Page 190 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

182 The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

much debate and disagreement about what actually is “good” in protest
and revolutionary social marketing, and what is good for one segment
may not be good for another segment. Partisans on both sides of an issue
will actively promote their own visions of social welfare, and “social
marketing could be used by the Ku Klux Klan, the German National
Socialist (Nazi) Party, Mother Teresa, and both pro-life and pro-choice
forces” (Andreasen, 1994, p. 113). Also, what is good for society as a
whole may disadvantage certain individuals. For example, family planning
in developing nations with escalating birth rates may be advantageous for
society in general, but it may disadvantage poor, rural farmers who de-
pend on their children as workers and as providers for them in their old
age (Smith, 2001).
As acknowledged earlier, social marketing, especially for protest and
revolutionary causes, often warrants and receives First Amendment pro-
tection. Because of this, in the United States, constitutional law has deter-
mined that no one other than the social marketer will determine what
messages are responsible and ethical. Social marketers should recognize
the immense responsibility they have as they make judgments regarding
what is good for others and fashion persuasive social messages, especially
when there is little societal consensus regarding whether the cause is
beneficial.
marketing is deceptive. A long-standing concern about marketers is
that they “lie, do not fully disclose relevant information, and are guilty of
. . . extreme embellishment” (Murphy & Bloom, 1990, p. 73). Most com-
mercial speech regulation focuses on assuring that advertising messages in
the mass media are not deceptive or misleading. Legal scholars Tushnet
and Goldman (2012) stated the essence of advertising law:

No matter who the challenger is and no matter what the forum, the basic
target of false advertising law is the same: deception that tends to make
consumers more likely to buy what the advertiser is selling (or less likely to
buy the competitors’ products or services). (pp. 160–161)

In determining whether a commercial message is misleading, the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the courts typically consider
whether the overall effect of an advertisement portrays a material fact in a
manner that would mislead a reasonable consumer. A material fact is one
that matters in the decision to purchase the product or service. The por-
trayal of the material fact may be an explicit statement, or it may be im-
plied by text, visuals, or a combination of the two. It may be misleading by
what is omitted as well as by what is stated.