Many researchers believe “puffery” is a form of selling claim that frequently deceives consumers but which officials refuse to regulate. This article argues there is an underlying fallacy in this viewpoint and that puffery does not deceive. An alternative explanation is offered for the apparent deceptiveness of some “puffs.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AakerDavid A., and MyersJohn G. (1987), Advertising Management, 3rd ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
2.
American Home Products v. FTC, 695 F.2d 681 (3rd Cir. 1982).
3.
Belmont Laboratories v. FTC, 103 F.2d 538 (3rd Cir. 1939).
4.
Better Living, Inc., 54 F.T.C. 648 (1957).
5.
Bristol-Myers Co., 102 F.T.C. 21 (1983).
6.
Bristol-Myers Co., 74 F.T.C. 780 (1968).
7.
Capax, 91 F.T.C. 1048 (1978).
8.
Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
9.
Cliffdale, 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984).
10.
Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. FTC, 310 F.2d 89 (1st Cir. 1962).
11.
Colgate-Palmolive, 59 F.T.C. 1452 (1961).
12.
CunninghamIsabella C.M., and CunninghamWilliam H. (1977), “Standards for Advertising Regulation,”Journal of Marketing, 41 (October), 92–97.
13.
Dobbs Truss Co., 48 F.T.C. 1090 (1952).
14.
Fairyfoot Products v. FTC, 80 F.2d 684 (7th Cir. 1935).
15.
Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, Pub. L. No. 203, 38 Stat. 717 (1914), amended by Pub. L. No. 447, 3, 52 Stat. 111 (1938), and Pub. L. No. 93–637, 88 Stat. 2193 (1975).
16.
Federal Trade Commission, “Policy Statement on Deception,” appended to Cliff dale, 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984).
17.
Federal Trade Commission, “Statement of Basis and Purpose of the Cigarette Rule,” 29 Fed. Reg. 8324 (July 2 1964).
18.
Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
19.
Goodman v. FTC, 244 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1957).
20.
GradySusan E., and FeinmanMichael B. (1984), “Advertising and the FTC: How Much Can You ‘Puff’ Until You're Legally Out of Breath?”Administrative Law Review, 36, 399–411.
HandlerMilton (1929), “False and Misleading Advertising,”Yale Law Journal, 39, 22–51.
23.
HolbrookMorris (1978), “Beyond Attitude Structure: Toward the Informational Determinants of Attitude,”Journal of Marketing, 15, 545–556.
24.
HonigwachsJoshua (1987), “Is It Safe to Call Something Safe? The Law of Puffing in Advertising,”Journal of Public Policy in Marketing, 6, 157–170.
25.
KaminsMichael A., and MarksLawrence J. (1987), “Advertising Puffery: The Impact of Using Two-Sided Claims on Product Attitude and Purchase Intention,”Journal of Advertising, 16(4), 6–15.
26.
KintnerEarl W. (1971), A Primer on the Law of Deceptive Practices: A Guide for the Businessman, New York: Macmillan Publishing.
MillsteinIra M. (1964), “The Federal Trade Commission and False Advertising,”Columbia Law Review, 64, 439–499.
29.
National Executive Search, Inc., 76 F.T.C. 962 (1969).
30.
OliverRichard L. (1979), “An Interpretation of the Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects of Puffery,”Journal of Consumer Affairs, 13(Summer), 8–27.
31.
Oilman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
32.
Ostermoor v. FTC, 16 F.2d 962 (2d Cir. 1927).
33.
PattiCharles H., and FrazerCharles F. (1988), Advertising: A Decision-Making Approach, New York: The Dryden Press.
34.
Presidio Enterprises v. Warner Bros., 784 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1986).
35.
PrestonIvan L. (1972), “Is ad puffery doomed? Very likely it will be outlawed in the future,”Advertising Age (July 3), 21.
36.
PrestonIvan L. (1975), The Great American Blow-Up: Puffery in Advertising and Selling, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
37.
PrestonIvan L. (1989), “The Federal Trade Commission's Identification of Implications as Constituting Deceptive Advertising,”Cincinnati Law Review, 57, 1243–1310.
38.
ReedO. Lee, and CoalsonJohn L. (1977), “Eighteenth-Century Legal Doctrine Meets Twentieth-Century Marketing Techniques: F.T.C. Regulation of Emotionally Conditioning Advertising,”Georgia Law Review, 11, 733–82.
39.
RichardsJef I. (1990), Deceptive Advertising: Behavioral Study of a Legal Concept, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40.
RotfeldHerbert J. (1978), Advertising Deception, Consumer Research, and Puffery: An Inquiry into Puffery's Power and Potential to Mislead Consumers, unpublished PhD dissertation, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois.
41.
RotfeldHerbert J., and PrestonIvan L. (1981), “The Potential Impact of Research on Advertising Law,”Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 9–17.
42.
RotfeldHerbert J., and RotzollKim B. (1981), “Puffery vs. Fact Claims—Really Different?”Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 1981, 85–103.
43.
RussoJ. Edward, MetcalfBarbara L., and StephensDebra (1981), “Identifying Misleading Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 119–31.
44.
ShimpTerence A. (1978), “Do Incomplete Comparisons Mislead?”Journal of Advertising Research, 18(6), 21–27.
45.
ShimpTerence A. (1979), “Social Psychological (Mis)Representations in Television Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Affairs, 13, 28–40.
46.
ShimpTerence A. (1983), “Evaluative Verbal Content and Deception in Advertising: A Review and Critical Analysis,” in Information Processing Research in Advertising, HarrisR.J., ed., Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
