Branding

Connectingwithconsumersvialivebuzzmarketing_publicperceptionsandtheroleofethicalideology.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Branding

Connecting with consumers via live buzz marketing: public perceptions and the role of ethical ideology Allan J. Kimmel Marketing Department, ESCP Europe, Paris, France

Buzz marketing has emerged as a popular, viable adjunct to traditional marketing communication, yet has received little critical scrutiny from an ethical perspective. This investigation represents an initial excursion into the public mind regarding the acceptability of buzz marketing techniques. One hundred thirty-one participants evaluated scenarios descriptive of actual live buzz campaigns varying in degree of transparency and deception. More negative perceptions were associated with deceptive approaches (disclosed and secret) than overt ones, and participants were less accepting of peer-to-peer campaigns than performance-to-peer campaigns. Respondents classified as moral idealists evaluated live buzz campaigns more negatively than moral relativists. The author discusses the implications of these findings for connected marketing strategies and public policy and offers recommendations for connected marketing practitioners

Introduction

Marketing managers have made significant progress to engage with customers and to leverage consumer conversations (Kirby & Marsden 2006; Kimmel 2010). The various techniques that are making their way into the connected marketing toolbox continue to expand as marketers use their ingenuity to develop innovative ways to reach their targets, engage them, and, perhaps most importantly, stimulate word of mouth (WOM), generally defined as ‘the sharing of marketing-relevant information among consumers’ (Word of Mouth Marketing Association 2009: 2). However, certain innovative connected marketing techniques have raised ethical red flags, such as approaches that involve fake blogging, bribing third-party bloggers, undercover company representatives carrying out secret live buzz ploys, and practices that exploit the privacy

rights of individuals (e.g. consumer profiling) (Martin & Smith 2008). Although such tactics may reap short-term dividends, unless conducted with extreme care and sensitivity, with the actions ulti- mately revealed and explained in a timely fashion, they have the potential to backfire and drive away customers.

Despite the growing attention to ethical issues in general business conduct (e.g. Jaffe & Pasternak 2006) and corporate responsibility (e.g. Kotler & Lee 2004; Walters & Anagnostopoulos 2012), practitio- ners have relatively little guidance in terms of the ethical acceptability of emerging marketing approaches and must walk a fine line when attempt- ing to become active participants in the consumer conversation. Consumers are likely to appreciate engagement, but not when it appears that a firm’s primary motives are to manipulate and sell. As com- panies have begun to allocate larger portions of their

bs _b

s_ ba

nn er

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

doi: 10.1111/beer.12070

205

marketing budgets to non-traditional practices (Walsh 2009; Moorman 2012), a growing number of concerns about the ethicality of the practices have surfaced among consumer groups and the mass media. Yet, there has been little scholarly research devoted to the ethicality of connected marketing approaches (Martin & Smith 2008). The purpose of the present investigation was to assess reactions to non-traditional marketing approaches – specifically, ‘live buzz marketing techniques’ – that have become the focus of ethical concerns. The goal was to obtain empirical evidence via a preliminary excursion into the public mind that could serve as an aid in marketers’ assessment of the appropriateness and acceptability of certain unconventional marketing practices. Such an approach is consistent with the basic marketing concept, which holds that prac- tical applications must be developed with a view toward the needs, feelings, and beliefs of consumer targets.

Live buzz marketing defined and classified

Buzz marketing campaigns typically are intended to attract the attention of consumer targets with content that is likely to arouse short-term as opposed to enduring involvement and to create an effect that is more emotional and experiential in orientation than suggestive of need satisfaction (Kirby & Marsden 2006). In short, they incorporate situationally involving techniques that motivate people to talk about something they experienced in their everyday lives, online or offline, which in one way or another incorporates a product, service, or brand. The term ‘live buzz marketing’ refers to a marketing approach that makes use of an actual event or performance to create WOM (Foxton 2006). Buzz is created at a specific moment by a live happening or event, and this triggers something akin to a sound wave of chatter (i.e. an ‘echo’) that rever- berates throughout a consumer population, repeat- ing and imitating itself until ultimately fading away. Performers often give rise to such an echo, defined broadly to include not only actors but average con- sumers who are willing to talk about something in the marketplace. The challenge for a buzz marketing

effort is to generate a big enough noise to set off the echo’s vibrations (Kimmel 2010).

There are two general types of live buzz marketing, which differ on the basis of the individuals from whom WOM originates (Foxton 2006). Live peer-to- peer marketing pertains to situations in which ordi- nary consumers are encouraged to convey WOM about a product, service, or brand, perhaps in exchange for product samples or loyalty points. Live peer-to-peer marketing variations include brand advocacy, product seeding, and brand ambassador programs. Live performer-to-peer marketing involves the use of trained, qualified performers who take on the role of brand advocates in specific settings where target consumers are likely to be found. This variety of live buzz marketing tends to be highly controlled, regulated, and measurable, and is the variation that is most likely to be thought of as synonymous with the live buzz marketing approach.

Three types of live performer-to-peer marketing techniques – secret, disclosed, and overt – differ on the basis of their potential reach and the degree of audience members’ awareness that they are being targeted by a marketing effort (Foxton 2006). Whereas secret live buzz marketing occurs under- cover, with consumers left unaware that they are being targeted as part of a clandestine marketing campaign, for the disclosed variety, consumers either are informed that they are being marketed to or become aware of that fact during the interaction. Overt efforts often involve persons who appear in conspicuous locations and attempt to engage the public through theatrical activities that prominently incorporate a product, brand, or message.

Live buzz marketing and ethics

Because live buzz techniques are new and to varying degrees untested, it is not surprising that they at times exceed the limits of propriety, ethics, and legal stan- dards. To date, ethical guidance is provided by the Word of Mouth Marketing Association’s Ten Prin- ciples for Ethical Contact by Marketers (http:// www.womma.org), the American Marketing Association’s (AMA) Statement of Ethics (http:// www.marketingpower.com), and the ethical codes of marketing’s root disciplines, such as the American

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles (American Psychological Association 2002, amended American Psychological Association 2010). These professional guidelines share an overriding concern for honesty, openness, and the use of non-deceptive tactics in dealings with members of the general public (Kimmel 2007). Generally speaking, these guidelines are presented within the context of a cost/benefit decision-making framework that allows for excep- tions and fails to provide specific guidance with regard to the resolution of ethical dilemmas.

In addition to the ethics codes of professional associations, a growing number of corporate inter- ests have begun to formulate statements regarding proper conduct for the use of non-traditional mar- keting techniques. One of the core values emphasized in corporate social marketing guidelines is that of transparency, as exemplified by the Coca-Cola Company’s (http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com) online social media principles. Legislation pertaining to alternative marketing practices appears to be slow in coming (Goodman 2006), and existing laws and regulations, at present, tend to be applied on a case- by-case basis.

As marketers strive to one-up the competition and break through the communication clutter, there no doubt will always be gray areas and differing views on the suitability of evolving marketing innovations. The increasing shift to non-traditional marketing communication has brought connected marketers closer to their targets in terms of physical proximity and intimacy, such that face-to-face encounters with targets in everyday life situations may serve to increase the salience of various ethical consider- ations. As a result, participants may be involved at more intense levels of emotion and disclosure than is the case for more familiar forms of traditional mar- keting efforts, such as advertising and promotion (see Sojka & Spangenberg 1994; Haverkamp 2005).

In what appears to be the only empirical assess- ment to date of perceptions of non-traditional mar- keting, Ahuja et al. (2007) conducted focus group discussions with teenage participants aged 13–16. They found that the teens clearly understood the nature and goals of buzz marketing campaigns, were able to readily identify incentives for serving as a buzz agent and company objectives for engaging in such marketing efforts, and grasped the dynamics of

buzz marketing for stimulating favorable WOM about products. The teen participants claimed to have little concern about the ethicality of not reveal- ing one’s status as a buzz marketing agent, likening the role of buzz agents to that of ‘normal people doing their job’, and widely believed that a person typically tends to be ‘a target in everyday life’. Further, they recognized the inherent risks involved in revealing one’s status as a ‘live commercial’ to close friends, which they considered as ‘not cool’. Accordingly, Ahuja et al. attributed these percep- tions about buzz marketing to a utilitarian (i.e. ends justifying the means) teen logic, whereby disclosure is not considered to be in the best interest of either the agent or the company sponsor.

Whether Ahuja et al.’s findings are indicative of perceptions among other target groups or pertain to reactions to overt buzz approaches that do not rely on secrecy remains to be tested; however, marketers themselves have noted a variety of ethical concerns pertinent to the application of covert marketing tech- niques. Martin & Smith (2008) identified several ethical problems associated with stealth marketing efforts, whether considered from an absolutist’s (or non-consequentialist) perspective or an ethical approach that takes into account the consequences of the action. The most salient ethical concerns are those attributed to the problematic nature of decep- tion. As an intentional effort to mislead, the moral justifiability of deception comes into question because deceit is a way of making people act against their will and is the most common reason for mis- trust (Bok 1978, 1992). Martin & Smith’s ethical analysis of stealth marketing case studies led them to the conclusion that although the campaigns do ‘not appear to lead to some greater evil’, their morality can be questioned because they violate ‘a duty of fidelity to the truth, even if there are no apparent adverse consequences’ (2008: 48).

Martin & Smith identified potential adverse con- sequences associated with stealth marketing prac- tices, both for the firm (e.g. denigration of the brand; an increase in distrust of business and marketing) and for marketing targets (e.g. the potential for making incorrect inferences about brands and prod- ucts; negative feelings associated with being deceived and a corresponding lowered self-esteem). The case study analyses revealed that, to varying degrees, the

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

ethicality of stealth marketing campaigns can be questioned according to the extent to which they involve deception (e.g. paid actors’ affiliation is not disclosed), intrusion (e.g. interference with everyday social interactions), and exploitation (e.g. exploiting consumer trust in blogs or the kindness of strangers).

Research objectives

An overriding, yet often neglected principle that can be emphasized in the development of a connected marketing approach is the necessity to remain sensi- tive to the consumers who are served. The present study was intended to assess reactions to marketing tactics falling within the categories of live buzz mar- keting types described above. The objectives were to provide initial insight into the acceptability of these evolving forms of marketing from the target’s point of view and to offer some recommendations with regard to the further development of ethical policy and marketing practice. This approach is consistent with suggestions that ethical guidelines be based on empirical evidence indicating what the people most affected by the practices in question think and feel about them (Gergen 1973; Rosnow 1997; Kimmel 2007).

Given the lack of prior empirical research upon which conclusive predictions could be derived, two exploratory hypotheses were developed, based on the presumption that consumer perceptions would be tied to the degree of openness inherent in the marketing action. Although Ahuja et al.’s (2007) results suggest that, at least from the perspective of the WOM agent, maintaining secrecy would be viewed as preferable when the marketing strategy involves concealment, it was hypothesized that when asked to adopt the point of view of buzz marketing recipients, people would evaluate revealed proce- dures as more ethically acceptable than those utiliz- ing non-disclosed deceptive procedures:

Hypothesis 1: Live buzz practices involving greater levels of openness and disclosure (i.e. disclosed and overt live buzz market- ing) are associated with more favorable reactions from consumer respondents than practices character-

ized by unrevealed deceptions (i.e. secret live buzz marketing).

Hypothesis 2: Peer-to-peer live buzz marketing approaches are evaluated less favor- ably than live performer-to-peer mar- keting approaches, given the former’s (to date) greater use of unrevealed deceptive practices.

Limited research on individual factors underlying consumer reactions to the acceptability of marketing approaches points to the central role of personal theories of moral philosophy (see Laczniak & Murphy 1993; Martin & Smith 2008). Consistent with previous research (e.g. Vitell & Paolillo 2004; Darke & Ritchie 2007), it was expected that personal moral beliefs would be associated with differences in ethical judgments concerning live buzz marketing practices. In addition to other personal influences on ethical judgments, such as differences in background (e.g. Ferrell & Gresham 1985; Hunt & Vitell 1993), stages of moral development (e.g. Ho et al. 1997), and judgmental biases (e.g. Kellaris et al. 1996), people tend to apply different standards to their evaluations of ethical acceptability (e.g. Vitell et al. 1993; LaFleur et al. 1996). This is particularly likely when it comes to the evaluation of stealth marketing campaigns, where perceptions of acceptability center on issues pertaining to deceptiveness, intrusion, and exploitativeness (Martin & Smith 2008).

Over its long history, moral philosophy has pro- duced many ethical theories from which we might derive a set of normative standards for judging the conduct of others. Generally speaking, these theories are predominantly either consequentialist or non- consequentialist (Derry & Green 1989), which are largely distinguished on the basis of whether or not a practice is judged on the basis of its consequences. Under consequentialist (or ‘teleological’) theories, the morally right conduct would be the one that produces at least as favorable a ratio of good to bad consequences (e.g. in terms of welfare or utility) as any other course of action (Beauchamp 2001). Under non-consequentialist (or ‘deontological’) theories, the ethical evaluation of an action generally would reflect an assessment of its consistency with binding moral rules or duties (such as the duty to tell the

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

truth), and consequences are not of primary impor- tance. In short, teleological perspectives emphasize the consequences of performing an action, whereas deontological theories focus on the inherent right- ness of an action (Singhapakdi & Vitell 1991).

Structured measures enable the classification of people into categories of ethical ideologies based on their typical approach to making moral judgments (Forsyth 1980; Kleiser et al. 2003). Aligned with the deontological approach, ‘idealism’ represents an ide- ology based on the belief that the right course of action always yields a preponderance of desirable outcomes, as opposed to some tolerable mix of good and bad outcomes. ‘Relativism,’ by contrast, proj- ects a teleological approach to decision making through a person’s tendency to reject universal moral rules or absolutes in favor of subjective or contextual approaches. Accordingly, it was predicted that dif- ferences in ethical ideology would be associated with varying degrees of acceptance of live buzz practices:

Hypothesis 3: Absolutists (i.e. persons high on ideal- ism and low on relativism) are less accepting of live buzz practices than are situationists (i.e. persons high on both idealism and relativism) and sub- jectivists (i.e. persons high on relativ- ism but low on idealism).

Situationists and subjectivists are not likely to reject marketing practices outright on the basis of an overriding binding set of moral absolutes, the former apt to evaluate each situation in an effort to find an ideal solution and the latter more accepting of the possibility of mixed (i.e. good and bad) conse- quences. By contrast, absolutists hold the view that ideal solutions can be derived through the applica- tion of universal moral rules; thus, they were expected to react unfavorably to any marketing approach involving deception, which is contrary to principles of honesty and openness.

Method

Respondents

The participants were English-speaking students enrolled in undergraduate and advanced degree busi-

ness and psychology courses at two American univer- sities and two French ‘grande écoles’. The schools were comprised of multicultural student bodies with large contingents of visiting foreign students from around the world. So as to further enhance the exter- nal validity of the sample, each student was instructed to complete one copy of a marketing questionnaire and to have a second independently completed by an English-speaking non-student adult friend or family member. The final sample of participants (56% female) resulted in a multinational group intended to approximate a relatively global survey of public reac- tions. A total of 131 questionnaires were collected during the following class session, with nearly one- third (n = 41) completed by non-student adults ranging in age from 18 to 72 (mean age = 29.8 years).

Procedure

The study was accurately described as an investiga- tion to find out ‘how people like yourself feel about certain non-traditional techniques and approaches that are sometimes used by marketers, particularly ones that are employed in natural settings using people like yourself as consumer targets’. Partici- pants were not informed that the scenarios presented in the questionnaire were descriptive of actual cam- paigns that marketers previously had carried out.

Each questionnaire was comprised of six one- paragraph descriptions of live buzz marketing cam- paigns of various types: the same three peer-to-peer marketing scenarios and one scenario descriptive of each of the three categories of live performer-to-peer marketing (secret, disclosed, and overt). Two examples of each of the performer-to-peer marketing scenarios were randomly distributed among the questionnaires. Each scenario (see Table 1) was based on actions actually carried out by firms (e.g. one secret performer-to-peer campaign described Sony Ericsson’s ‘Fake Tourist’ campaign) and have received general agreement in the literature as char- acteristic of specific live buzz types (see Foxton 2006). To further validate the appropriateness of the scenarios for representing their respective live buzz categories, 42 consumer behavior students at one of the French schools from which questionnaire respondents were selected were provided with brief descriptions of each type of live buzz and asked to

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

classify the nine scenarios, resulting in expected agreement levels of 0.86 or higher.

Respondents were instructed to complete a set of semantic differential scales following each scenario by putting themselves ‘in the position of a consumer in the specific situation described’ and to judge how

they ‘would feel about being involved’. The scales assessed respondents’ feelings about whether the marketing action invaded privacy, was unethical, likely to lower trust in marketers, illegal, likely to affect their brand attitude, and so on. The question- naires also included a copy of Kleiser et al.’s (2003)

...................................................................................................................................................................

Table 1: Representative examples of live buzz marketing scenarios and participant open-ended comments

Live peer-to-peer marketing: A food company hired ordinary consumers to talk up a new sausage product at outdoor barbeques with their family members and friends, without ever revealing their status as buzz agents.

Comments: ‘I have negative feelings towards this marketing campaign to the extent that the “agents” did not identify themselves as such. Presumably, as the agent was invited to my barbecue, the agent is a friend, and I trust my friends to tell me the truth about the product’. ‘I don’t like being tricked. If they had said from the beginning they worked for this company and wanted me to try it I would have tried it. Just don’t like sneaky people’. ‘I wouldn’t make fun of such a marketing strategy because my intimacy wouldn’t be violated at all’. ‘It is a sly way of getting people to try the food! Why not just do a promotion during the summer/barbecue season, people/promoters hand out free packets on the street along with a guide to cooking them and recipe ideas’.

Secret performer-to-peer marketing: A company ran a promotion in which trained actors posed as tourists to generate interest in a new combination mobile phone and camera. Working in teams of two or three, the fake tourists frequented major tourist attractions, asking unsuspecting passersby to take their photograph with the camera. This maneuver was intended to draw attention to the new product by directly engaging people with an instant product demonstration.

Comments: ‘Here, no one was lying. If those fake tourists would have come and say to the other tourists great things about the cameras, it would have been more unethical’. ‘I think it’s a very clever idea, and if the actors are nice, I could enjoy the situation’. ‘It’s a question of playing with people’s trust, and it may have a societal impact in increasing distrust towards strangers, fear of being ripped off or taken for a fool’.

Disclosed performer-to-peer marketing: To heighten awareness of a new road safety campaign, two-performer teams were used at movie theatres: a male actor dressed as a cinema manager and an actress masquerading as an audience member waiting for a friend. The two then played out a scenario in which it was made to appear that the manager was informing the girl about a terrible accident involving the girl’s boyfriend, who had forgotten to switch on his motorcycle’s lights. After leading the actress out of the auditorium, following her staged collapse, the manager returned and announced to the audience that the scene was all an act, mentioned the importance of safety, and then introduced the campaign’s commercial, which then appeared on the screen.

Comments: ‘This is for our overall well-being and safety, so for that we can’t be too angry. But, I think it is a little bit too much to distress people like that before they try to enjoy something they have paid for (the movie); a strong ad is enough, but I’d say people would be VERY angry to have that prank played on them’. ‘Because I am an emotional person this would be very emotional for me and ruin my evening. Even after finding out it was not real it would then cause me to feel anger that I was used’. ‘I would hate being subjected to this. I personally know people who have died or been seriously injured on motorcycles. Watching someone (whom I thought was real) get that kind of news would strongly upset me. I would probably get up and walk out of the theatre and complain’.

Overt performer-to-peer marketing: A marketing agency arranged to have activists (clothed only in skin-colored bathing suits) from an animal rights group individually display themselves in transparent wrapping material that made them appear as packed meat to stress their position against the killing of animals for meat. The ‘meat people’ displays were positioned on the ground in various urban areas heavily trafficked by pedestrians. Around the display, other activists marched back and forth with a banner that read ‘Meat is Murder’.

Comments: ‘I am a vegetarian but I do NOT press my beliefs upon others. If it were a demonstration on the street to stop child abuse or something, that is fine. But something so basic to human life and a demonstration that especially could be dangerous for children to see, should never happen’. ‘These kinds of demonstrations only push me the other way. I would feel like going and eating a large steak and buying a fur coat’. ‘It’s a little extreme. Millions of people eat meat, and these activists are calling us murderers’.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

seven-item Marketing Ethical Ideology scale, a vali- dated scale that reliably distinguishes between Ideal- ism (i.e. absolutists) and Relativism (i.e. situationists and subjectivists) dimensions.

Results

The results presented below summarize comparisons for the (1) performance-to-peer live buzz marketing categories (Hypothesis 1); (2) peer-to-peer vs. performance-to-peer live buzz marketing types (Hypothesis 2); and (3) marketing ethical ideologies (Hypothesis 3). Because of strong, significant (p < 0.01) correlations on all comparisons, responses to the three peer-to-peer scenarios were averaged across all measures for each of the repeated measures analyses described below. Examples of open-ended comments for the various live buzz scenarios appear in Table 1.

Performance-to-peer comparisons

It was anticipated that the acceptability of performance-to-peer live buzz marketing approaches would be influenced by their degree of openness and disclosure, with secret live buzz campaigns resulting in the least favorable consumer reactions (Hypoth- esis 1). Consistent in part with this prediction, repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and post hoc paired t-tests revealed that respondents rated the overt campaigns as significantly less exploitative (i.e. ‘leading to feelings of being used or taken advantage of by a firm’) than secret or dis- closed campaigns, F(2, 254) = 23.89, p < 0.001; less invasive of privacy (i.e. ‘you feel that your control over the extent to which access to your opinions, beliefs, behaviors has been violated’) than disclosed campaigns, F(2, 254) = 5.43, p < 0.01; and less likely to result in participants minding being subjected to the marketing approach (i.e. ‘if you knew before- hand what was going to happen, you would not have accepted to be a target’) than disclosed campaigns, F(2, 254) = 11.54, p < 0.001 (see Table 2 for mean ratings and Table 3 for t-test results).1

Respondents were significantly more likely to mind being subjected to a disclosed campaign than a secret one, t(129) = 3.66, p < 0.001. The overt campaigns

were rated as significantly more ethical (i.e. ‘moral or right according to your society’s standards’), F(2, 254) = 13.31, p < 0.001 and significantly more legal (i.e. ‘the marketing action should be considered as a violation of the law, regardless of current laws in your country’), F(2, 254) = 4.61, p < .05 than the disclosed campaigns. However, no differences were apparent among the three performer-to-peer approaches with regard to justification for the marketing action (i.e. ‘the marketing action was justified by the firm’s busi- ness objectives’), F(2, 254) = 2.87, p < 0.05.

With regard to the perceived consequences of the performance-to-peer approaches, respondents evalu- ated each campaign according to its likely effects on trust (i.e. ‘your confidence in the honesty of market- ers is negatively affected’), brand attitude (i.e. ‘after reading about this marketing effort, your feelings about the brand would be positively or negatively influenced’), and likelihood of discussing the cam- paign online (i.e. ‘following the marketing action, you would post a comment about this experience on a social network site like Facebook, Twitter, a blog, chat room, etc.’). Although secret campaigns were rated as significantly more likely to lower trust than overt campaigns, F(2, 254) = 3.61, p < 0.05, no apparent differences were revealed for brand atti- tude, F(2, 252) = 1.93, p < 0.05 or likelihood to discuss online, F(2, 254) = 2.19, p < 0.05.

Performance-to-peer vs. peer-to-peer comparisons

Strong support was evident for the prediction that peer-to-peer campaigns, which typically utilize unrevealed deceptive tactics involving apparently ordinary consumers, would be considered less accept- able than performance-to-peer campaigns (Hypoth- esis 2). Compared with all three performance-to-peer buzz categories, respondents rated peer-to-peer cam- paigns significantly more exploitative, more likely to lower trust in marketers and liking for the brand (p < 0.001), and less legal (see Table 2 for means and F-values and Table 3 for t-test results). Additionally, peer-to-peer tactics were viewed as significantly more invasive of privacy, more unethical, less justified, and more likely to arouse negative feelings about personally being targeted than overt and secret cam- paigns (p < 0.001). Despite these divergences from

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

performer-to-peer approaches, for the latter mea- sures (privacy, ethicality, justification, legality, and reaction to being targeted), differences in ratings were not apparent between the peer-to-peer and disclosed performer-to-peer tactics (p < 0.05). The peer-to-peer approaches did not differ from any performance-to- performance approaches in likelihood to stimulate discussion about the marketing actions online (p < 0.05).

Ethical ideologies and live buzz marketing comparisons

As predicted (Hypothesis 3), idealists (i.e. absolut- ists), persons whose ethical judgments are reflective

of a reliance on universal moral rules or absolutes, were found to be less accepting of buzz marketing tactics than those characterized as relativists (i.e. situationists and subjectivists) on nearly all of the measures considered (see Table 4).2 Absolutists rated the peer-to-peer and performance-to-peer campaigns as more exploitative, invasive of privacy, unethical, unjustified, and illegal; more likely to lower trust; arouse negative feelings about being targeted; and have a negative impact on brand attitude (p < 0.01). It should be noted that although idealists were most critical of buzz marketing tactics when compared with other respondents, their evaluations of these tactics were not extreme, consistently falling in the three to four range on the seven-point scales.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Table 2: Mean comparisons for live buzz marketing categories (ANOVAs)

Measure Peer-to-peer Performance-to-peer F-valuea (df) Secret Disclosed Overt

Feel exploited? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all)

M 3.60 4.45 4.23 5.45 39.63* SD 1.20 1.96 1.89 1.54 (3,366) n 128 128 128 128

Privacy invaded? (1 = completely; 7 = no invasion at all)

M 4.34 5.01 4.76 5.34 12.41* SD 1.35 1.73 1.88 1.78 (3,381) n 128 128 128 128

Unethical? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all unethical)

M 3.61 4.55 3.98 5.09 22.01* SD 1.36 1.89 1.99 1.80 (3,338) n 128 128 128 128

Justified (by objective)? (1 = completely unjustified; 7 = completely justified)

M 4.02 4.77 4.47 4.94 9.70* SD 1.25 1.74 1.97 1.85 (3,344) n 128 128 128 128

Mind being targeted? (1 = completely mind; 7 = not mind at all)

M 3.82 4.71 3.91 4.91 15.09* SD 1.37 2.00 2.08 1.94 (3,349) n 128 128 128 128

Lowered trust? (1 = completely lowered; 7 = not lowered at all)

M 3.20 4.41 4.48 4.92 29.80* SD 1.22 1.84 1.89 1.97 (3,351) n 128 128 128 128

Illegal? (1 = completely agree; 7 = completely disagree)

M 4.64 5.38 5.13 5.62 14.08* SD 1.43 1.80 1.75 1.53 (3,341) n 128 128 128 128

Discuss online? (1 = definitely would; 7 = definitely would not)

M 4.10 4.28 3.98 4.22 1.67 SD 1.68 2.01 2.09 1.99 (3,381) n 128 128 128 128

Affect brand attitude? (1 = would like brand less; 7 = would like brand more)

M 3.13 4.11 4.08 4.42 19.17* SD 1.10 1.63 1.69 1.77 (3,332) n 127 127 127 127

a F-values for comparisons including all four buzz marketing categories. See Table 3 for specific mean differences. * p < 0.001. ANOVA, analysis of variance; df, degrees of freedom; M, mean; SD, standard deviation. ...................................................................................................................................................................

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

To further assess the role of ethical ideology as a critical mediator of respondents’ evaluations of the live buzz scenarios, separate analyses were carried out for idealists (i.e. absolutists) and relativists (i.e. subjectivists, situationists) across the various depen- dent measures. The results revealed that several of the significant differences linked to the degree of openness that emerged from the performance-to- peer and peer-to-peer comparisons were largely attributed to the ratings of relativists, but not ide- alists (see Table 5). For example, differences were not apparent across live buzz types for idealists on the measures of invasion of privacy, justification, reaction to being targeted, legality, and likelihood

to stimulate online discussion. However, idealists rated overt live buzz marketing as less exploitative and more ethical than the three deceptive live buzz types, and less likely to lower trust than secret and peer-to-peer live buzz types. Thus, it appears that idealists consider any live buzz marketing approach that utilizes deception – whether or not that decep- tion ultimately is disclosed – as less ethically justifi- able or acceptable. These findings provide further support for the expectation that idealists’ reliance on universal moral rules results in lowered evalua- tions of the ethicality of marketing approaches involving deception than persons prone to utilitar- ian considerations.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Table 3: Mean comparisons for live buzz marketing categories (t-tests)

Measure Performer-to-peer comparisons Peer-to-peer (P2P) comparisons Conditions df t-value Conditions df t-value

Feel exploited? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all)

Secret/disclosed 129 1.22 P2P/secret 130 5.60* Secret/overt 128 5.21* P2P/disclosed 129 4.21* Disclosed/overt 127 6.36* P2P/overt 128 11.56*

Privacy invaded? (1 = completely; 7 = no invasion at all)

Secret/disclosed 129 1.43 P2P/secret 130 4.64* Secret/overt 128 1.92 P2P/disclosed 129 2.58 Disclosed/overt 127 3.08* P2P/overt 128 5.91*

Unethical? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all unethical)

Secret/disclosed 129 2.68* P2P/secret 130 6.38* Secret/overt 128 2.79* P2P/disclosed 129 1.98 Disclosed/overt 127 4.83* P2P/overt 128 7.66*

Justified? (1 = completely unjustified; 7 = completely justified)

Secret/disclosed 129 1.49 P2P/secret 130 5.65* Secret/overt 128 0.92 P2P/disclosed 129 2.48 Disclosed/overt 127 2.26 P2P/overt 128 5.12

Mind being targeted? (1 = completely mind; 7 = not mind at all)

Secret/disclosed 129 3.66* P2P/secret 130 5.47* Secret/overt 128 0.99 P2P/disclosed 129 0.54 Disclosed/overt 127 4.31* P2P/overt 128 5.95*

Lowered trust? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all)

Secret/disclosed 129 0.41 P2P/secret 130 7.97* Secret/overt 128 2.60* P2P/disclosed 129 7.65* Disclosed/over 127 2.14 P2P/overt 128 8.95*

Illegal? (1 = completely agree; 7 = completely disagree)

Secret/disclosed 129 1.43 P2P/secret 130 6.21* Secret/overt 128 1.49 P2P/disclosed 129 2.96* Disclosed/overt 127 3.19* P2P/overt 128 6.07*

Discuss online? (1 = definitely would; 7 = definitely would not)

Secret/disclosed 129 2.02 P2P/secret 130 1.49 Secret/overt 128 0.34 P2P/disclosed 129 0.70 Disclosed/overt 127 1.68 P2P/overt 128 0.93

Affect brand attitude? (1 = like brand less; 7 = like brand more)

Secret/disclosed 128 0.29 P2P/secret 129 7.61* Secret/overt 127 1.51 P2P/disclosed 129 5.89* Disclosed/over 127 1.89 P2P/overt 128 7.37*

*p < 0.017. df, degrees of freedom. ...................................................................................................................................................................

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

Discussion

As consumers have come to progressively tune out or actively resist traditional marketing communication messages, buzz marketing and other non-traditional approaches have become increasingly appealing to marketers (e.g. Vollmer 2008; Kimmel 2010). Results of the present study provide some initial insight into attitudes and reactions concerning live buzz market- ing, an approach that has aroused ethical concerns about the limits to which marketers can go in using methods that may directly affect the lives of target audience members.

Despite the rather limited sample consisting of the kinds of persons who often serve as targets of live

buzz campaigns (cf. Kirby & Marsden 2006), one overriding finding is that when it comes to attitudes about their acceptability, not all live buzz marketing methods are alike. In general, respondents reacted more favorably toward performance-to-peer approaches than peer-to-peer approaches, the latter of which involve apparently ordinary consumers who are recruited to play an undercover or otherwise stealth role in influencing an unsuspecting public. Peer-to-peer scenarios were rated as lower in accept- ability than performer-to-peer alternatives, which involve trained performers as brand ambassadors, on a variety of measures, including perceived exploi- tation, invasion of privacy, justification, and ethical- ity. This may suggest that from the target’s

...................................................................................................................................................................

Table 4: Mean comparisons for marketing ethical ideologies (ANOVAs)

Measure Situationists Absolutists Subjectivists F-valuea

Feel exploited? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all)

M 4.61 3.69 5.26 10.48* SD 1.16 0.99 1.01 n 88 32 8

Privacy invaded? (1 = completely; 7 = no invasion at all)

M 5.08 4.11 5.22 8.61* SD 1.15 1.15 1.37 n 88 32 8

Unethical? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all unethical)

M 4.44 3.75 5.03 6.55* SD 1.12 1.03 1.08 n 88 32 8

Justified (by objective)? (1 = completely unjustified; 7 = completely justified)

M 4.77 3.75 5.49 13.35* SD 1.15 0.88 1.18 n 88 32 8

Mind being targeted? (1 = completely mind; 7 = would not mind at all)

M 4.55 3.53 5.57 14.51* SD 1.12 1.15 1.07 n 88 32 8

Lowered trust? (1 = completely lowered; 7 = not lowered at all)

M 4.51 3.50 4.73 10.97* SD 1.08 1.02 1.22 n 88 32 8

Illegal? (1 = completely agree; 7 = completely disagree)

M 5.30 4.63 6.14 6.87* SD 1.19 1.07 0.98 n 88 32 8

Discuss online? (1 = definitely would; 7 = definitely would not)

M 4.15 4.16 4.08 0.01 SD 1.71 1.37 2.15 n 88 32 8

Affect brand attitude? (1 = would like brand less; 7 = would like brand more)

M 4.11 3.38 4.24 7.44* SD 0.95 0.93 0.91 n 88 32 8

a F-values for ratings averaged across the four live buzz marketing categories (peer-to-peer, secret, disclosed, and overt). Scheffe tests were conducted for post hoc multiple comparisons. * p < 0.01. ANOVA, analysis of variance; M, mean; SD, standard deviation. ...................................................................................................................................................................

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

perspective, peer-to-peer efforts are perceived as exploiting the selfish motivations of consumers to deceive their peers. By contrast, some written com- ments by respondents portrayed the performer-to- peer campaigns relatively more favorably because in the respondents’ view, the desired ends – socially beneficial, beneficial to the bottom line, or useful for personal decision making – justified the deceptive means. For example:

‘If it was a product I wouldn’t have otherwise tried or gotten my hands on – why not?’

‘While the marketer is being untruthful with the “fake” tourists, the tourists are not necessarily imposing on me to buy the product. If I happen to take an interest in the product, then I’m all the better for it’.

‘Sometimes people don’t pay attention to safety instructions when given in a very subtle or general way. But their reactions change totally when they are given these instructions in an emphatic manner, which is good for public health and road safety’.

‘As a consumer, you would want to use something and get a feel for it before you buy it. This is a great way to get it in a consumer’s hand and spread the word’.

These findings, consistent with Ahuja et al.’s (2007) analysis of teen attitudes, suggest that people have come to accept that marketers may use a range of tactics to enhance corporate objectives and facilitate the consumption process. Substantially more objectionable is to be deceived by fellow con- sumers whose main interest is to make money for themselves – and then to have that deception revealed. Other results from the present study suggest that marketers who are considering the use of peer-to-peer buzz tactics should bear in mind that such approaches were found to be more likely than performance-to-peer varieties to have an adverse impact on consumers’ trust in marketers and attitudes toward the campaign’s focal brand. These varying attitudes represent an interesting focus for future investigation.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Table 5: Mean comparisons for live buzz marketing categories for idealists and relativists (t-tests)

Measure Ethical ideology (n) Peer-to-peer Performer-to-peer Secret Disclosed Overt

Feel exploited? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all)

Idealist (32) 2.99a 3.28a,c 3.66a,c 4.84b,d

Relativist (95) 3.79a 4.83b,c 4.43b,c 5.63b,d

Privacy invaded? (1 = completely; 7 = no invasion at all)

Idealist (32) 3.74 3.81 4.13 4.75 Relativist (95) 4.54a 5.40b 4.99b 5.53b

Unethical? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all unethical)

Idealist (32) 3.08a 3.59a 3.81a 4.50b

Relativist (95) 3.79a 4.85b,c 4.05a,d 5.27b,c

Justified? (1 = completely unjustified; 7 = completely justified)

Idealist (32) 3.39 3.78 3.88 3.97 Relativist (95) 4.23a 5.08b 4.69a,c 5.24b,d

Mind being targeted? (1 = completely mind; 7 = not mind at all)

Idealist (32) 3.16 3.59 3.38 4.00 Relativist (95) 4.06a 5.07b,c 4.11a,d 5.20b,c

Lowered trust? (1 = completely; 7 = not at all)

Idealist (32) 2.79a 3.22a 3.91b 4.09b

Relativist (95) 3.32a 4.79b 4.67b 5.18b

Illegal? (1 = completely agree; 7 = completely disagree)

Idealist (32) 4.22 4.34 4.94 5.03 Relativist (95) 4.77a 5.73b,c 5.18a,d 5.82b,c

Discuss online? (1 = definitely; 7 = definitely not)

Idealist (32) 4.28 4.09 3.97 4.28 Relativist (95) 4.05 4.36 4.00 4.21

Affect brand attitude? (1 = like brand less; 7 = like brand more)

Idealist (32) 2.75a 3.13a 3.72b 3.91b

Relativist (94) 3.24a 4.40b 4.14b 4.52b

Means with different subscripts a or b differ significantly at p < 0.017 for peer-to-peer comparisons with performer-to-peer conditions. Means with different subscripts c or d differ significantly at p < 0.017 for performer-to-peer comparisons. ...................................................................................................................................................................

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

As expected, a consideration of performance-to- peer approaches revealed that non-deceptive, overt methods were most acceptable to respondents on a variety of measures considered (e.g. ethicality, justi- fication, privacy). Illustrative of this outcome, one participant commented, ‘I don’t like to be tricked. If they had said from the beginning they worked for this company and wanted me to try it, I would have tried it. I just don’t like sneaky people’. Such reac- tions are consistent with the emphasis placed on openness and transparency by connected marketing advocates (e.g. Kirby & Marsden 2006; Jaffe 2007; Kimmel 2010) in efforts to identify consumers most likely to share their opinions with marketers, provide tools that facilitate the sharing of information, and enable the assessment of how, where, and when information is shared. In the view of BzzAgent Chief Executive Officer Dave Balter, ‘Even if you’re doing the right thing but you know you’re going to deceive people, you have to do everything to make sure it’s completely transparent, and any tactic that crosses that line you’re doing a disservice to the brand [and] the consumer’ (Siebert 2006).

Although performance-to-peer campaigns fared better on various measures from the respondents’ perspective, an unexpected finding was that disclosed campaigns tended to be evaluated more harshly than secret ones, suggesting that a sin untold (secret buzz marketing) is preferable to a lie revealed (disclosed buzz marketing). To blatantly reveal to consumers that they were ‘tricked’ into receiving a marketing message may be adding insult to injury, in a sense, by revealing to consumers how naïve they were in not seeing through the ploy. The results also conformed to the tendency among Ahuja et al.’s (2007) teen respondents to frown upon the practice of revealing one’s status as an undercover marketing agent to close friends. The implications of these findings suggest that the more ethical approach (disclosed live buzz tactics) may not be the most acceptable (or effective) one from the target’s point of view.

Despite the fact that a key objective of live buzz marketing campaigns is to stimulate online buzz about the campaigns and their focal brands in the hope that this will boost consumer awareness and purchasing behavior (Foxton 2006; Kimmel 2010), in the present study, no one type of live buzz mar- keting approach stood out as more effective in that

regard. Indeed, likelihood of discussing a campaign online was the only measure utilized in the present study that did not reveal significant differences among the four live buzz types compared. However, in part, this may be a function of the hypothetical nature of the measure itself. It has been suggested that when predicting the buzzworthiness of a par- ticular WOM campaign, a more appropriate measure – which was not practical in the present investigation – is to ask consumers to respond retro- spectively (e.g. ‘How many times did you talk about this campaign to others in the past month?’) rather than hypothetically (e.g. ‘Will you discuss this cam- paign online?’) (East et al. 2008).

Another noteworthy finding in the present inves- tigation was the apparent ability of respondents to differentiate ethical from legal considerations. Although certain live buzz actions may indeed exceed the bounds of local legal strictures, respon- dents in general were of the opinion that the market- ing campaigns they evaluated should not be considered illegal, despite their more negative views on the ethicality of and justification for the same campaigns. For example, one participant com- mented, ‘On a marketing level, this action must be highly effective and probably legal. On a human/ relationship/trust level, it is deceitful’. Others pointed out that it is not the business of consumers to determine what is or is not legal (e.g. ‘Not my job to make laws’).

If one overriding finding that emerged from this investigation is that not all live buzz marketing methods are alike in terms of the ways they are evalu- ated by targets, another is that not all publics are the same, and that personal differences should be con- sidered when decisions are made to target consumers with non-traditional marketing campaigns. Overall, it was found that participants whose ethical judg- ments are guided by an idealistic moral approach tend to evaluate live buzz campaigns more negatively than individuals who utilize a more relativistic approach. Whereas relativists appear apt to consider a marketing campaign on its own merits and recog- nize the acceptability of an action that may have both good and bad consequences, idealists are likely to view any marketing approach that is not charac- terized by total transparency as contrary to such moral rules as ‘thou shalt not lie’. However, although

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

idealists in the present study viewed non-deceptive (i.e. overt) campaigns as more ethically acceptable and less exploitative than deceptive campaigns, the fact that they tended to evaluate all live buzz cam- paign types more negatively than realists on several dependent measures (e.g. justification, reaction to being targeted, legality, invasion of privacy) – regardless of whether deception was or was not implemented – suggests that something more than deception may be at work in explaining their reac- tions, such as an overall negative attitude toward non-traditional marketing, or perhaps marketing in general. Further research is required to determine whether such persons harbor more negative attitudes toward marketing in general, how they can be iden- tified by marketers, ethical approaches for targeting them, and the effectiveness of campaigns in meeting objectives even if some consumers do not view the approaches as acceptable. Although not the focus of the present research, future research could focus on other individual factors known to play a role in con- sumers’ response to business activities, including culture (e.g. Yoo & Donthu 2002) and gender (e.g. Zhang et al. 2014).

Finally, insights accrued from the present investi- gation suggest some recommendations for marketing professionals. Although the employment of overt campaigns would seem to be the most acceptable approach from a moral perspective, connected mar- keters also must remain cognizant of the fact that the most ethically sound approach may not necessarily be the most effective one from a practical standpoint, and thereby could result solely in unnecessary expen- ditures for the firm. It has been observed that in the case of incentivized connected marketing, the more transparent the campaign becomes, the less effective the campaign is likely to be in achieving marketing objectives (e.g. stimulating peer-to-peer discussions or product trial) because the credibility of the recom- mendation is likely to be diminished (Nyilasy 2006). This example, bolstered by the results of the present investigation, highlights the problems regulators are likely to encounter in efforts to formulate one set of standards for all connected marketing campaigns and for all targeted consumers.

From a public policy standpoint, drawing from the approach utilized by behavioral scientists in their treatment of ethically problematic research (e.g.

laboratory experiments utilizing deception), officials could attempt to formulate an industry-wide moni- toring and review process as a means of educating and overseeing marketers who plan to launch covert non-traditional campaigns. For much human par- ticipant research, an institutional review board at the institution where the research has been proposed must determine whether risks to participants are minimized by sound research procedures and are outweighed sufficiently by anticipated benefits to the participants and the importance of the knowledge to be gained; the rights and welfare of subjects are adequately protected; the research will be periodi- cally reviewed; and informed consent has been obtained (Smith et al. 2009). Although not rejecting the use of deception outright, the criteria for informed consent require researchers to justify the use of deception to review boards, unless the inves- tigation constitutes a minimal risk study (i.e. research that is unlikely to create distress or harm and for which informed consent procedures are methodologically undesirable or unnecessary).

Adapting this sort of approach to the review of non-traditional (and other) marketing actions is no doubt feasible. Such a review process might involve the participation of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association and other professional marketing asso- ciations (e.g. AMA) or a newly developed public interest body, whose activities could include the compilation over time of an alternative marketing casebook detailing the consequences of varying types of campaigns and studies of different targets’ atti- tudes toward the campaigns; an expedited review process for transparent and non-intrusive marketing actions; recommendations for modifying ethically problematic campaigns, based on evaluations focused on the central issues of deception, intrusion, and exploitation; referral of risky marketing propos- als to appropriate regulatory bodies; and the like. Problems often can be avoided when innovative campaigns are first approved by appropriate third party overseers, including members of the consumer segments most likely to be targeted. Finally, market- ers will have to make allowances for possible vulner- able participants (e.g. children, disadvantaged adult consumers) in developing non-traditional approaches, while also taking into account varying cultural or cross-national sensitivities that may make

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

some populations of consumers more vulnerable than others (e.g. Mealy et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2009).

Conclusion

In the view of some critics, marketers have begun to cross the line of acceptability and will go to any lengths to satisfy their business objectives, regard- less of the risks posed to consumers or society in general. Yet, as has previously been pointed out by some defenders of stealth and other emerging mar- keting approaches (e.g. Lévy & O’Donoghue 2005; Allard 2006; Roy & Chattopadhyay 2010), these alternatives to traditional marketing also have the capacity to do good for society and earn the good- will of consumers in a public relations sense (e.g. public health campaigns that educate about healthy eating and exercise; marketing actions highlighting environmentally friendly consumption behaviors), a point that was not lost on some of the participants in the present investigation. At present, buzz mar- keting actions that have the capacity to ‘do bad’ are the exception, and most marketers are savvy enough to recognize that the implementation of potentially harmful practices can adversely affect the bottom line by bringing undue negative public- ity to the firm and its offerings and by driving con- sumers away.

The appropriateness of connected marketing tech- niques is likely to become clearer in time, with further research and the emergence and fine-tuning of ethical principles and legislation (Friedberg et al. 2004; Bird 2008). The range of non-traditional mar- keting techniques is only limited by the imagination and creativity of the marketers who design and employ them. Nonetheless, such techniques should be designed with a consideration of targets’ attitudes toward them. For the most part, despite the ground- swell of changes occurring in contemporary market- ing, many marketers continue to develop and plan their communication techniques and campaigns solely on the basis of their own objectives, without giving voice to the people who will be most directly affected by the marketing actions. The present inves- tigation, although modest in scope, is consistent with the notion that no ‘one size fits all’ with regard to

ethical standards for buzz marketing (Kirby 2006) and demonstrates how the input of consumers can provide valuable insight for the profession.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank N. Craig Smith for his comments on an earlier draft and Ludwig Bstieler and Tina Lowrey for their assistance in the collection of data.

Note

1. Each of the F-test results reported in this and the following sections refer to repeated-measures ANOVA comparisons of the three performance-to- peer approaches. For all repeated-measures ANOVAs reported in this paper, post hoc t-tests of mean differences were assessed at the Bonferroni corrected p < 0.017 significance level. Huynh–Feldt (ε > 0.75) and Greenhouse–Geisser (ε < 0.75) cor- rected values were used for all repeated-measures ANOVAs in which the assumption of sphericity (Mauchly’s test) was violated.

References

Ahuja, R.D., Michels, T.A., Walker, M.M. and Weissbuch, M. 2007. ‘Teen perceptions of disclosure in buzz marketing’. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24:3, 151–159.

Allard, S. 2006. ‘Myths and promises of buzz market- ing’. In Kirby, J. and Marsden, P. (Eds.), Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz and Word of Mouth Revolution: 197–207. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

American Psychological Association. 2002. ‘Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct’. American Psychologist, 57:12, 1060–1073.

American Psychological Association. 2010. ‘2010 amendments of the 2002 ‘Ethical Principles of Psy- chologists and Code of Conduct’. American Psy- chologist, 65:5, 493.

Beauchamp, T.L. 2001. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bird, S. (2008). ‘New UK law criminalizes stealth mar- keting techniques’. Available at http://www.seomoz .org/ (accessed 15 July 2008).

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

Bok, S. 1978. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Pantheon.

Bok, S. 1992. ‘Deceit’. In Becker, L.C. and Becker, C.B. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics: 242–245. New York: Garland Publishing.

Darke, P.R. and Ritchie, R.J.B. 2007. ‘The defensive consumer: advertising deception, defensive process- ing, and distrust’. Journal of Marketing Research, 44:1, 114–127.

Derry, R. and Green, R.M. 1989. ‘Ethical theory in business ethics: a critical assessment’. Journal of Busi- ness Ethics, 8:7, 521–533.

East, R., Wright, M. and Vanhuele, M. 2008. Consumer Behaviour: Applications in Marketing. London: Sage.

Ferrell, O.C. and Gresham, L.G. 1985. ‘A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing’. Journal of Marketing, 49:3, 87–96.

Forsyth, D. 1980. ‘A taxonomy of ethical ideologies’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39:1, 175–184.

Foxton, J. 2006. ‘Live buzz marketing’. In Kirby, J. and Marsden, P. (Eds.), Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz and Word of Mouth Revolution: 24–46. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Friedberg, J., Pfleiger, A. and Weisberg, A. 2004. ‘Undercover agency: the ethics of stealth marketing’. In Burkhart, L., Friedberg, J., Martin, T., Sharma, K. and Ship, M. (Eds.), Confronting Information Ethics in the New Millennium: 92–106. Boulder, CO: Ethica.

Gergen, K.J. 1973. ‘The codification of research ethics: views of a doubting Thomas’. American Psychologist, 28:10, 907–912.

Goodman, E.P. 2006. ‘Stealth marketing and editorial integrity’. Texas Law Review, 85, 83–152.

Haverkamp, B.E. 2005. ‘Ethical perspectives on quali- tative research in applied psychology’. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52:2, 146–155.

Ho, F.N., Vitell, S.J., Barnes, J.H. and Desborde, R. 1997. ‘Ethical correlates of role conflict and ambigu- ity in marketing: the mediating role of cognitive moral development’. Journal of the Academy of Mar- keting Science, 25:2, 117–126.

Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. 1993. ‘A general theory of marketing ethics: a retrospective and revision’. In Quelch, J.A. and Smith, N.C. (Eds.), Ethics in Mar- keting: 775–784. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

Jaffe, E.D. and Pasternak, H. 2006. ‘Moral intensity as a predictor of social responsibility’. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15:1, 53–63.

Jaffe, J. 2007. Join the Conversation: How to Engage Marketing-Weary Consumers with the Power of Com- munity, Dialogue, and Partnership. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kellaris, J.J., Dahlstrom, R.F. and Boyle, B.A. 1996. ‘Contextual bias in ethical judgment of marketing practices’. Psychology and Marketing, 13:1, 677–694.

Kimmel, A.J. 2007. Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research: Basic and Applied Perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Kimmel, A.J. 2010. Connecting with Consumers: Mar- keting for New Marketplace Realities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kirby, J. 2006. ‘Conclusion: the future of connected marketing’. In Kirby, J. and Marsden, P. (Eds.), Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz and Word of Mouth Revolution: 267–274. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Kirby, J. and Marsden, P. (Eds.) 2006. Connected Mar- keting: The Viral, Buzz and Word of Mouth Revolu- tion. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kleiser, S.B., Sivadas, E., Kellaris, J.J. and Dahlstrom, R.F. 2003. ‘Ethical ideologies: efficient assessment and influence on ethical judgments of marketing practices’. Psychology and Marketing, 20:1, 1–21.

Kotler, P. and Lee, N. 2004. Corporate Social Respon- sibility. New York: Wiley.

Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. 1993. Ethical Mar- keting Decisions: The Higher Road. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

LaFleur, E.K., Reidenbach, R.E., Robin, D.P. and Forrest, P. 1996. ‘An exploration of rule configura- tion effects on the ethical decision processes of adver- tising professionals’. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24:1, 66–76.

Lévy, M. and O’Donoghue, D. 2005. ‘New trends in the promotion of companies and brands to stakeholders: a holistic approach’. In Kimmel, A.J. (Ed.), Market- ing Communication: New Approaches, Technologies, and Styles: 11–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, K.D. and Smith, N.C. 2008. ‘Commercializing social interaction: the ethics of stealth marketing’. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27:1, 45–56.

Mealy, M., Stephan, W. and Urrutia, I.C. 2007. ‘The acceptability of lies: a comparison of Ecuadorians and Euro-Americans’. International Journal of Inter- cultural Relations, 31:6, 689–702.

Moorman, C. (2012). ‘Highlights and insights 2012’. Available at http://cmosurvey.org/files/2012/02/ The_CMO_Survey_Highlights_and_Insights_Feb- 2012_Final.pdf (accessed 8 March 2013).

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

Nyilasy, G. 2006. ‘Word of mouth: what we really know – and what we don’t’. In Kirby, J. and Marsden, P. (Eds.), Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz and Word of Mouth Revolution: 161–184. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rosnow, R.L. 1997. ‘Hedgehogs, foxes, and the evolv- ing social contract in psychological science: ethical challenges and methodological opportunities’. Psy- chological Methods, 2:4, 345–356.

Roy, A. and Chattopadhyay, S.P. 2010. ‘Stealth mar- keting as a strategy’. Business Horizons, 53:1, 69–79.

Siebert, T. (2006). ‘Edelman reveals two more Wal- Mart “flogs”’. Available at http://www.mediapost .com (accessed 2 February 2008).

Singhapakdi, A. and Vitell, S.J. 1991. ‘Research note: selected factors influencing marketers’ deontological norms’. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19:1, 37–42.

Smith, N.C., Kimmel, A.J. and Klein, J.G. 2009. ‘Social contract theory and the ethics of deception in consumer research’. Journal of Consumer Psychol- ogy, 19:3, 486–496.

Sojka, J. and Spangenberg, E.R. 1994. ‘Ethical con- cerns in marketing research’. In Allen, C.T. and John, D.R. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21: 392–396. Provo, UT: Association for Con- sumer Research.

Vitell, S.J. and Paolillo, J.G.P. 2004. ‘A cross-cultural study of the antecedents of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility’. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13:2–3, 185–199.

Vitell, S.J., Rallapalli, K.C. and Singhapakdi, A. 1993. ‘Marketing norms: the influence of personal moral philosophies and organizational ethical culture’. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21:4, 331–337.

Vollmer, C. 2008. Always On: Advertising, Marketing, and Media in an Era of Consumer Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Walsh, M. (2009). ‘Survey: most CMOs to boost social media budgets in 2010 (and it had better pay off). Online Media Daily. Available at http://www .mediapost.com/ (accessed 14 June 2012).

Walters, G. and Anagnostopoulos, C. 2012. ‘Imple- menting corporate responsibility through social part- nerships’. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21:4, 417–433.

Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA). 2009. ‘Measurement and metrics guidebook’. Avail- able at http://dmabenchmarkshub.wikispaces.com/ file/view/WOMMA+Measurement+Toolkit.pdf (accessed 5 January 2014).

Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. 2002. ‘The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values on market- ing ethics of students’. Journal of Marketing Educa- tion, 24:2, 92–103.

Zhang, Y., Feick, L. and Mittal, V. 2014. ‘How males and females differ in their likelihood of transmitting negative word of mouth’. Journal of Consumer Research, 40:6, 1097–1108.

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 24 Number 2 April 2015

Copyright of Business Ethics: A European Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.