ON THE PREVALENCE AND IMPACT OF VAGUE QUANTIFIERS IN THE ADVERTISING OF CAUSE-RELATED MARKETING (CRM)
Abstract
A series of three studies examines potential consumer confusion associated with the advertising copy used to describe cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns, where money is donated to a charity each time a consumer makes a purchase. The first study assesses the relative frequency of various copy formats in CRM on the Internet. The authors find that the majority of the copy formats (69.9%) are abstract (e.g., a portion of the proceeds will be donated), 25.6% are estimable (e.g., X% of the profits will be donated), and 4.5% are calculable (e.g., X% of the price will be donated). Subsequent studies find that (1) slight variations in abstract wording in advertising copy leads to considerable differences in consumers' estimates of the amount being donated, (2) the amount of the donation estimate for each abstract copy format varies considerably across individuals, and (3) the donation amount can impact choice. Taken together, the three studies demonstrate that the vast majority of advertising copy used to describe CRM donations is abstract, that different but legally equivalent abstract copy formats result in large differences in mean perceived donation level, and that these donation levels can impact consumer choice. Implications for advertising strategy and public policy are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Using deceptive claims is a common practice in different fields of advertising and marketing.
“Using deceptive claims is a common practice in different fields of advertising (e.g., Shabbir and Thwaites 2007) and marketing (e.g., Pracejus, Olsen, and Brown 2003).”
From Misleading Consumers with Green Advertising? An Affect–Reason–Involvement Account of Greenwashing Effects in Environmental Advertising (2018) · cites this paper as Pracejus, Olsen, and Brown 2003
Cites
“How Probable is Probable? A Numerical Translation of Verbal Probability Expressions.”
Beyth‐Marom, R. (1982) · Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1002/for.3980010305 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schmuck, D., Matthes, J., & Naderer, B. (2018) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2018.1452652 · Cited by 485 · see citing works
“Using deceptive claims is a common practice in different fields of advertising (e.g., Shabbir and Thwaites 2007) and marketing (e.g., Pracejus, Olsen, and Brown 2003).”
BackgroundConstructing a Corporate Social Responsibility Reputation Using Corporate Image Advertising
Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2009) · Australasian Marketing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2009.05.006 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pracejus, J. W., Olsen, G. D., & Brown, N. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Venue
- Journal of Advertising
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 19-28
- ISSN
- 0091-3367 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7805
- OpenAlex
- W1977600644
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 2.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Advertising (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Marketing and Advertising Strategies
- Keywords
- cause-related marketing, vague quantifiers, advertising copy, consumer choice, charitable giving, consumer confusion, advertising regulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review