Conflicting Claims Confuse Customers

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - Advertisers who make a general claim that their food product is healthy - but also disclose negative nutrition content in the same advertisement - can alienate customers, according to a study by University of Arkansas professor Scot Burton.

"When a general claim, such as 'healthy,’ is made, but the ad also discloses negative information, such as high fat content, the negative effect of disclosure is greater than when a specific claim is made," explained Burton. "That may be caused by consumers’ feeling that there was a conscious attempt to mislead them through the use of the 'healthy’ headline."

The study was a response to a request for research in the area from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which regulates claims in food advertising, according to Burton. FTC commissioners wanted information on consumer responses and interpretations of favorable nutrient claims, such as "high fiber" when the product contained high levels of other negative nutrients like fat or salt.

"This study was designed to see if, and under what conditions, disclosure of negative nutrient content in ads would affect consumer product choices," said Burton. "It is important information for policy makers, marketers of food products and researchers interested in persuasion and potentially deceptive advertising."

Burton, who holds the Wal-Mart Chair in marketing in the Sam Walton College of Business Administration, conducted his study along with Craig Andrews of Marquette University and Richard Netemeyer of Louisiana State University. Their results will be published this fall in the journal Marketing Letters.

Their study looked at two common types of claims - specific and general - both of which can be misleading to consumers. Specific claims focus on truthful reporting of one nutrient, such as "No Cholesterol," but do not disclose unhealthy levels of nutrients such as fat or salt. General claims promote a product as "healthy" without mentioning any specific nutrient. The study also considered footnoted disclosure statements, which are commonly used in ads.

The researchers began by pretesting potential products and disclosure statements. Margarine was selected as the target product because consumers considered it low in nutritional value and were unlikely to subconsciously "add in" positive evaluations of the product health benefits.

Three different types of disclosures were used, all focusing on the fat content of the product. The absolute disclosure gave the amount of fat per serving. The relative disclosure was a table that gave the absolute fat content of the product, the recommended daily value and the percent of the daily value, much the same as a product nutrition panel. The evaluative disclosure gave the absolute amount of fat, noted that the level was "high" and contained a health warning about the link between fat and some types of diseases. Effects of the disclosures were tested against ads that did not include any disclosure information about the fat content of the product.

Interviews were conducted in Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles with 324 consumers who were the primary food buyers in their home. The target ad, which varied according to type of claim and disclosure, was in a booklet between two "clutter ads" that stayed the same. The study evaluated brand and ad attitudes, purchase intent and consumers’ product health perceptions.

"We found that disclosure has a more negative impact on ad attitude and purchase intention if the health claim is general," said Burton. "When the health claim is specific, the impact of disclosure is not significant."

Burton and his colleagues believe that this is because the specific claim, such as "no cholesterol," is not refuted in the disclosure. According to Burton, consumers may not interpret the specific claim as a direct, purposeful attempt to deceive them on the part of the advertiser.

"The fact that the disclosure information had a significant negative influence on attitude and purchase intent for the general claim but not for the specific claim is useful information for deceptive ad cases," noted Burton, "These differences are important for applied food marketers, researchers and federal and state agencies interested in the broad effects of disclosure information in ads.