Tamara R. Piety of Tulsa has written Advertising as Experimentation on Human Subjects. Here's the abstract:
Within the industry, it is an article of faith that consumers distrust advertising. One reason for that distrust may be that they fear being manipulated. Yet the debate about advertising and manipulation always seems to revolve around how much manipulation is really going on and whether consumer skepticism ensures that manipulation tactics will likely fail. But consumer skepticism is a flimsy defense in the face of decades of research, ever more sophisticated tactics of persuasion, billions of dollars spent, and data mining capabilities that permit increasingly detailed and granular analysis. The persuasion industry’s tactics are tested in the field, by trial and error. If a tactic works, we get more of it. In this practice we are all the guinea pigs. In a university setting, research on human subjects must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB process is supposed to ensure that research subjects’ participation is voluntary and informed, and that the potential benefits of the research outweigh the potential harms. Yet there is no IRB for our present-day marketing environment. What if it is bad for our health? More ominously still in light of recent events, what if it is bad for democracy?
0 thoughts on “Piety Paper: Advertising as Experimentation on Human Subjects”
Thanks for posting this article. Economist Stephanie Kelton has talked about the “battle over price” in capitalism. Sellers want to charge more, buyers want to pay less. The market is the battleground. From this perspective, advertising is a tactic to support the seller’s price. I am glad Prof. Piety has considered some of the social costs for advertising that are not included in the price.