You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Regulatory Exposure of Deceptive Marketing and Its Impact on Firm Value
Martha Myslinski Tipton, Sundar G. Bharadwaj and Diana C. Robertson
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 73, No. 6 (Nov., 2009), pp. 227-243
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20619071
Page Count: 17
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Marketing, Deceptive advertising, Brands, Consumer advertising, Market share, Investment risk, Physicians, Cash flow, Advertising research, False advertising
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Research linking marketing to financial performance has predominantly focused on how marketing assets and actions add value. The authors argue that it is equally important to understand how marketing decisions can reduce firm value. Prior research has indicated that negative events vary greatly in their indirect costs to the firm. On the basis of established theory and in-depth interviews with practitioners, the authors identify a set of factors that can explain the heterogeneity in the magnitude of indirect costs associated with negative marketing-related events. Specifically, they address how the regulatory exposure of deceptive marketing, which carries no direct cost to the firm, affects shareholder value. Using an event study, the analysis shows that incidents of exposed deceptive marketing are associated with significant, negative abnormal returns amounting to a drop of 1%, which translates into a wealth loss of $86 million for the median-sized firm in the sample. In explaining the variation in magnitude of the impact between events, the authors find that, in general, event characteristics are more significant than firm and brand characteristics. When deception is highly egregious or directed at vulnerable populations, firm value is more negatively affected than when the potential to mislead and harm is not readily verifiable. Furthermore, when the cited product has substantial brand market share, the levels of egregiousness and target audience explain substantially more of the variation in event impact than when brand market share is low. The results are robust to alternative stock-portfolio-based measures of abnormal returns, model specification, heteroskedasticity, and examination of risk. The authors' framework and analysis have implications for Wall Street executives, Main Street managers, academic researchers, and public policy makers.
Journal of Marketing © 2009 American Marketing Association