This article explores cynicism as an ethical issue associated with the blurring of content and advertising in mass media. From a communitarian perspective and adapting Hardin's (1968) metaphorical use of “commons” to the domain of broadcasting, we surveyed the attitudes of individuals toward two phenomena of media saturation (product placement and video news releases) and three constructs (cynicism directed toward government, cynicism directed toward marketers, and the individual's assessment of their marketing literacy). Respondents were highly cynical about government regulation of (...) advertising and nearly as cynical of the ability of marketer's to self-regulate. (shrink)

Publicity may be considered “covert marketing” when the audience believes the message was created by an independent source rather than the product marketer. We focus on one form of publicity—video news releases —which are packaged video segments created and provided for free by a third party to the news organization. VNRs are usually shown without source disclosure. In study one, viewers’ beliefs about and perceptions of credibility in a news story are altered when they acquire persuasion knowledge about VNRs and (...) learn that the source of the story was an unedited VNR. Study two results show similar patterns despite the fact that source disclosure of the story was provided on screen. Importantly, the perceived ethics of VNRs impact perceptions of credibility. (shrink)

Every day, television news operations have available dozens of video news releases (VNRs), public relations handout videos designed to mimic news formats. Electronic tracking indicates some of these VNRs are used. Critics typically assail VNRs on ethical grounds, that VNRs deceive audience members into thinking they are watching news gathered by reporters, rather than a promotional pitch. Using a snowball technique, the researchers presented survey respondents with authentic-looking local television news stories; 157 respondents evaluated three stories (out of nine). Some (...) stories used station-generated footage, some network, and some VNRs. Respondents were asked their best estimation of the source. The data indicated a real likelihood VNR deception is occurring. Two of the three VNRs deceived at least half the respondents. Respondents were incorrect an average of 46% of the time when attempting to identifying VNRs, compared to 29% incorrectly identifying network video and 20% incorrectly identifying locally shot video. (shrink)