IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pch/abante/v7y2004i1p67-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fundamentos Para La Regulacion De La Publicidad Comparativa

Author

Listed:
  • RICARDO PAREDES M

    (Escuela de Ingenieria, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)

Abstract

There is a growing consensus that comparative advertising has the potential to reduce barriers to entry and increase competition. Nevertheless, in actual practice comparative advertising in most countries, and particularly in those which are the least developed, is either very limited or non-existent. This paper describes the strikingly contrasting regulatory approaches to the problem in Europe, Latin America; especially in Chile; and the United States. This has enabled us to analyze the gap that exists in the fundamental principles as set forth by regulatory theory and practice. The paper describes the causes for the paradox existing in the discourse of Chilean jurisprudence, in that it over emphasizes the benefits of comparative advertising and its practice, but limits it. We identify the elements, which, in our opinion, are excessive to limit comparative advertising, and we put forth the arguments in favor of the need to act so as to attenuate the excessive restrictions currently in place.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricardo Paredes M, 2004. "Fundamentos Para La Regulacion De La Publicidad Comparativa," Abante, Escuela de Administracion. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 7(1), pages 67-102.
    • Handle: RePEc:pch:abante:v:7:y:2004:i:1:p:67-102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.abante.cl/files/ABT/Contenidos/Vol-7-N1/Paredes.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pechmann, Cornelia & Stewart, David W, 1990. "The Effects of Comparative Advertising on Attention, Memory, and Purchase Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(2), pages 180-191, September.
    2. Souam, Said, 2001. "Optimal antitrust policy under different regimes of fines," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 1-26, January.
    3. Ghosal, Vivek & Gallo, Joseph, 2001. "The cyclical behavior of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement activity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 27-54, January.
    4. Pechmann, Cornelia & Ratneshwar, S, 1991. "The Use of Comparative Advertising for Brand Positioning: Association versus Differentiation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(2), pages 145-160, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Easley, Richard W. & Bearden, William O. & Teel, Jesse E., 1995. "Testing predictions derived from inoculation theory and the effectiveness of self-disclosure communications strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 93-105, October.
    2. Bambauer-Sachse, Silke & Heinzle, Priska, 2018. "Comparative advertising: Effects of concreteness and claim substantiation through reactance and activation on purchase intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 233-242.
    3. Bambauer-Sachse, Silke & Heinzle, Priska, 2018. "Comparative advertising for goods versus services: Effects of different types of product attributes through consumer reactance and activation on consumer response," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 82-90.
    4. Pillai, Kishore Gopalakrishna & Goldsmith, Ronald E., 2008. "How brand attribute typicality and consumer commitment moderate the influence of comparative advertising," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 933-941, September.
    5. Siddharth Bhattacharya & Jing Gong & Sunil Wattal, 2022. "Competitive Poaching in Search Advertising: Two Randomized Field Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 599-619, June.
    6. O'Donoghue, Amie C. & Williams, Pamela A. & Sullivan, Helen W. & Boudewyns, Vanessa & Squire, Claudia & Willoughby, Jessica Fitts, 2014. "Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-11.
    7. Schinkel, Maarten Pieter & Tuinstra, Jan, 2006. "Imperfect competition law enforcement," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1267-1297, November.
    8. Dieter K. Tscheulin & Bernd Helmig, 1999. "Zur Effizienz verschiedener Ausgestaltungsformen vergleichender Werbung — Internationale Rechtslage, „State-of-the-art” und Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 550-578, June.
    9. Jorge Tarziján M & Jose Hevia, 2005. "Jurisprudencia Sobre Precios Predatorios En Chile: ¿Han Sido Uniformes Los Criterios Aplicados," Abante, Escuela de Administracion. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 8(2), pages 59-85.
    10. Pierro, Antonio & Giacomantonio, Mauro & Pica, Gennaro & Mannetti, Lucia & Kruglanski, Arie W. & Tory Higgins, E., 2013. "When comparative ads are more effective: Fit with audience’s regulatory mode," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 90-103.
    11. Banerjee, Bibek & Chakrabarty Patrali, 2010. "An Eye for an Eye: Impact of Sequelization and Comparison in Advertisements on Consumer’s Perception of Brands," IIMA Working Papers WP2010-08-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    12. Jeon, Jung Ok & Beatty, Sharon E., 2002. "Comparative advertising effectiveness in different national cultures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(11), pages 907-913, November.
    13. Emilie Dargaud & Armel Jacques, 2015. "Endogenous firms’ organization, internal audit and leniency programs," Working Papers 1524, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    14. David BARTOLINI & Alberto ZAZZARO, 2008. "Are Antitrust Fines Friendly to Competition? An Endogenous Coalition Formation Approach to Collusive Cartels," Working Papers 325, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    15. Maria Alipranti & Evangelos Mitrokostas & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2013. "Comparative versus Informative Advertising in Oligopolistic Markets," Working Papers 1301, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    16. Motchenkova, Evgenia, 2008. "Determination of optimal penalties for antitrust violations in a dynamic setting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 269-291, August.
    17. Joseph E. Harrington, 2005. "Optimal Cartel Pricing In The Presence Of An Antitrust Authority," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(1), pages 145-169, February.
    18. John K. Ashton & Andrew D. Pressey, 2007. "The Regulatory Perception of the Marketing Function: an Interpretation of UK Competition Authority Investigations 1950-2005," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2007-, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. John K. Ashton & Andrew D. Pressey, 2012. "Who Manages Cartels? The Role of Sales and Marketing Managers within International Cartels: Evidence from the European Union 1990-2009," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2012-11, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    20. Karpinska-Krakowiak, Malgorzata, 2021. "Women are more likely to buy unknown brands than men: The effects of gender and known versus unknown brands on purchase intentions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Comparative Advertising; Antitrust; Self Regulations; Chile;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • L42 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Vertical Restraints; Resale Price Maintenance; Quantity Discounts

    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:pch:abante:v:7:y:2004:i:1:p:67-102. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Eduardo Walker (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eapuccl.html .

    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.