A in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing shows that mutual fund advertisements that tout past performance exploit decision-making biases on the part of potential investors. The current SEC-mandated disclosure is ineffective at mitigating these biases.

, past performance is not only no guarantee of future success, but also “irrelevant.” This new study shows that disclosures should state that irrelevance in order to better protect consumers, a finding with important implications for policymakers, consumer protection advocacy groups, and lay investors.

The study, titled “Fooled by Success: How, Why, and When Disclosures Fail or Work in Mutual Fund Ads,” was authored by Professors of the ; of the ; and of the .

Mutual fund ads often emphasize positive trends of prior returns, implicitly suggesting that future performance of the funds will be similarly positive.

“Current ads may easily mislead individuals into buying stocks or mutual funds on the basis of past performance,” said Johnson. “Touting winners misleads unsuspecting investors, when future performance is not only not guaranteed, but seems unsustainable and highly unlikely.”

shows that “winning” trends are unlikely to continue, because mutual fund managers rarely outperform market indexes over an extended period of time. This reality has prompted the SEC to mandate that such ads include a disclosure that “past performance does not guarantee future results.”

The new research reveals that the SEC’s mandated disclosure is ineffective at discouraging potential investors from “returns chasing” – buying hot rising mutual funds.   The authors find that ads featuring positive trends of past performance exploit the “hot hand bias” in investors.

“Lay investors assume that rising trends of past performance predict increasing future performance,” said Tellis.

“As a result,” added Van Bergen, “ads that include the SEC’s current mandated disclosure are just as likely to mislead lay investors as those with no warning whatsoever.” 

The authors proposed that the ineffectiveness of the SEC disclosure is the result of its weak and ambiguous wording. The SEC disclosure states that past performance “does not guarantee” future returns, but what exactly does past performance do? The researchers found that a more effective disclosure requires a stronger and clearer warning than the present one.

The study then tested a new disclosure that improves on the SEC’s current disclosure in two ways. The full wording of the new disclosure proposed by the authors is: “Scientific research has shown that mutual funds cannot perform any better than luck. So their past performance is irrelevant.” That wording is stronger and less ambiguous than the current disclosure.

“Rather than stating what past performance does not do – predict future performance – we designed a disclosure that explicitly makes a positive claim, ‘past performance is ,’” said Tellis.

Additionally, the wording appeals to source credibility by basing its content on “scientific research.”

Across several studies, the authors found that this new disclosure was substantially more effective than the SEC disclosure at reducing the hot hand bias.

The study also shed light on why the strong disclosure is more effective than the SEC disclosure. The ambiguous wording of the existing warning leads potential investors to interpret that, although past performance may not guarantee future performance, it is nevertheless a helpful indicator of future performance.

“In other words,” Van Bergen said, “the phrase that ‘past performance does not guarantee future results’ does not convey the irrelevancy of previous performance, whereas our stronger wording does.” As a result, potential investors become less reliant on past performance.

As Johnson said, “Touting winners misleads unsuspecting investors, when future performance is not only not guaranteed, but seems unsustainable and highly unlikely.”

Full Article

Johnson, Joseph M., Gerard J. Tellis, and Noah VanBergen, “Fooled by Success: How, Why, and When Disclosures Fail or Work in Mutual Fund Ads,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, forthcoming, .

The post No Guarantee: JPP&M Study Says SEC Disclosures Insufficient to Protect Investors from Biases ���������t “Irrelevant” Past Performance appeared first on ���������.

Race is intertwined with the structures and actions of and within society. Evidence of this is found in the systemic nature of racism. Bus boycotts, sit-ins, social media–initiated protests, and other forms of consumer activism are clear and visible demonstrations of the importance of acknowledging that race is unequivocally embedded in marketplaces and rooted in marketing practices. Taking this as our lead, this curation is a call to action for further research related to race and marketing. Racial identity is a fundamental aspect of our lived experience, if not our belief systems. Thus, it is imperative that the corpus of knowledge we develop around consumers and marketplaces directly considers the lived experiences of people from different racial backgrounds and the structural relations that uphold racism, including antiblackness. Even though there have been significant challenges, there is an important history of efforts to include critical studies of race and its intersection with public policy and marketing (Bennett, Hill, and Oleksiuk 2013; Bristor, Lee, and Hunt 1995; Harris, Henderson, and Williams 2005; Thomas 2013; Williams, Qualls, and Grier 1995).

The Journal of Public Policy & Marketing has a proven record of examining race. In its inaugural edition, two articles that focused on segmentation included tangential considerations of the impact of race (Durand, Klemmack, and Roff 1982; Trombetta and Morgan 1982). Three years later, the first article that tackled race directly appeared (Hirschman 1985). Notably, in subsequent years, the frequency of related articles has been inconsistent. Searches using combinations of the terms race/racial/racism and either consumer or marketplace uncovered 54 articles, of which only four explicitly mention race in the title (Bristor, Lee, and Hunt 1995; Harris, Henderson, and Williams 2005; Thomas 2013; Williams, Qualls, and Grier 1995). Although these studies approach the concept differently, each features race as the focal object of study, rather than an individual difference. Setting the stage for a broad consideration of the impact of race in the marketplace, Bristor, Gravois, and Hunt (1995) establish important connections between racism in advertising and the dominant white ideology pervading the industry, and how this shapes portrayals of minority populations. Helping develop a more detailed understanding of the implications of race, Williams, Qualls, and Grier (1995) link racialized advertising to decision making by revealing how racialized discourses from advertising messages are reproduced in consumption choices. Harris, Henderson, and Williams (2005) then identify the structures that support racial inequities, investigating and categorizing the disparate treatment of racialized consumers in the marketplace through an examination of U.S. federal court cases, developing a framework of consumer racial profiling. Thomas (2013) turns our attention to specific consumer experiences, considering how race is reified and reproduced in the marketplace and subsequently affects how consumers (re)construct their identities, calling attention to the potentially deleterious impacts that marginalizing marketplace experiences have on consumer well-being. Although race does not show up in the article’s title, Bennett, Hill, and Oleksuik (2013) also address it directly, from the perspective of specified consumer experiences, investigating how brand perceptions are racialized and may serve as signals to exclude or fail to include consumers of color.

While the aforementioned studies focus squarely on race and its pervasiveness in everyday life and marketplaces, others instead investigate concepts such as marketplace stigma  (Mirabito et al. 2016) or emphasize the context or sample characteristics that evidence the complexities of race and its role in the marketplace (Johnson, Meyers, and Williams 2013). On the whole, race is typically only alluded to and/or a tangential study consideration. Concepts such as culture, identity, and stigma are often a proxy for race, and/or race is merely a context or characteristic of the study sample. Circumventing direct investigations of race, then, relegates race to a contextual, situational, or an individual characteristic, devoid of theoretical underpinning. Consequently, what remains missing in conversations on race in marketing is the acknowledgement and inclusion of race as theoretical and thus part and parcel of marketing theory.

To some extent, the relative scarcity of scholarship in this area can be understood as a reflection of the racial inequities and dynamics that define and shape both who and what is likely to be published. It should be acknowledged that marketing academia plays a role in (re)producing knowledge structures and mechanisms that perpetuate racism in markets, racialized consumer experiences, and policies that account for structural inequities. This is captured in the narrow and prescriptive paradigms that often define what constitutes theory and scholarship, thus denying the reality of racism and delegitimizing the work of scholars critically exploring race and racism in markets and public policy contexts. Typically, when scholarship on race and marketing is published, it tends to be featured as part of infrequent, yet vital, special issues. This suggests that the contributions of critical research on and about race is both underrepresented and undervalued in marketing discourse.

Succinctly put, there is more work to be done. This includes building on research that has focused on social inequalities (Mirabito et al. 2016) but has not specifically and critically accounted for race and racism. A greater number of critical examinations of issues related to race and intersecting oppressions in the marketplace can result in the field of public policy and marketing scholarship more robustly tackling structural racism. We urge readers to consider contributing, or contributing more, to critical scholarly conversations about the racial and racist dynamics of public policy and marketing. In doing so, we also call for more of such research to be rooted in theoretical frameworks, praxis, and principles that are aligned with social justice goals and that foreground the perspectives of those who are affected by racism.

REFERENCES

Bristor, Julia M., Renée Gravois Lee, and Michelle R. Hunt (1995), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14 (1), 48–59.

Bennett, Aronté Marie, Ronald Paul Hill, and Daniel Oleksiuk (2013), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Suppl.), 16–31.

Durand, Richard M., David L. Klemmack, and Lucinda Lee Roff (1982),  “,” Journal of Marketing & Public Policy, 1 (1), 169–80.

Harris, Anne-Marie G., Geraldine R. Henderson, and Jerome D. Williams (2005), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24 (1), 163–71.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1985), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 4 (1), 179–93.

Johnson, Guillaume D., Yuvay J. Meyers, and Jerome D. Williams (2013), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Suppl), 38–47.

Mirabito, Ann M., Cele C. Otnes, Elizabeth Crosby, David B. Wooten, Jane E. Machin, Chris Pullig, et al. (2016), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,35 (2), 170–84.

Thomas, Kevin D. (2013), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Suppl), 95–105.

Trombetta, William L. and Fred W. Morgan (1982), “,” Journal of Marketing & Public Policy, 1 (1), 15–24.

Williams, Jerome D., William J. Quails, and Sonya A. Grier (1995),  “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14 (2), 225–44.

The post Urgent Research Needed on Race, Marketing, and Policy [Call to Action] appeared first on ���������.

CSUN researchers have found that consumers are turning to “digital vigilantism” to force businesses and other organizations to respond to their concerns.

A team of researchers at California State University, Northridge has some advice for providers of services to the public: listen and respond to their customers, particularly to what your customers are saying on social media.

If the providers do not, the researchers cautioned, the customers they disappoint can unleash a wave of consumer “digital vigilantism” that can damage brands and force a reckoning that can catch many organizations and businesses by surprise.

CSUN marketing professor Kristen Walker said digital vigilantism occurs when consumers turn into activists and use the power of social media to share injurious and constructive content, whether they are ranting or hoping to inspire change.

“If they don’t like something or if they are trying to effect change, consumer citizens can use their voices on social media to rally the power of the internet to their side,” Walker said. “If they are successful, thousands, if not tens of thousands, of voices on social media will be joining theirs to express their displeasure and demand restitution or change.”

To demonstrate the power of the consumer voice in a digital world, Walker, fellow CSUN marketing professor Tina Kiesler, and Kimberly Legocki, a recent doctoral graduate from France’s Grenoble Ecole de Management who studied with Walker at CSUN’s David Nazarian College of Business and Economics, examined the digital responses to the 2017 Charlottesville, Va., Unite the Right rally, which resulted in the death of one person and injuries to dozens more. The researchers chose the rally because an independent review found that public service providers — police and city officials —  were culpable in its aftermath.

Their study, “,” was recently published in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing.

“The Charlottesville rally, from a consumer’s perspective, was a perfect example to study,” Kiesler said. “There was a confirmed breakdown in the ability of service providers to follow through on consumer expectations — in this case, that city officials and law enforcement would do their jobs and avoid the violence that followed. An independent review said the city and police failed in their duties that day. So, you get that rare opportunity where an independent organization has said that, in this circumstance, consumer citizens were not getting their needs met.”

In the past, she noted, consumers may have resorted to a boycott to express their displeasure. The internet has provided them with another avenue to vent their frustrations —social media and specifically Twitter.

Legocki, Walker and Kiesler studied the digital responses to the rally, specifically the tweets. The tweets were analyzed using qualitative thematic coding, cluster analysis and sentiment analysis. Tweets, during and after the rally, yielded five types of “digital vigilantism:” “Shame on Them!,” which concentrated on messages related to shaming; “Hear ye, hear ye…,” messages that shared content and opinions; “Can you believe this?,” messages that focused on seeking solutions, primarily involved in assisting law enforcement; “Let’s get ‘em!,” messages associated with revenge and seeking harm; and “Do the right thing,” messages that focused on sharing quoted retweets and original content.

The researchers found that social media platforms enable the creation of “distributed democracy efforts” and “digital neighborhoods,” where active citizens assume certain governmental responsibilities and tasks to solve a communal problem or improve a local community. This behavior, they said, extends to Twitter when public institutions remain silent during a crisis, forcing consumers to seek out and share news and information.

In the case of the Charlottesville rally, the government failed to fulfill its obligations, thus motivating some consumer citizens, such as Shaun King, to act as de facto police, utilizing social media as their medium and their voices as their weaponry.

“We believe this pattern can be repeated as the result of a service failure involving any type of organizastion,” the researchers wrote in the journal article.

Legocki, who spent more than 20 years as marketing professional and is now a marketing lecturer at CSU East Bay, said she is hoping the study will launch a serious discussion among marketing professionals as they consider the future of their field. She noted there is little data on the power of consumer activism in the digital age.

“What makes the Charlottesville example so interesting to research is the fact that online conversations were centralized around a single hashtag, ‘#Charlottesville,’ almost from the beginning. This made it possible to track events as they unfolded, as well as, the public’s immediate reaction,” Legocki said. “We witnessed a wide range of consumer citizen activist behaviors. Doxing (the public posting of private information) was the piece that was most fascinating to us. Because this was the first time that we could recall where doxing was intended for good.”

Some Twitter users in the Charlottesville incident accessed private information to identify and publicly shame any and every white nationalist who took part in the rally, whether they committed a crime or not. Others, however, focused on identifying only the white nationalists seen in photos and videos committing violent acts. The digital evidence was then turned over to the Charlottesville Police Department.

The researchers noted that while shame and demanding justice “appear to be dichotomous behavior, the desire to enforce social norms can motivate both helpful and harmful actions.”

Legocki, Walker, and Kiesler said that by understanding how the public might respond when it perceives a business and other organizations doing wrong, those entities can develop appropriate social media monitoring and response strategies to ensure they are responsive to their customers’ concerns.

“As social media becomes an increasing means of power for consumers’ voices, it is critical for organizations to engage in social listening and take part in constructive conversations,” Walker said.

Read More

Legocki, Kimberly V., Kristen L. Walker, and Tina Kiesler (2020), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39 (2), 169–87.

Access the entire JPP&M special issue on Consumer Power and Access .

The post Examining the Rise of Digital Vigilantism appeared first on ���������.

Questions of access and power are particularly relevant in the context of today’s United States with consumers simultaneously isolated and connected in ways never before imagined. Many of the articles in this issue offer prophetic insights though they were written well before and accepted only in the very early stages of the COVID-19 world health crisis.

“”

• Consumers may have access to a product or service, but that does not mean the consumer has the power to make ownership and usage a reality. Even when intervention levels the playing field, it still may take multiple purchase cycles before some consumers may attempt to take advantage of the new opportunities.

“”

• Interestingly increasing a belief in hope is an effective way to improve the perception of access to adequate food sources among residents of food deserts. The authors suggest communication strategies that encourage this trait and improve the effectiveness of food and nutrition assistance programs.

“”

• Despite recent regulation (i.e., the GDPR), the design of cookie notices varies strongly in practice, with many websites providing cookie notices with low visibility and no or very limited choice. These most common designs are likely to increase consumers’ risk perception, which reduces their purchase intent; website providers might, in contrast, benefit from offering consumers more choice over their private data.
• https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620902143

“”

• This examination of “service captivity” offers insights into how consumers may feel trapped in a scenario where they can’t exit a service relationship. The authors offer examples of how these consumers may gain access to new service providers.

“”

• Via a pool of over 70,000 tweets associated with the 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally, the authors categorize tweets into five categories and offer a perspective on how digital vigilantism was represented.

“”

• Incorporating simple messages such as, “you are powerful” or “we all feel powerful sometimes” is enough to increase a consumer’s sense of power and subsequently nudge them to make healthier food choices, particularly for consumers lower in socioeconomic status.

“”

• Children and teens were already spending a growing amount of time online, but in the last several weeks, this seems to have increased even more. The authors investigate methods for improving safety beliefs and decisions to share personal videos on YouTube suggesting a combination of education and parental intervention empowers children and teens to protect their personal information online.

“”

• Research suggestions that respect is another dimension of consumer access and power. They show the fallacy of scorning low-income individuals’ access to “luxuries,” such as Starbucks coffee, and the importance of going beyond simple access and power and include the level of perceived justice (e.g., respect).

“”

• Policymakers, health care organizations, and insurance providers can use perceived access to healthcare measure to better identify communities or populations that lack access, design programs and systems that reduce perceptions of health vulnerability in target populations, and ultimately improve consumers’ health outcomes.

This special issue was organized by a team that included M. Paula Fitzgerald, West Virginia University; Sterling A. Bone, Utah State University; and Janis K. Pappalardo, Federal Trade Commission. The views of Janis K. Pappalardo are her own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any individual Commissioner.

Full issue and individual author contact information is available at https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/ppoa/39/2

���������t the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
The Journal of Public Policy & Marketing is a forum for understanding the nexus of marketing and public policy, with each issue featuring a wide-range of topics, including, but not limited to, ecology, ethics and social responsibility, nutrition and health, regulation and deregulation, security and privacy.
/jppm

���������t the ��������� (���������)
As the largest chapter-based marketing association in the world, the ��������� is trusted by marketing and sales professionals to help them discover what’s coming next in the industry. The ��������� has a community of local chapters in more than 70 cities and 350 college campuses throughout North America. The ��������� is home to award-winning content, PCM® professional certification, premiere academic journals, and industry-leading training events and conferences. 

The post Press Release from the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing: Special Issue Explores Consumer Access and Power appeared first on ���������.

Further complicating the conversation is the existence of genetically modified, or GM, foods (also known as genetically engineered, or GE, foods). These foods, which have been scientifically cultivated from regular foods to have slight changes in their DNA, were first approved by the FDA in the early 90s, and began appearing in U.S. grocery stores in 1994 with the introduction of Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomatoes, GM foods. Since then, they’ve remained the subject of hotly contested debates between consumers, scientists, producers and policymakers. Though much of the scientific community has reached a consensus that approved GM foods can be just as safe their conventional counterparts (and in some cases, may have added benefits such as a longer shelf life or greater ability to withstand harsh temperatures), others continue to believe that altering foods can lead to negative consequences for the environment and pose a risk for those who eat them. These attitudes, have in turn, impacted public opinion; many consumers remain wary of GM foods or distrust them entirely, even if they are aware of scientific evidence that suggests they should accept them.

In response to the controversy over GM foods, the federal government recently allocated $4.5 million for the FDA to create a campaign to promote GM foods that have received agency approval. To ensure its success, they first needed to learn more about how consumers respond to messaging surrounding GM foods. The approach they took is unique in that it comes from a policy-oriented standpoint to messaging, rather than strictly a consumer point of view.

Why is this even a question / something we care about?

The negative perceptions surrounding FDA-approved GM foods curtails the agency’s ability to use them to fight hunger domestically and internationally, as well as the ability for consumers to make educated choices about the foods they eat. Determining which type of messaging is mostly likely to persuade consumers with strong anti-GM beliefs that these products pose no health risks compared to their conventional counterparts—or educate them about their benefit—may directly and indirectly help alleviate malnutrition and starvation in areas around the world.

What we did:

The researchers conducted three studies on undergraduate business students from the University of Arizona. The first was to determine consumer response to neutral or safety messaging about GM foods. They surveyed them on their attitudes toward GM foods, and then subdivided the group into two categories: pro-GM foods and anti-GM foods. From there, they randomly paired the students and gave them a safety or neutral message about GM foods, and measured their response. While students who held weak anti-GM perceptions were somewhat persuaded by the information, those who already held strong anti-GM beliefs became more resolute in them, and said they would pay more money for non-GM products. (The perceptions of pro-GM students stayed about the same before and after the study). A second study added a risk message along with safety and neutral messages, in this case claiming that GM foods are unsafe for human consumption. Again, strong anti-GM students said they would be willing to pay more for non-GM products. In a third study, a benefit message was added to the safety and neutral messages, but this time the results showed a different pattern: all of the students showed increased GM evaluations.

Key findings:

• The strength of attitude plays a key role in the determination of how consumers respond to persuasive messages.
• When tangible benefits, such as benefits to individual health and the environment, are associated with individual GM foods, consumers are likely to be more accepting of those foods.
• Though weak anti-GM consumers tend to comply with a variety of pro-GM messages, strong anti-GM consumers exhibit message-opposing behavior.
• Strong and weak anti-GM consumers should be approached using the same messaging. There are risks involved with targeting these groups differently—for example showing strong anti-GM consumers safety-oriented tactics aimed at weak anti-GM consumers can backfire.
• Benefit-oriented messaging is more effective in persuading both strong and weak anti-GM consumers than neutral or safety-oriented messaging.

Results: ​

Based on these three studies, the authors determined that pre-existing attitudes impact how consumers respond to persuasive messages regarding GM foods. While weak anti-GM consumers are more likely to be persuaded by a variety of pro-GM messages (safety, neutral, or benefit), strong anti-GM consumers may exhibit message-opposing behavior to the same message. Approaching GM food messaging by promoting its benefits received less message-opposing behavior from strong anti-GM consumers than other types of messagings and also promoted increased acceptance among weak anti-GM and pro-GM consumers.

What does this mean / takeaway for future:

It’s important for the FDA, USDA, and NGOs to understand how to most effectively communicate about GM foods in order to positively impact the public and reach the goals of their campaign. Given how attitude impacts how weak and strong anti-GM consumers respond to persuasive messaging surrounding GM foods, agencies and policymakers should consider approaching all anti-GM consumers with benefits-oriented messaging.

The results of these studies have implications that extend beyond public perceptions of GM foods into other areas where consumers express strong attitudes rooted in personal and planetary health and safety. Policymakers working in areas other than GM foods may take this into consideration when creating campaigns around on key issues for their agencies, such as introducing new vaccines, pharmaceuticals, or construction materials to the marketplace; promoting developments in regional planning, such as factory openings; or infrastructure projects such as energy and waste management.

In addition, marketers and managers outside of government agencies and NGOs can apply these messaging concepts to their own campaigns where consumers express strong attitudes. These may include marketing individual GM foods, or other products where consumers express concern over health and environmental issues, such as cosmetics like sunscreen and makeup, or household cleansers.

Conclusion:

Policymakers must take consumer attitudes into consideration when educating the public, or launching new campaigns. By gearing messaging toward benefits, rather than safety or other elements, campaigns can expect greater results in their efforts to persuade consumers that present strong bias against their particular product or regulation. The concept of strong and weak consumer attitudes can be applied broadly to marketing, especially where health and environmental elements are perceived to be at risk.

Read the .

From: Nguyen Pham, Naomi Mandel, “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, (February, 2019).

The post Against the Grain: Why Some Consumers are Anti-Genetically Modified Food and What Marketers Can Do ���������t It appeared first on ���������.

The laws of supply and demand from basic economics provide a simple frame to capture this situation. As costs for its acquisition – as well as dangers associated with previous search strategies – are reduced, it should come as no surprise that people of all ages find it more enticing. Marketers will need to ensure that people with legal access to these products have the information needed to make informed decisions, and that those more vulnerable to cannabis harms either have restricted access (e.g., minors) or a clear understanding of the potential benefits and harms of the product (e.g., pregnant women).

In terms of packaging and labeling, policymakers may benefit from following the alcohol industry’s lead. For example, some state laws require potency (i.e., alcohol by volume) to be clearly labeled on beer products to help consumers make informed decisions on how much of the product to safely consume. For cannabis, labeling should clearly identify products with high amounts of THC, while also disclosing quantities of CBD, to account for the increased popularity of high-CBD (low-THC) goods. Yet, little information exists about how consumers will respond to cannabis labeling; we encourage evidence-based regulations that are shown to be effective in providing consumers with the relevant information they need to make informed decisions that best meet their goals.

According to Section 843 of the Controlled Substances Act, advertising of any Schedule I drug is prohibited and any violation of this act is a felony. Thus, promotion opportunities are limited presently; major digital marketing platforms such as Google and Facebook have prohibited cannabis marketing for the foreseeable future. Digital marketing could be well-suited as a primary marketing communication medium for the cannabis industry; for example, marketers could use advanced geotargeting technology to target consumers only in states where cannabis is legal.

Distribution presents a challenge, with state-level restriction differing considerably. Take California, for example: Under current state law, individual cities can ban retail cannabis sales. And, while distribution of cannabis via the U.S. Postal Service is illegal (because it is a federal entity), local governments in California are prohibited from preventing cannabis deliveries on public roads. Thus, delivery services potentially negate the same laws designed to keep cannabis away from schools and may facilitate illegal distribution. New laws and regulations will undoubtedly address this new world, as distribution opportunities unfurl alongside e-commerce.

Price considerations will also be key; as demand increases, public policy makers may initiate excise taxes. Studies of the alcohol and tobacco industries show that high excise taxes reduce smoking initiation and long-term usage. But we caution that artificially high prices due to taxation of legal cannabis may have the unintended consequence of continuing black-market exchanges, given that such a system has existed for decades.

Educating consumers will be key in marketing cannabis responsibly. Marketers can learn from the tobacco industry’s missteps and lead the way in clearly informing the public of risks. Because few researchers have investigated marketing cannabis to date, this field of study will certainly multiply. Marketers should remain abreast of these trends to avoid being unprepared. For cannabis marketing, the future may already be inextricable from the present – greater marketing knowledge is needed to navigate this uncharted territory to allow consumers to chart their best path.

Read other Scholarly Insights from the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

The post Navigating the Uncharted Territory of Cannabis Marketing appeared first on ���������.

from on .

​Follow the Dog Parks and Coffee Shops: Diversity Seeking in Changing Neighborhoods  for notification of upcoming online screenings.

The post Dog Parks and Coffee Shops: Faux Diversity and Consumption in Gentrifying Neighborhoods appeared first on ���������.

The post The Costs of Convenient Connections appeared first on ���������.

“Few everyday decisions are more important to our health—or the health of our planet—than choosing what we eat.”

The overconsumption of food contributes greatly to health problems that affect a large portion of society while also straining earth’s natural resources. Food production and consumption alone contribute to approximately 20%–30% of Western greenhouse gases. Attempts by policy makers to encourage food-related sustainable practices often focus more on the role of producers and less on the role of consumers, even though a growing number of consumers are concerned about the sustainability of the products they consume. Still, consumers often fail to perceive any immediate, personal benefits from consuming sustainably; instead, they consider benefits only for future society as a whole.

, however, provides evidence that food promoted as sustainable can indeed produce individual consumer benefits through reduced consumption. They found that when consumers are aware that they are eating sustainably produced foods, they actually consume less. So, the 2013 move by fast-food giant McDonald’s to ensure that 100% of its famous Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are made with certified sustainably sourced Alaskan Pollock could mean that consumers are actually eating less. By adopting the Marine Stewardship Council’s blue eco-label, McDonald’s and its consumers are helping protect oceans for future generations and enhancing their overall health by potentially eating less as well.

Results from a series of three studies testing actual consumption in a laboratory setting provide evidence that consumption decreases when consumers are eating or drinking a sustainable product. Even though taste perceptions were equivalent for traditional and sustainable food products, people consumed less of the food product when it was simply presented as sustainable. For example, when given the same kettle-cooked potato chips, participants in the experiment ate less when they were given information about the sustainability of the snack instead of about its quality. These findings suggest that sustainable foods may offer immediate health benefits to consumers because excessive indulgence may be curbed by a diet focused on sustainable foods.

These findings differ from prior research on other positive food labels (e.g., fair trade, organic), which suggests that consumers are led to believe that food products are healthier or lower-calorie and, consequently, overcompensate by consuming more of these products. Foods promoted as sustainable have a unique impact, encouraging people to consume less instead of more. The difference may be that consumers associate sustainability with the future, not health.

When presented with food products promoted as sustainable, the researchers find that people are led to care more about the needs and well-being of society, which naturally focuses on the future. Thus, by preserving resources for future generations, consumption decreases. At the same time, the individual consumer personally benefits by eating less, which means a decrease in the damaging health effects of overconsumption (and hey, their pants might even fit a bit better). So if a consumer wishes to get lean, it pays to eat green.

Encouragingly, consumers have more choices than ever when it comes to purchasing sustainable food products. At the the grocery store, consumers can find a number of brands founded on sustainable principles and practices, such as Clif Bar, an energy bar company committed to making food products with sustainably sourced ingredients while striving for zero waste at its headquarters and supply chain facilities. Other established food leaders are adopting sustainable practices as well. For example, Nestlé Global, one of the largest food companies in the world, is focusing efforts on reducing water use by utilizing alternative water sources (e.g., rainwater) and training its suppliers and farmers on how to do the same. Other iconic companies are joining the movement: Coca-Cola recently enacted a Sustainability Action Plan focused on improving energy efficiencies and increasing internal recycling.

The researchers suggest that marketers and public policy makers should work together to encourage healthier consumption behaviors by promoting a food’s sustainability. Companies should clearly highlight the sustainability of their food and beverage products. For example, eco-labeling of sustainable products is currently being done successfully in Europe to foster “green” consumer behavior. More prominent promotion of a product’s sustainability can help reduce people’s food consumption and yields two primary benefits. First, reducing overconsumption works to preserve the earth’s resources for future generations. Second, it yields immediate health benefits to the consumer—smaller numbers on the scale. A healthier planet, then, equals a healthier you!

The post Eating a Fast-Food Sandwich Might Actually Help You Lose Weight appeared first on ���������.

Sustainability is no longer about doing less harm. It’s about doing more good.

Leaders in the private, public, and civic sectors increasingly agree about the need for business to adopt sustainable business practices that would benefit the natural environment and local communities. Often, support for such practices originates in people’s worldviews and religious beliefs.

 in Journal of Public Policy & Marketing by Kathryn Johnson, Richie Liu, Elizabeth Minton, Darrell Bartholomew, Mark Peterson, Adam Cohen, and Jeremy Kees investigates drivers of this relationship between religion and sustainability as well as support for sustainable policies. Specifically, these researchers explore whether consumers’ concept of God as authoritarian, as loving, or as mystical might explain their support for sustainability initiatives. The results suggest that representing God as a mystical force is most effective.

Findings from several studies, sponsored in part by the John Templeton Foundation, disclosed that people were less likely to feel a connectedness with nature when reminded of the attributes of a loving, person-like God. One explanation for this is that people may conceptualize a divine hierarchy descending from God to angels, humans, animals, and nature, in that order. In such a hierarchy, nature can be regarded as created merely for use and disposal by humans.

In contrast, the researchers found that focusing on the concept of God as limitless (e.g., “vast,” “infinite,” “boundless”) or mystical (e.g., “nature,” “energy,” “cosmic force”) was associated with feelings of unity with nature. The researchers then showed that experimentally inducing awe—with videos of the vastness of the galaxy—led people to think of themselves as less significant and to focus on the relatively more abstract attributes of God as a limitless or mystical spirit. Importantly, people who had experienced awe also reported more positive evaluations of nature and greater support for sustainability initiatives.

The researchers suggest that marketing communications that inspire awe or self-transcendence are effective in boosting support for sustainable consumption behaviors as well as intentions to support environmentally oriented policies at the ballot box. Examples of ways for marketers to create such communications include mentioning words or including visuals associated with awe in marketing communications or policy messaging (e.g., “awe,” “connectedness with nature,” “energy,” “cosmic force”).

As with any consumer behavior, emotions can be a positive or negative influence on attitudes toward sustainability. Messages that instill fear or convey divine commandments may be ineffective or unintentionally backfire where sustainability efforts are concerned. Instead, marketing efforts should emphasize the sacred quality and value of the natural world as well as focus on the positive emotion of awe. This is important because changing the views of even some individuals in a social network can have a snowball effect, fostering positive attitudes toward the environment in the whole group.

There is much work that can be done in the realm of sustainability. For example, reducing carbon footprints of all human activity remains a priority for curbing climate change. Simply reducing food waste could be one way to markedly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Improving water, soil, and air quality continue to be leading issues for sustainability as well.

Promotional materials that effectively depict the vastness of nature and outer space align with many viewers’ representations of God as a mystical force. As a result, “awe-some” promotional materials would be more effective.

Article Citation

Kathryn A. Johnson, Richie Liu, Elizabeth A. Minton, Darrell E. Bartholomew, Mark Peterson, Adam B. Cohen, and Jeremy Kees (2017), “,”��, 36 (Fall).

The post Effective Sustainability Messaging Should Be “Awesome” appeared first on ���������.