Take an Advertising Research Survey

This research is being conducted by Prof. Kim Sheehan here at UO and deals with perceptions of advertising and corporate citizenship.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in general. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Take an Advertising Research Survey

  1. Julia Ortinez-Hansen says:

    The part of the survey that scared me was the clip from the New York Times and how it stated that although the product may not have been tested on animals, the ingredient to make it might have. What the product states on the ad or label is something that I have always thought to be very sketchy and I have always tried to question what it was saying. Leaves the consumer at a real cross roads on what to believe and not believe.

  2. Amber Heitkemper says:

    After taking the survey I thought it was interesting to know that most companies final products are only cruelty free. So brand names are greenwashing claiming they do not test any of their products or ingredients on animals when in fact some do. It makes me questions which products are actually stating the truth and as a consumer is it really necessary to buy cruelty free products.

  3. Heidi Payghambari says:

    I recently was searching companies that PITA approves of for another class, so it might be interesting for you guys to check out the list of companies that do test on animals and the ones that don’t. However, even PITA states, similar to the small excerpt from New York Times, that there is no way to be 100% sure that companies do comply with the “no test” rules. It is a matter of trust and facing public relations disaster if they lie.

    Here is the link to it!
    http://www.peta.org/living/beauty-and-personal-care/companies/search.aspx?Testing=1&PageIndex=2

  4. Molly Johnson says:

    I thought this was an interesting survey that opened my eyes to false advertising. The cruelty free claims reminded me a lot of products that are perceived as “green” but are most likely not. Although, it is annoying that little things like that will make me be more prone to buy the product – even if I am foolish enough to buy them without further research.

  5. I really appreciate these surveys that are about awareness and not just opinions…How do you feel about the rain? Do you miss cartoons from the 90’s? I like when it’s testing the facts of our knowledge of things like what we know about products and the advertising behind them. Animal cruelty is something people like to forget about and it’s nice to be reminded of the anti- companies.

  6. Bryce Leonard says:

    Wow, proved that assumption is a powerful tool for advertisers. I had not been aware of the “cruelty free” logo before, but if I had known of it before this survey and specifically the NY Times portion, I may have been influenced to buy “cruelty free” products over others. It’s a tough world for consumers to be educated in, especially when we have to navigate such hoodwinks. I didn’t even think twice that I would have to question the “cruelty free” claim. Lesson learned, really glad I took this survey.

  7. Max Williams says:

    I really didn’t know anything about cruelty free products coming into this survey. I think that being “cruelty free” doesn’t have a huge role in my decision when choosing products, but knowing this symbol exists I may try to buy items with it if all else is even. I guess I’ll just hope that they are actually cruelty free, as opposed to just contracting a smaller company to do the testing or something like that. Seems like there really should be some type of regulation for this though.

  8. blueeyedleah says:

    I would love to know the results of this survey and to see the shift in people’s answers from what they said before the NYT piece and after it. I would imagine there’s a huge shift there.

  9. I did not expect the NYT article to reveal that information about the phrase “cruelty-free”. This reminds me of the phrase also used by products that refer to themselves as “all natural”. The phrase is very ambiguous and has no exact meaning but still makes consumers feel like they are buying something good for them. This is evidence of the Age of Social Responsibility and Accountability because of the current trend of companies advertising their “good” morals and ethics. Hopefully in the coming years, society will define these tossed-around terms so they cannot confuse or deceive consumers.

  10. sean kim says:

    I agreed with some of the comments above that i was really surprised about that New York Time ad about how companies that say they are cruelty free are really not, and contain other ingredients that were used on animals for testing. They are some very sneaky companies out there.

  11. Evon Sahaleh says:

    I was surprised how the New York Times article, I always thought when companies claim to be cruelty free that they are being honest and sincere. After reading this article I quickly realized that is not true and that animals are actually being tested.

  12. nedmills says:

    I enjoy surveys like this. It is far from simply asking me if white bread makes me sad. I think the NYT article brings up the fact that many companies portray themselves as being something they are not. This goes far and beyond simply saying you are green or don’t support animal cruelty. It puts into perspective the idea that the main concept that companies build themselves on, whether it be being green or only growing organic, may be only true to a certain extent.

  13. While I wasn’t surprised that the phrase “cruelty free” isn’t regulated and I honestly kind of assume when I hear it that it is being used vaguely, to read the specific facts was really eye-opening. I definitely think animals deserve to be treated fairly, but at the same time, my interpretation of this is different from another person’s or any given company’s. It definitely makes you realize that a lot of people get sucked into buying things or believing in things based on a phrase that may or may not actually mean anything.

  14. Katie M. says:

    Although I didn’t know this about the term “cruelty free” on some level it doesn’t surprise me. In nutrition classes I have taken it is always emphasized how misleading even food labels can be, and how you have really research what you are buying and not trust labels/claims. To me it is unfortunate that advertising/labeling has become so manipulative/false, and although it is sad, in some way it doesn’t surprise me that companies are trying to manipulate information to make themselves and their products look good.

Comments are closed.