IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rgfmxx/v6y2015i3p194-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deception in cosmetics advertising: Examining cosmetics advertising claims in fashion magazine ads

Author

Listed:
  • Jie G. Fowler
  • Timothy H. Reisenwitz
  • Les Carlson

Abstract

The FDA has only focused upon the physical safety of cosmetics and has ignored the significant reasonability of advertising claims. As such, the present article is intended to examine/ascertain the extent to which cosmetics claims contain deceptive content in fashion ads. Through a content analysis, the study reported herein revealed that cosmetics claims were not evenly distributed. To that end, the preponderance of the claims appeared to be described primarily by three categories (scientific, performance and subjective). The results also showed that more cosmetics claims were classified as deceptive than were deemed as acceptable. Close examination of these trends revealed that, for instance, most superiority claims were categorized as false, whereas scientific claims tended to be classified as vague or as omitting important information. Furthermore, performance claims were likely to be viewed as vague and endorsement claims were seen to be acceptable. The study concludes with practical and public policy suggestions that need to be addressed by advertisers and the FDA.

Suggested Citation

  • Jie G. Fowler & Timothy H. Reisenwitz & Les Carlson, 2015. "Deception in cosmetics advertising: Examining cosmetics advertising claims in fashion magazine ads," Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 194-206, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rgfmxx:v:6:y:2015:i:3:p:194-206
    DOI: 10.1080/20932685.2015.1032319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/20932685.2015.1032319
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/20932685.2015.1032319?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rgfmxx:v:6:y:2015:i:3:p:194-206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rgfm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.