The alluring and deceptive force of puffery – is it waning? Comparing brand puffery and brand genuinuity advertising appeals within a luxury automotive context
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to better understand how consumers perceive brand puffery compared to when an alternate brand genuinuity appeal is employed within a luxury automotive context. The study employed a factorial experimental design to explore how the advertising appeals (brand genuinuity and brand puffery) differed against a control group. Further, the moderating role of brand familiarity and inferences of manipulative intent are explored. A total of 746 usable responses were collected and analysed. The results suggested that brand puffery is less likely to lead to intention to purchase compared to the alternate brand genuinuity. In addition, the results showed that brand puffery is a peripheral appeal compared to brand genuinuity, which is a cognitive appeal. The results provide brands, managers, and marketing practitioners with new insights into the limitations of using techniques such as brand puffery, which is often perceived as deceptive, and suggests new ways to differentiate and resonate with consumers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it