From the Commercial to the Communal: Reframing Taboo Trade-offs in Religious and Pharmaceutical Marketing

Abstract

Although consumers typically expect organizations to profit from marketing goods and services, they also believe that certain organizations, like those that focus on religion and health, should prioritize communal obligations. Indeed, consumers may find it morally distressing when communally focused organizations use overtly commercial marketing strategies like rebranding or value-based pricing. We demonstrate how moral distress and consumer backlash result from such taboo trade-offs and investigate when communal-sharing rhetoric for religious and pharmaceutical marketing reduces distress. Communal justifications used by communally focused organizations are particularly effective when consumers are not closely monitoring the motives of the organization or when the product is need-based. However, communal justifications become less effective and market-pricing justifications become more effective when consumers are attuned to the persuasive intentions of the organization. Implications for consumer goals are discussed.

Flag backlash: Why does the presence of the American flag reduce product evaluation?

“…Literature on the role of persuasion knowledge in informing consumer responses to marketing appeals (cf. Friestad & Wright, 1994), together with research on the taboo-trade off (McGraw et al, 2012;Tetlock, 2002), provides further theoretical support that reactance might be the underlying motivation for the backlash effect of marketers' use of the American flag on consumers' attitudes toward products. Research has shown that consumers are often extremely resistant to taboo trade-offs that extend market pricing fungibility norms into domains that people perceive as having special or even sacred status (Belk, Wallendorf, & Sherry, 1989).…”

“…Research has shown that consumers are often extremely resistant to taboo trade-offs that extend market pricing fungibility norms into domains that people perceive as having special or even sacred status (Belk, Wallendorf, & Sherry, 1989). Consumers are reluctant to accept certain commercial strategies, such as those found in religious advertising (McDaniel, 1986) and pharmaceutical marketing (McGraw et al, 2012). For example, McGraw et al (2012) showed that consumers are distressed or outraged when communally focused organizations use overtly commercial marketing strategies.…”

“…Consumers are reluctant to accept certain commercial strategies, such as those found in religious advertising (McDaniel, 1986) and pharmaceutical marketing (McGraw et al, 2012). For example, McGraw et al (2012) showed that consumers are distressed or outraged when communally focused organizations use overtly commercial marketing strategies. Thus, the present research hypothesizes that reactance drives the American flag's negative effect on product evaluation.…”

“…This research draws upon theory from the persuasion knowledge model (cf. Friestad & Wright, 1994), product placement (Bhatnagar, Aksoy, & Malkoc, 2004;McCarty, 2004), and the sacred value protection model (McGraw, Schwartz, & Tetlock, 2012;Tetlock, 2002), together with research on psychological reactance (e.g., Chartrand, Dalton, & Fitzsimons, 2007;Fitzsimons & Lehmann, 2004) and anticonsumption (Holt, 2002;Kozinets & Handelman, 2004;Lasn, 1999), to make predictions regarding whether and how American flag imagery affects product evaluations. These studies show that consumers negatively respond to religious advertising (McDaniel, 1986) and pharmaceutical marketing (McGraw et al, 2012).…”

“…Friestad & Wright, 1994), product placement (Bhatnagar, Aksoy, & Malkoc, 2004;McCarty, 2004), and the sacred value protection model (McGraw, Schwartz, & Tetlock, 2012;Tetlock, 2002), together with research on psychological reactance (e.g., Chartrand, Dalton, & Fitzsimons, 2007;Fitzsimons & Lehmann, 2004) and anticonsumption (Holt, 2002;Kozinets & Handelman, 2004;Lasn, 1999), to make predictions regarding whether and how American flag imagery affects product evaluations. These studies show that consumers negatively respond to religious advertising (McDaniel, 1986) and pharmaceutical marketing (McGraw et al, 2012). When an advertisement exhibits a salient manipulative intent through the employment of biased endorsers (Kirmani & Zhu, 2007), excessive use of rhetorical questions (Ahluwalia & Burnkrant, 2004) or borrowed interest appeals (Campbell, 1995), consumers evaluate the ads negatively, even if the ads are narrative in nature (Wentzel et al, 2010).…”