Did the Federal Trade Commission's Advertising Substantiation Program Promote More Credible Advertising?
AbstractThis paper examines the effects of the Federal Trade Commission's Advertising Substantiation Program, developed in the early 1970s. This program coupled changes in the legal definition of deception with more vigorous FTC enforcement. The authors analyze changes in advertising intensity, media choice, media wealth, and the progress of new entrants. The evidence suggests that adoption of substantiation requirements increased the credibility of advertising. Copyright 1990 by American Economic Association.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by American Economic Association in its journal American Economic Review.
Volume (Year): 80 (1990)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Glaeser, Edward L. & Ujhelyi, Gergely, 2010.
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 94(3-4), pages 247-257, April.
- Ursino, Giovanni & Piccolo, Salvatore & Tedeschi, Piero, 2012.
"Deceptive advertising with rational buyers,"
42553, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McClosky’s Criticisms of Significance Tests: A Damage Assessment," Working Papers 126, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
- Jonathan Zinman & Eric Zitzewitz, 2012. "Wintertime for Deceptive Advertising?," NBER Working Papers 17829, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McCloskey's Criticisms of Significance Tests: An Assessment," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 256-297, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jane Voros) or (Michael P. Albert).
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.