33(Jan.), 40–44.
3.
DyerRobert E., (1976a), “Applications of the ‘Normative Belief Technique for Measuring the Effectiveness of Deceptive and Corrective Advertisements,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 4, PerreaultW. D., ed. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research, 204–9.
4.
DyerRobert E., (1976b), “Brand Belief Measures in Deceptive-Corrective Advertising: An Experimental Assessment,” in Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, BernhardtK. L., ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 373–79.
5.
DyerRobert E., (1978), “A Longitudinal Study of Corrective Advertising,”Journal of Marketing Research15(Feb.), 39–48.
6.
Federal Trade Commission (1973), “Decision and Order in the Matter of RJR Foods, Inc., and William Esty Company, Inc.,” F.T.C. Docket No. C-2424.
7.
GurolMetin N. (1977), “Deception in Advertising: A Review of Past and Current FTC Practice and an Experimental Evaluation of a New Approach for Detecting Deception and a New Approach for Eradicating Its Effects,” Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
8.
HuntH. Keith (1972), “Source Effects, Message Effects, and General Effects in Counter-advertising,” in Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, VenkatesanM., ed. College Park, Md.: Association for Consumer Research, 370–81.
9.
HuntH. Keith (1973), “Effects of Corrective Advertising,”Journal of Advertising Research13(Oct.), 15–24.
10.
KassarjianHarold H., CarlsonCynthia J., and RosinPaula E. (1975), “A Corrective Advertising Study,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 2, SchlingerMary Jane, ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Association for Consumer Research, 631–42.
11.
MazisMichael B., and AdkinsonJanice E. (1976), “An Experimental Evaluation of a Proposed Corrective Advertising Remedy,”Journal of Marketing Research13(May), 178–83.
12.
MizerskiRichard W. (1980), personal communications with authors at the Federal Trade Commission, August.
13.
MizerskiRichard W., AllisonNeil K., and CalvertStephen (1979), “A Controlled Field Study of Corrective Advertising Using Radio,” unpublished working paper, University of Cincinnati, Department of Marketing.
14.
NkongeJaphet H., and Scott GreeneC. (1982), “The Impact of Communication Medium and Message Format on the Effectiveness of Corrective Messages,”Current Issues and Research in Advertising1982, pp. 89–112.
15.
SawyerAlan G., and SemenikRichard J. (1978), “Carryover Effects of Corrective Advertising,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 5, Keith HuntH., ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Association for Consumer Research, 343–51.
16.
ScammonDebra L., and SemenikRichard J. (1982), “Corrective Advertising: Evolution of the Legal Theory and Application of the Remedy,”Journal of Advertising11(1), 10–20.
17.
TaylorJames R., and KinnearThomas C. (1980), “Corrective Advertising: An Empirical Tracking of Residual Effects,” in Marketing in the 80's: Changes and Challenges, 1980 Educators Conference Proceedings, BagozziRichard P., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 416–19.
18.
WilkieWilliam L. (1973), “Consumer Research and Corrective Advertising: A New Approach,” Working Paper, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, Mass.
19.
WilkieWilliam L. (1975), “Applying Attitude Research in Public Policy,” Working Paper, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, Mass.
20.
WilkieWilliam L. (1982), “Affirmative Disclosure: Perspectives on FTC Orders,”Journal of Marketing and Public Policy, vol. 1, 95–110.
21.
WilkieWilliam L., McNeillDennis L., and MazisMichael B. (in press), “Advertising's ‘Scarlet Letter’: The Theory and Practice of Corrective Advertising,”Journal of Marketing.
