CHAPTER 3: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARKETING DECEPTION AND COMPETITIVE ADVENTAGE

The Federal Trade Commission's existing policy statement on deceptive and unfair marketing tactics is
based solely on economic concerns, overlooking the sociocultural implications of trade policy as well as specific
consumer issues. Unprecedented advances in science and technology, along with corresponding changes in the
types of goods and services available to consumers, have given rise to concerns about ethical marketing practices
that are growing in importance. On the one hand, technological advancements in telecommunications and
electronic surveillance tools would suggest that marketers would find it more and more challenging to engage in
deceit.

However, the Federal Trade Commission's (hereafter, the FTC) guideline on unfairness and deceit in
commercial activity gives a lot of room for interpretation, which encourages shady marketing techniques (Aditya,
2001). The FTC is the national monitoring organization tasked with monitoring commercial conduct in the United
States, but legal, trade, and marketing scholars have questioned the FTC's laws and operations (Gardner, 1975;
McGrew, 1985; Rotfeld & Preston, 1981). The following observation by Gardner (1975) is still true today: The FTC
statement on deception and unfairness lacks both a thorough understanding of marketing fraud and efficient
methods for its detection. The FTC cannot, however, access a comprehensive information base focused on this
topic, which is a related point. For instance, the FTC's deceit and unfair practices policy prioritizes economic
considerations over psychosocial factors.

Though conceptually deceit could be considered a subset of the more general category of unfair conduct,
according to FTC rules, the two categories are different yet linked. According to (Dictionary, 1993) the Oxford
English Dictionary's primary defines "deceive" as "to trap by cunning or trickery". According to Webster's
Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1996), the definition of deceit is to deceive by a misleading appearance or
statement. Any mention of the ultimate purpose of the deceptive conduct or its implications for the deceived
party is conspicuously absent. For instance, it would be active deception if a product were represented as having
less attractive attributes than it actually does. Deception has a negative meaning in common parlance, signifying
malevolent purpose. Surprisingly, the dictionary definition of unfair practice appears to be based on both the law
and the idea of deception: acts done by a seller to confuse or deceive the public with the purpose to capture a
bigger portion of the market or any commercial practice including the general public or contesting parties that is
forbidden by act and controlled by a proper government agency (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary,
1996, p. 2067). Many attempts have been made by academics to define deception in advertising. For instance,
(Olson & Dover, 1978) noted the limitations of this concept but defined a misleading advertisement as one that
creates an untrue or incorrect belief about the product. Although "deceptive" advertising of goods and
promotions "that use deceit" is forbidden, there is no definition of deception in the American Marketing
Association's (hereafter, AMA) code of conduct (Association, 2013).

Al-Bayati & Al-Rabaiwi (2019), Mohsen & Enad (2019), and Al-Heali (2020) are just a few of the Iraqi researchers
who have addressed the impact of deception in marketing on consumers' purchasing decisions during sales as a
marketing mix of deceptive elements that includes price, product, promotion, and place.

Olson and Dover (1978) Underlined the distinctions made within these categories between the objectively
untrue and subjectively enhance or alter the appearance of deceitful claims, as well as between express and
implicit deception, when summing up the many definitions of deception. According to their definition, deception
has occurred when consumers form demonstrably false beliefs as a result of exposure to an advertisement. These
authors underline the necessity of considering deception in terms of its possible impacts and gravity, even though
they are aware of the limitations of their assertion. Additionally, they discriminate between incorrect beliefs held
by customers who have witnessed the advertised claims and misleading statements contained in an
advertisement. Advertising deception presumably only happens when people form erroneous assumptions as a
result of exposure to the advertisement. Consequently, an advertisement that confirms previously held beliefs
even if they are untrue should not be classified as misleading. These definitions of deception take into account the
intricacies of the idea with regard to the consumer's behavior and the false claim, but they disregard the broader
societal interests and its value systems. This is understandable that interpersonal communication is the main
emphasis of the literature on deception in general.

One important definition of deceit, according to (Gregory R Miller, 1983; Gerald R Miller, Mongeau, &
Sleight, 1986), is the message distortion caused by a communicator's intentional misrepresentation or omission of
facts with the goal of inspiring in another person or people a belief that the communicator does not hold.
Deception is generally understood as an action that deceives the intended recipient. This is referred to as
commission fraud. Deception, however, can also happen through inaction, such as when a marketer or
manufacturer chooses not to disclose a negative aspect of a product. These situations represent deception by
omission. Gardner (1975) drew on consumer- and product-based definitions to propose an operational and
behaviorally focused definition of deception in the context of advertising. Deception takes place when an
advertisement gives the consumer a belief or impression that is factually false or possibly deceptive, and that
belief or impression differs from what the consumer would reasonably expect given the circumstances. Also the
distinction between the legal definition of truth and the scientific and consumer understandings of truth has been
made.

Deception in marketing does, however, require further investigation from an ethical, psychological, and
societal standpoint (Ram N. Aditiya 2001). Moreover, less enforcement of laws and enforcement of marketing
deception may not only fail to safeguard the individual consumer, but may also constitute a long-term harm to
society. Public policies have repercussions that go beyond the confines of their intended use. Similar to how it
would be incorrect to assume that changes in interest rates just have an impact on lending practices, it would be
naive to assume that only customers and marketers involved in the transaction are impacted by policy decisions
on misleading marketing. Discussions about marketing and law also take a business-oriented approach to the
problem. The drafting of regulations to prevent deceitful business tactics has mostly disregarded studies that
show negative consequences on consumers. For instance, puffery is tolerated, at least in the United States,
despite a large body of research showing its detrimental impacts on consumer behavior (Peterson, 1985; Reed Jr
& Coalson Jr, 1976; Rotfeld & Preston, 1981).

Iraq's marketing deception differs from that of other nations due to the absence of official oversight,
widespread corruption, and the country's unique political landscape (Lafta, 2016). The major reasons for the rise
of marketing deception in Iraq, according to (Khalil 2019), are weak faith and a lack of commitment on the part of
many Iraqi marketers to the authentic Islamic teachings. Additionally, Assi and Wadi (2015) mentioned avoiding
and disregarding ethical rules and principles in particular in commercial dealings, where avarice and a materialistic
mindset have taken precedence over the ethics of traders and businesspeople. Ineffective consumer protection
organizations and the lack of regulatory bodies, according to Assi & Wadi (2015), are to blame for the proliferation
of fraud. Consumers' negative attitudes toward reporting fraud and deceit, as well as their demands for remedial
action in response to the harm that deceptive marketing caused them, are concerning (Taboush & Bokedron,
2017). Therefore, the regulatory agencies in Iraq have a great duty to safeguard consumers and keep an eye on
such items for the benefit of all Iraqi citizens.

Due to the aforementioned reasons, deceptive marketing campaigns have been practiced by the internet
providers companies in Iraq as well. The use of the Internet in Iraq started in 2000, but it was not widely used under
the regime before 2003 because it was only available to employees of the security services and intelligence, as well
as some graduate students, after obtaining a certain legal approval. Statistics show that there were 12,500 users in
Iraq in 2000, but after 2003, its use spread quickly throughout the country, but this service was characterized by a
subpar and expensive prices charged to citizens.
Shocking information regarding the Internet in Iraq has been made public by the Iraqi Digital Media Center. The
majority of what is given for citizens is "fake Internet," based on measurements of processing and operation, and it
is sold to them for more than 50 times its genuine price, according to research by the Center's experts in the field of
communications and the Internet. For instance, Depending on whether it is imported through a seaport or a land
port, Iraq imports the Internet for a cost of (500–775) dollars for one STM, or (3–6) dollars per megabyte.
These costs are added to the costs of internal transport within Iraq for delivery to the Al-Mamoun Exchange, which
costs around $ 5000 per STM ($48 per megabyte), known as international transport, and $ 1500 ($10 per
megawatt), known as local transport, for transport to the Iraqi provinces. The value of importing the Internet and
transferring it to residents would cost up to ($41 per megabyte), but it would be sold to citizens for at least 50 times
more than what it would actually cost if it were delivered in accordance with international norms.
Along with being costly, the Internet is also manipulated by businesses using public infrastructure. They install
specialized devices that save Internet data, such as video and photographs, as well as information from numerous
sites utilized in Iraq, making the value of that data local rather than global. Experts have discovered that the so-
called (GGC) and (FNA) cash devices of YouTube, the (GGC) and (FNA) cash devices of Facebook, and other
cashes used to store the content of porn sites or Apple products, all shift the Internet capacity used by the
international, which costs $48 per megabyte, to the local, which costs only $10, and sometimes does not cost
companies any money if they have cash devices inside.
Accordingly, prices for each megabyte sold to individuals and companies ranged from $ 140 to $ 250, all of which
are wildly inflated. The experts believed that the Iraqi Ministry of Communications had increased the value of the
MIGA by more than 11 times as a result. When businesses with different cash flows arrived, it was impossible to
predict how much money these businesses would make in net profits due to extensive manipulation and the mixing
of real and fake assets.
The team emphasized that not all Internet service providers in Iraq offer pure Internet or so-called (Dedicated)
service, and that all lines are connected to financial equipment. For instance, if a citizen asked a major Internet
service provider to buy one megabyte, the provider would divide the demand into requests for Google product data
(including YouTube) and others related to the data and files of other organizations.

By dividing the times that are made available by the Internet, for instance, some companies are able to offer
users two different speeds from 1 am to 9 am. After that, the speed is determined, and in the evening, the service is
significantly reduced as everyone shares the already-low capacity. This is another trick that Internet service
providers use to trick the average citizen.

In the same context, businesses deny citizens access to price cuts on Internet access that the Iraqi Ministry of
Communications has approved. The ministry's mid-year reduction of the value of local transportation by 50%
benefited the companies, while the prices for citizens did not decrease. However, since that time, the companies
have raised the most-used subscription price from $ 12 to $ 13.5 for agents, to be sold to citizens, demonstrating
how little benefit the citizen receives from reductions in Internet capacity. The other 25% cut that the Ministry of
Communications announced did not benefit the general public; instead, it benefited only businesses.
The monthly subscription fee for internet service in Iraq is 300 thousand Iraqi dinars (equivalent to 250 US dollars)
per megabyte, while the cost of the service offered by mobile communication companies is 6,000 Iraqi dinars
(equivalent to $5) per megabyte. As a result, internet costs in Iraq are the highest among Arab nations and their
neighbors. Telecom experts claimed that the companies taking advantage of Iraqi citizens were getting around their
inability to judge the Internet's speed because they prioritize and provide high speeds to websites that measure that
speed. As a result, these sites frequently score highly in tests, exceeding 15 megabytes, even though the actual
speed is much lower.

3.1 ASPECTS OF THE MARKETING DECEPTION STUDY

3.1.1 Situations That Encourage Deception

Recognizing the various marketing stages in which deceit can occur is essential to our understanding of
deception. It might happen before a sale, even during a sale, or after a sale. A new industry, consumer education,
has emerged as a result of the various deceptive tactics employed by businesses to advertise their goods. For
example, Consumer Reports regularly publishes a piece named "Selling It" to expose questionable marketing
strategies. Pre-sale scenarios have received a lot of attention, mostly in the context of advertising. Contrarily,
point-of-sale and post-sale practices haven't gotten much attention, despite the fact that post-sale practices are to
blame for a large number of conflicts and litigation that are covered in the media each year. Because it is
challenging to demonstrate intent to deceive at the moment of sale, post-sale fraud is particularly prevalent.
When clients finally learn that they have been duped, the business may assert ignorance of the act, refute any
fraudulent intent, and take actions to placate the client. Unless there is potential for lawsuit with significant
financial incentives, many individual examples of post-sale deceit go undetected. Our understanding of the
elements influencing misleading marketing would be improved by categorizing the many scenarios that are
susceptible to it. It would also assist policymakers in developing preventative measures to stop unfair and
deceptive activities(Aditya, 2001).

3.1.2 The pre-sale stage.

1. Awareness Advertising
The goal of an organization's advertising at this point in the pre-sale process is to inform the public of a new
product on the market or the advantages of an existing product. A product is frequently presented as something
necessary for a customer end state that is highly desired, such as status, popularity, or professional success. In the
United States, a mail-order catalogue promoted a shoe insert that was said to boost a person's height without
altering the appearance of the shoes. Although the goal of this advertisement was to raise awareness of a brand-
new product, other advertisements, like the current flurry of milk advertisements, aim to do the opposite.

2. Image advertising

Businesses may launch an ad campaign to develop a specific corporate or brand image. For instance, a car
manufacturer could want to emphasize safety as its key selling point. If the business cannot offer solid proof to
back up its claim, it is misleading to make such a claim. Such evidence, for instance, may be a demonstration of (a)
actions taken by the company to clearly address consumer safety in the design of its own products or (b) greater
braking systems and functionality of its vehicles in comparison to the competitors. It's critical in these situations to
have unbiased evaluations from two or more independent organizations, each with their own reliable safety
criteria. Allowing famous people to use the product in real life (like sports stars) or in motion pictures and
television shows is another original marketing strategy. When celebrities are paid (sometimes rather lavishly) to
appear using an advertiser's product that is not their personal preference, it is misleading.

However, celebrities utilizing their own products would not be misleading. Some marketing students
believe that this strategy is harmless(Davidson, 1996). This viewpoint, however, ignores the gradual loss of society
values that can occur over time if such behaviors are tolerated. Deception has undoubtedly occurred if a well-
known actor uses a product that is not their genuine choice in a film and thousands of followers buy that product
because they think their hero uses it; however, in this instance, both the actor and the manufacturer are at fault.
Here, there are two relevant consequences. First, because of a myth developed jointly by the brand and the
celebrity, admirers of the celebrity who prefer a certain brand could end up switching their brands. The fans may
spend their money on the deceitful company's product for a very long time, unlike the actor, who receives a
sizable compensation and can then forget about the brand after the agreed-upon period.

3.1.3 Promos at the Point of Sale

I. Displays of sale prices.

Consumers are routinely and systematically exploited at numerous department stores, including some upscale
ones, according to a recent American TV program2 (Region 10 TV, March 2000). A customer selects a product
from a display that prominently advertises a tempting discount price. The expiration date is near the bottom in
small print. The item's usual price is rung up at the register. No one is made aware of the discrepancy if the
consumer does not see it, which appears to happen regularly. The cashier informs the customer that the sale time
has passed as evidenced by the sale notice if they bring up the issue.

II. Packaging.

Packaging a product such that it resembles that of a more well-known and well-liked brand is yet another
form of deceit. This approach is often carried out by numerous private-label brands in a variety of nations
(Kapferer, 1995). Such trickery is frequently written off as brand confusion. The distinction appears to suggest
that deceit and straightforward brand misunderstanding can be distinguished based on a marketer's aim. In
certain circumstances, the marketer's innocence is obvious, as in the case of Sunlight brand dishwashing
detergent consumers confusing with Minute Maid lemon juice (Mitchell & Kearney, 2002), where the maker of
Sunlight could not reasonably intend its product to be confused with a drink.

III. Pyramid Doorstep Promotions

Some marketers have profited from pyramid schemes, which may look highly alluring but are actually
logical fallacies with dubious ethical foundations. It begins with someone (the pyramid's apex) soliciting the
support of customers who later turn into sellers, making up the first level of the pyramid. Products are delivered
from the top, with a portion of the profit going to each agent behind them until it reaches the customer.
 IV. Internet advertising.

Customers are purchasing online in greater numbers due to the growing popularity of distance selling via Internet
communication technologies (Petty, 2014). According to a recent article in a trade publication for the retail
industry, 48% of the Internet's rapidly expanding user base engages in online purchasing ("Internet Commerce,"
2000). The opportunity to compare multiple brands and retailers while seated at one's home computer is a benefit
of online buying.

However, this circumstance presents new chances for taking advantage of the naive client. If consumers are
researching products and pricing online without any of the intimidating presence of a pushy salesperson, it could
seem like they are completely in control of the situation. However, web pages can be strategically designed to
divert attention, compel decisions, put pressure on customers to buy now, collect personal data, customize sales
offers based on the data provided by customers, and in a variety of other ways, covertly observe customers in
order to develop persuasive tactics. With today's advanced e-mail software's bulk-mail functions, it is even simpler
to advertise pyramid schemes over the Internet.

V. Situations that Have Post-Sale Effects

Shortly after a sale has been completed, deception is usually exposed. This is especially true of long-lasting
goods. For example, a consumer can learn too late that even if a product was reasonably priced, the spare parts
are exorbitant and excessively expensive. It is fraud by omission if the financial ramifications of using the product
after the transaction are not mentioned at the sale point. Deception can also happen in situations other than
sales, such as when cars are being serviced while still covered by their warranties. A consumer may buy an
automobile after being pleased by a salesperson, only to run into issues with the car's maintenance. Although it
might be argued that services are a distinct product, the organization's values and culture of the vehicle
manufacturer frequently have an impact on the service department's culture and integrity.

3.2.
3.3. Competitive Advantage

Environments that are dynamic and uncertain must be managed by businesses today. Organizations need
to be strategic thinkers if they want to succeed. They need to be aware of how the dynamics of their competitive
environment are changing. They ought to actively seek out opportunities to use their strategic aptitudes, adapt,
and seek out new ones, improving across the board, focusing on knowledge and comprehension of existing tactics
and successes. Organizations must have the ability to react rapidly to possibilities and obstacles. They need to
perform better than their competitors in a dynamic environment in order to compete successfully over the long
run. In order to have a true competitive advantage, businesses must be able to exceed their rivals in meeting
client demands. It is attained if and when clients receive genuine value additions.

To succeed, a company needs to provide value to its customers. The crucial components in creating value are:

1. A commitment to quality

2. A high level of all-around service

3. A quick response to competitive opportunities and threats

Small businesses that comprehend their clients might develop a competitive advantage and profit from
increased prices and customer loyalty. Then, increased capacity utilization may contribute to cost savings. While it
is crucial to utilize all resources effectively and economically, it is equally crucial to make sure that the outputs
fully satisfy the demands of the customers for that they were designed. Only then can the potential value of the
outputs be maximized. A company does this when it views the goals of its clients as its own goals, gives them the
tools to easily provide additional value, or, in the case of ultimate clients, makes them feel like they are getting
real value for their money (Papulava and Papulava 2006).

3.3.1. Creating a Competitive Advantage Plan

The company will survive if it achieves an advantage. If that advantage is substantial, the company will
prosper. A differentiation strategy, a low-cost strategy, and a third strategy—focus, or a niche strategy—is the
three broad strategy types that organizations can select from to create a competitive advantage, according to
Porter’s generic strategies (Islami, Mustafa, & Topuzovska Latkovikj, 2020). When a company employs a
differentiation strategy, it competes on the basis of its capacity to act in ways that are distinct from those of its
main rivals. By producing goods or services at the lowest cost, a company that employs a low-cost approach has a
competitive edge. Entrepreneurs' businesses flourish if they continue to maintain costs lower than the
competition. Porter's focus, or a niche strategy, advises concentrating on market niches, such as specific target
markets, specific product categories, or a more constrained geographic market, as opposed to the differentiation
and cost leadership strategies, which are founded on the competitive advantage creation over an entire market
segment. Competitors who employ niche marketing techniques are experts. They cater to a certain local or global
market niche. High profit margins are given to niche strategists that have specialized talents that are specifically
tailored to a given market. Effective businesspeople are aware of the difficulty in creating and sustaining a
competitive advantage. Competitive advantage can be readily lost if caution is not taken (Pretorius, 2008).

3.3.2. The Competitive Specialization

Understanding the corporate mission is essential for survival, but it is insufficient for great performing on its own.
By taking advantage of competitive specialization, that is accomplished. The competitive specialization can be
utilized in three different ways.

First, it can be made stronger or more intense so that customers can sense it more easily or so that they
value it more and are willing to pay more for it. Thus, for instance, a specialization in product quality might be
strengthened by enhancing the product's quality even further and/or enhancing the product's quality promotion.
The end effect will be a rise in the product's real and perceived quality and a decrease in its sensitivity to price. In
order to meet the needs of more clients, the specialization might also be widened. The most obvious approach to
achieve this is through geographic expansion, but any product that is targeted at a certain market group may be
able to expand its appeal to other areas. Last but not least, the specialization can be maintained through evolving
technology and shifting consumer preferences.

Enhancing the specialty must only be done with caution and in accordance with concrete data regarding
client perceptions. The specialization's expansion poses risks as well. Expanding that focus to include more market
categories runs the danger of losing the present consumers' perception of its value. Some specialties have a finite
lifespan because they are tied to specific products or narrowly defined markets. This is analogous to extending the
life of a specialization.

3.3.3. Competitive advantage as corporate strategy

It is regarded as a tool or corporate strategy that may be used to strengthen the competitive edge. The company's
many distinct activities; including design, manufacture, marketing, delivery, and sales support, contribute to its
competitive edge when viewed as a whole. In order to outperform the competition, organizations continue to
pursue competitive advantage. According to (Samsir, 2018), the benefits are largely transitory and cannot be
maintained. We must approach competition in the present and the future with some strategic thought since it
should be understood as a dynamic rather than a static competition.

Admit that management productivity in business performance with a strategic selection strategy will concentrate
attention on crucial organizational elements to establish and maintain competitive advantage. A corporation can
gain a competitive edge when it can coordinate a variety of operations carried out by businesses linked together
in a chain to provide value that maximizes the company's profit margin.

The pursuit of a favorable competitive position in an industry, which is the fundamental setting for
competition, is referred to as competitive strategy. A competitive strategy can be used to defend a strong position
against the factors that influence industry rivalry. The company's ability to produce value such that subscribers or
customers can afford it gives it a competitive advantage. Competitive advantage describes the generic methods
(low cost, distinctiveness, and focus) that the organization chooses and employs in order to gain and keep a
competitive edge. In other terms, competitive advantage demonstrates how a business actually carries out
general strategies in day-to-day operations. To achieve high performance, it is advantageous to have and keep a
competitive advantage(Samsir, 2018).

3.3.4. Competitive Advantage as a performance

Despite the fact that the terms competitive advantage and performance are sometimes used interchangeably, it is
understood that these two entities are fundamentally separate. When a company has a competitive edge over its
rivals, it typically means that it can offer one or more of the following capabilities: lower pricing, higher quality,
higher dependability, and quicker delivery. High levels of economic performance may result from these qualities.
A company that can effectively utilize its resource-capability combinations to gain a finer distinctions competitive
advantage might improve its performance by selling more items at the same margin or by selling the same
number of units at a higher margin. This is because such benefits tend to increase customer loyalty and perceived
quality (Lee & Yoo, 2021). Since competitive advantage gives a firm the means to outperform its rivals, its
favorable impact on performance has been well-documented in existing studies. The beneficial impact of
competitive edge on market performance is also noted by (Newbert, 2008).

3.4.
3.5. The relationship between market deception and gaining competitive advantage

It would be simple to introduce marketing deception as yet another subject under the umbrella of human
deceit. Marketing is, at its core, a human behavioral process that facilitates economic interaction between
consumers and producers of goods and services. Godin is correct to point out that marketers are a particular type
of liar, thus it would be erroneous to limit the concept of deceptive marketing without considering the
circumstances. Marketing deception involves a set of characteristics and preconditions that both resemble and set
it apart from how deceit is perceived in the context of interpersonal communication. Examining how marketing,
and particularly marketing communications1, vary from other forms of communication is crucial to comprehend
marketing deception (Serota, 2019a).

Marketing differs from other forms of human connection because of its commercial basis. This is not meant to
minimize the bargaining that takes on in contexts of everyday lying. Information is exchanged; social encounters
are planned through negotiation between friends, and lovers exchange sexual favors for socio-emotional benefits.
However, interpersonal interaction typically happens on the spur of the moment as people go about organizing
their everyday thoughts and behaviors. The study of behavioral economics shows that there are many trade-offs
in daily life for which lying may be the preferred resolution approach(Gneezy, 2005).

While there are various ways to deceive consumers, marketing is not ad hoc; it is planned and carried out.
While (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2002) describes communication as intentional human behavior that serves to transmit
information and produce and reproduce shared meaning, the primary goal of marketing is to add value. Marketing
is defined by the American Marketing Association as "the activity, collection of institutions, and procedures for
developing, communicating, providing, and exchanging offerings that are beneficial for consumers, clients,
partners, and society as a whole" from the producer's perspective(Association, 2013).

A subset of corporate operations known as marketing directly impacts consumers through transactions
between buyers and sellers, when the exchange satisfies the consumer's wants and needs, it creates consumer
value, or utility. Profit, also known as producer value, is generated by obtaining payment. However, advertising
and promotions are the areas of marketing deception that are most frequently mentioned. Although deceptions
can happen everywhere in the marketing mix, studying communicative deceit in marketing is the greatest way to
comprehend how and why marketers deceive to gain profit and competitive advantage (Serota, 2019a).

An organized business activity is marketing. Marketing involves formal execution, planning, and strategy, in
contrast to usual human discourse. As stated by (Boush, Friestad, & Wright, 2015) the types of deception that may
be found in marketing communications: In addition to outright lies, there are a wide variety of other
sophisticated, deceptive acts and methods used in marketplace deceptions. The effectiveness of their ruses is
important to the deception agents, who have received professional training and investment. They work together
to develop a deceitful strategy, take into account various tactic combinations to carry it out, pretest it, make
revisions, and use it on important targets before monitoring and making adjustments after it has started. They
build each component of it with the help of skilled communicators. They practice endlessly until the speakers'
delivery is flawless and the story is presented exactly as they plan. They meticulously evaluate the weaknesses of
their targets, separating the weak from the savvy.

A culturally production system that aims to influence consumers to choose one product or brand over others
under consideration includes marketing tactics and deception. The ultimate equitable objective of marketing
communications is engagement, which is described as the planned, integrated, and managed interactive
discussions with important target populations to assist achieve these goals (Dahlén, Lange, & Smith, 2009). The
term "mutually beneficial" refers to the creation of value for both the consumer and the producer in the form of
gratifying needs and wants and generating income.

Although reciprocity is a modern marketing notion ideal, the long-held view that a company's only goal is to
make money for its shareholders is at odds with this altruistic perspective. The asymmetries of information that
the producer (marketer) has access to provides a way to fulfill the profit maximization motivation at the expense
of the customer, as famously noted by (Akerlof, 2003). Businesses implicitly balance the intended end goal of
increasing profitability with the potential and perceived risks of false marketing (i.e., damaged brand equity, lost
customers, and legal retribution). Businesses are more inclined to use misleading marketing techniques if they
believe that the possibility of increased profits outweighs the danger. In order to increase profits, many marketers
will essentially sacrifice some client satisfaction.

In the world of commerce, the free flow of information is seen as crucial to assisting customers in learning
about costs and selecting products with knowledge. When a manufacturer or seller utilizes dishonest tactics to
obtain an unfair edge over rivals or customers by stifling or controlling consumer choice, this is referred to as
marketing deception. Only true commercial speech is legally protected in the US, according to the Supreme Court;
deceptive and misleading advertising and other similar kinds of promotion are not eligible. 2 Modern marketing
techniques and theories about marketing deception are fundamentally based on this legal approach. Hastak and
Mazis (2011) Contrast this with the scarcity of psychological theory that has been used to marketing deception,
noting that academics have typically focused on legal frameworks rather than theory-driven predictions. Usually,
these legal frameworks are the result of a case law examination on deceptive advertising.

US law has the most influence on the legal worldview. Formal advertising legislation is few, with the exception
of the European Union, nations that follow English law (such as Canada and Australia), and China. The global
strategy mainly relies on self-regulation (Petty, 2014). This may be a realistic reflection; in 1996, the US accounted
for approximately 40% of global advertising spending (Petty, 1997). In 2017, the US accounted for 35% of
worldwide advertising spending, with the US, China, Japan, the UK, and Germany account for approximately two-
thirds of the total (Koththagoda & Herath, 2018).

Moreover, Caveat emptor, which translates to "let the buyer beware," was a Latin expression that
expressed concern for business deceitful methods prior to the 20th century. Product claims were frequently
absurd. Complete restoration of vitality and manhood was promised by Dr. Dyes Voltaic Belt. Sciatica, toothaches,
and frost bites were all promised quick relief by Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment. Caveat emptor served as a
consumer's guide; the customer was expected to be wary of claims, inspect products carefully before buying, and
make an informed choice. Sellers were not required by law to ensure that product claims were accurate or even to
provide a warranty that the products would perform as promised. Advertisements were categorized by the legal
system as "matter of opinion."

As soon as the US government wanted to shield enterprises from one another, lying in the course of
commerce became a source of concern. Antitrust laws like the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) and the Sherman
Antitrust Act (1890) were created to stop business practices that would raise prices for consumers. The idea that
commercial deceit might result in a competitive disadvantage was briefly addressed by antitrust regulation,
although it provided nothing in the way of consumer protection. It was feared that deceiving customers might
lead to customer theft between businesses. Information about products and brands that is dishonest and
deceptive, particularly information about rival brands, may adversely influence consumers' decisions. Advertising
from the nineteenth century frequently presented rivals as copycats or inferior alternatives. Choosing brand
names with the intention of confusing consumers between emerging and well-known brands was common.
According to the 1914 FTC Act, the FTC is responsible for defending businesses against one another by banning
unfair activities, practices, and procedures that could harm trade and reduce competition (Hovenkamp, 2010). But
before the 1960s, safeguarding consumers from falsehoods and deceptions in advertising received little sporadic
attention.
 Besides, Fast-ball and combat sport professionals constantly interact with their rivals and, if they want to
succeed, modify their behavior to obtain an advantage. Deception and disguise, for instance, are acknowledged as
expert behaviors that are used to thwart an opponent's capacity to accurately predict their activities. Similarly,
companies use such tactics to gain competitive edge over their competitors by deceiving not only their opponents
but also their consumers. From the premise of ecological approaches, a person's behavior is visually directed by
their perception of affordances. Specifically, it refers to the options for action that a setting presents a performer
in relation to their capabilities. Affordances change in respect to the performers during interactions; how one
performs affects how the other performs. As a result, it is possible to conceptualize interpersonal interactions as a
back and forth between perception and action with the goal of maximizing one's own prospects for success while
suppressing those of opponents.

Competitors utilize disguise and deception to test an opponent's grasp development and ability to
correctly predict their behaviors. In order to maximize uncertainty and prevent opponents from tightening their
hold on the interaction, a well-disguised movement keeps real information from the competitor until as late as
possible in their action. Deception entails planning a movement to express a false aim before later adjusting to
carry out the true intention of the movement. Recently Kimmel and Rogler (2018) proposed that affordances in
competitor interaction can be deceptive. As a result, deceit can be seen as providing information that induces a
deceptive affordance, giving a competitor a false advantage. When confronted with a deceptive action, customers
or competitors take use of information from the company's developing action. This information seems to suggest
a preventative action to the customer, encouraging an adaptive reaction. As the engagement progresses, the
enticing feature that encouraged the customer to act can really be deceiving them about the firm's objective,
lowering the consumer's control and moving the advantage to the corporation (Ramsey, Dicks, Hope, & Reddy,
2022).

Henceforth, marketers sometimes gain the edge over competitors by indirectly deceiving customers,
hence capturing more market for a while. But this cannot be beneficial in long run as customers today are savvier
than they were before the advent of technology and customer rights. Today it is not easy for companies to
deceive their customers. Moreover, spreading such false information to gain profit cannot be profitable as once
customers realized the true intentions of company they will no longer purchase products. And not only this but
with the word of mouth this bad image once created will be spread among masses, resulting in loss of customers,
profit, and goodwill.
3.6 Conceptual Framework

H1
Market Deception Competitive Edge

Market deception is increasingly commonly around the globe but there have been very few researches not
only in Iraqi market but throughout the globe where researchers have abandoned this concept and most
particularly its direct relationship competitive edge companies try to gain. Companies instead of doing SWOT
analysis and proper usage of the results obtained from SWOT they go for shortcuts which can lead them to profit
in low cost. This is the most common reason of failure of forms because this trick of capturing more profit in low
cost with deception never lasts longer. Then it does not matter for the customer whether the company wanted to
deceive its suppliers, competitors or whatsoever. For customers deception once caught red handed will always
remain a fraud and they will never trust that firm again, this do not leave effects only on aggrieved customer but
this news then spreads like fire in jungle through word of mouth and today with the invention of digital system
paid bloggers and vloggers play the part of adding fuel to fire. For that purpose, this research was conducted to
identify the relationship of use of market deception for creating competitive edge. Hence following hypothesis
have been developed to test the idea:

H1: the use of market deception significantly impacts competitive edge of internet supplying companies in Iraq.

The hypothesis has been developed in accordance with the model of Deception Marketing Outcomes (DMO)
developed by (Daiku, Serota, & Levine, 2021). It is a cohesive theory of marketing deception is elusive to the
marketing discipline. This is partly because the foundations of the consumer behavior approach and the
legal/regulatory perspective are intertwined. He has put out the deceptive marketing outcomes (DMO) concept
for marketing deception, which is based on social psychology and communication theory. The truth-default theory
(TDT) proposed by (Levine, 2014) a general theory of deception, serves as the basis for this strategy's recognition
of various parameters (Serota, 2019b). The suggested theory distinguishes between dishonest and truthful
marketing and offers a framework for upcoming studies on marketing deception detection. Additionally, it
highlights directions that the marketing discipline has largely overlooked and which may lead to fresh perspectives
on the communications and thought processes that lead to consumer deception.
3.7 Theoretical Framework

Each of the three key assumptions made by the DMO model, which have an impact on how marketing deception
has been viewed, is covered in greater detail below. First, compared to normal conversation, marketing has a
more flexible definition of what is true. Second, deceit can happen whether or not the sender intends it. Third,
whether there has been marketing deception depends on whether the results are harmful. An essential
qualification applies to the third claim. Other results may have an impact on how consumers process marketing
communications, which in turn may raise or reduce the likelihood of being duped, even if the customer is not
materially harmed (according to the legal definition). The model's goal is to provide a framework for incorporating
the corpus of existing studies on marketing deception into the more general framework of social-psychological
deception theory.

3.7.1 Truth Is Not Rigidly Defined in Marketing

The first DMO model proposal highlights a significant distinction between marketing and cognitive research. It
would seem that many marketers adhere to a pragmatic theory of truth, similar to that of Charles Sanders Peirce
or William James, as opposed to the correspondence theory of truth developed by Aristotle ("what is that it is, is
true"), the coherence theories of Spinoza and F. H. Bradley, and contemporary philosophers of science like Carl
Hempel and Karl Popper. According to Pierce, the reality is what it is irrespective of how we decide to get there for
marketers (Houser & Kloesel, 1992). According to a marketing philosophy, truth is determined by results. Only
when the message's effects are negative can the marketing message be considered truly misleading.

3.7.2 Marketing Deception Is Independent of Intent

The second DMO argument demonstrates how significantly the marketing viewpoint departs from other
deception-related viewpoints. In the majority of domains of deception theory, intent is a key indicator of deceit. In
order for a message or an encounter to be deceptive, according to psychology and communication theories, there
must be an intent or motive. Intent is a key element in the theory of deception. Bok (1999)Defined deception as:
When we actively mislead others, we send messages intending to lead them astray and convince them to think
things that we ourselves do not believe. Only in the field of psychiatry, where deception and unintentional lying
are viewed as disordered, is an exception made.
 Marketing might potentially be an exception. Marketing is a mechanism for producing messages, as was
already mentioned before in this chapter. The actors in it range from the creators of the products or services that
need to be promoted to those who create and communicate the marketing messages through public relations,
packaging, advertising, and personal selling. Items have characteristics and traits that are discussed in marketing
messaging, which may also contain comparisons to similar products or requirements for specific target markets.
Additionally, every consumer has preexisting attitudes and ideas that might affect how they respond to marketing
messages. Because the manufacturers are aware that the supplements provide no real health benefit, many
advertisements for diet supplements, for instance, are purposefully misleading (Fontanarosa, Rennie, &
DeAngelis, 2003).

However, many people are not duped because they recognize these contemporary substitutes for snake
oil, discount both the category and the product, and choose not to purchase them. On the other hand, marketing
for a product with numerous attributes, only some of which are expressed, may be truthful and not intended to
mislead. But if a characteristic that is not disclosed ultimately causes harm to some customers, the marketing was
dishonest. For instance, a restaurant may want to please its patrons with its food but may not include all of the
ingredients on the menu. Even if the restaurant may have had the best of intentions, it may be considered
deceitful if a customer who has a known food allergy to an unstated item becomes ill.

3.7.3 Material Injury Indicates Deception

The third DMO principle is based on the legal and regulatory perspective; it states that the marketing
message must result in either financial harm to a competitor or personal harm (such as physical, emotional, or
financial harm) to a customer in order to be considered misleading. The FTC Statement of 1983 and later
interpretations are unambiguous on this point, even though the severity of harm may affect how a particular legal
case turns out. For academics studying consumer deception, it's crucial to remember that the methods used to
trick consumers legally and unjustly should be handled separately. To create a more precise conception of how
consumers are misled, marketing practitioners can draw inspiration from communication theory. Fig. 3.5.1's
model illustrates roughly how messaging, judgments, and potential outcomes interact.
 Fig. 3.7.1: Model for misleading marketing outcomes

Fig. 3.7.1: Model for misleading marketing outcomes, four communications paths, judgments about
truthfulness and deception, and judgment results are displayed in the model. For the notion of deception, each
option has repercussions. In general, cognitive theorists regard Paths 3 and 4 (when done intentionally) as
misleading. Legal perspectives only acknowledge Path 4b; the majority of marketing deception academics accepts
Path 4 as possibly misleading. Signs (+ and -) denote successful and unsuccessful outcomes.

3.8 Theoretical Underpinnings

In context of the following discussion and the model mentioned there are two best suitable theories that are
backing the research.
3.8.1 Deceptions Due to Semantic Confusion

The use of unclear language or symbols in commercials or on packaging has the potential to mislead
consumers. Because a promotional claim employs a word or phrase that is similar to one that is more well-known,
semantic confusion may result. Consumers are prone to misinterpret or misunderstand the claim as a result of this
confusion. Research on pragmatic implication (Alba & Hasher, 1983; Harris & Monaco, 1978) may help explain the
consequences of semantically unclear language or pictures. Strongly indicated or requested assumptions, as
opposed to straightforward assertions, are referred to as pragmatic implications.

The use of terminology or phrases in product descriptions that (1) are unclear or have more than one
interpretation and/or (2) clearly imply the underlying aim of the originator of those descriptions frequently leads
to inferences based on pragmatic implication. Numerous studies, including those by (Bruno & Harris, 1980; Gaeth
& Heath, 1987) provide evidence for the prevalence of inferences based on pragmatic implications in consumers'
processing of a range of stimuli, including marketing communications. For example: A "Fresh Italian" pasta sauce
brand was created by Ragu Foods in 1990. However, the sauce included reconstituted, heated tomatoes. Orange
juice sold under the Citrus Hill brand also carried the "Fresh Choice" logo.

To improve the flavor, orange oil and essence were added to the product, which was nevertheless
manufactured from frozen concentrate. Both times, the producers could claim that the ingredients came from
"fresh" tomatoes or oranges. However, people would be confused and misled by the label "fresh" if they believed
that a "fresh" product solely contained natural, unprocessed ingredients. Later, the "Fresh Italian" pasta sauce line
was modified to "Fino Italian," and the word "fresh" was removed from the orange juice labeling. It was
discovered that Stouffer Foods had misrepresented the amount of sodium in Lean Cuisine entrees. Lean Cuisine
entrees were advertised by Stouffer as having "less than 300 calories, regulated fat, and always less than 1 gram
of salt each entree." Customers most likely inferred the product's low salt content from the (pragmatic) inference.
If that's the case, they were duped because one gram is equal to thousand milligrams of sodium, which is a lot of
sodium (Craig Andrews & Maronick, 1995).

Once a brand name refers to a specific location, there may be semantic confusion that results in deceptio
known condiment Louisiana Hot Sauce as an example. Although the maker may have intended for the name to im
item is a Cajun-style spicy sauce, the pragmatic connotation that the food is created in Louisiana follows logically f
of Louisiana. Whether or not "Louisiana Hot Sauce" is a generic or widely used term in the language and whether o
consumers as referring to a particular sort of hot sauce rather than its area of origin will determine how muc
misled. Because terms are perceived differently in many cultures, this semantic uncertainty is a key contributor to
Superlative adjectives like "premium" and "best," for instance, are not permitted in beer descriptions in the United
being often used in the United States. Regulators in Britain appear to be worried that consumers may take thes
mean that the specific brand of beer is of greater quality than the typical lager. Such expressions are considered "p
which refers to overstated claims that are disregarded by customers.

3.8.2 Source-Based deception

Customers are regularly exposed to product recommendations made by authorities (referred to as "expert
sources") or by regular people who have used the product for a while (referred to as "typical consumer sources").
Such endorsements, however, have the potential to mislead customers in a variety of circumstances. First,
customers may be misled when the "expert" expresses an opinion on a subject that is outside of his or her field of
knowledge. Second, when the expert or endorsing group has a connection to the advertiser and does not offer an
objective opinion, buyers may be deceived. Third, buyers may believe that a representative sample of experts is
being used when marketers claim that the majority of pertinent experts support the product. But occasionally, a
marketer may only give advice from specialists who support their product. Fourth, a marketer may prominently
cite a reliable group on the label of a product, leading consumers to believe incorrectly that the organization has
approved the product. Last but not least, when customer reviews are provided, customers may believe that they
reflect a representative sample of users or that these people are uninterested customers. However, a marketer is
only allowed to showcase the thoughts of happy customers, as well as those of their friends and relatives.

The concept of the effects of different sources on customer perceptions and evaluations can be
conceptualized using the social influence theory. The tendency to take information from others as proof of truth is
specifically what Deutsch and Gerard (1955) called informational social influence Through the internalization
process, both expert endorsers—individuals or outside organizations—and regular consumer endorsers are likely
to produce informational influence. In particular, consumers are more likely to follow the advice of the
endorsement due to either the endorser's competence or their personal resemblance. The effect created by the
endorsers may be further increased by social proof in circumstances where numerous endorsers (either
professionals or consumers) are used. People are more likely to copy the acts of a large group than the actions of
a single individual, according to social proof, since they tend to assume that if many people are doing something,
it must be correct(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2002).

For example a surgeon advocating a nutritional supplement is an example of an expert delivering advice
outside of his or her field of expertise. If customers believe the surgeon has nutritional knowledge, they may be
deceit, leading to informational influence. Another illustration is the use of a former NASA astronaut in Dura Lube
ads. The FTC (1999b) found that Dura Lube misrepresented the astronaut's competence in lubrication evaluation
and claimed that the astronaut had approved Dura Lube following independent, impartial, and reliable testing.
The astronaut had not put the substance through scientific testing, and he was not an expert in the field of
lubrication for car engines.

Additionally, some marketers establish "independent"-seeming groups and/or fund them, which allow
them to promote their own goods or viewpoints. Customers can assume that this organization offers an objective
professional view and assume that it is not influenced by information. Screen Test U.S.A. made an effort to
persuade customers that if they used its services, it may help them land modeling jobs for their kids. Screen Test
U.S.A. claimed to have the support of the American Child Actor and Modeling Association in order to give their
actions more legitimacy. However, the proprietor of Screen Test U.S.A. founded this association as a shell
corporation (FTC 1999a).

This formula is recommended by more pediatricians than any other formula. This kind of claim is supported by
social proof (the majority of pediatricians approve the product) and informational influence from an expert source
(pediatricians). Essentially, it is possible that 80% of the pediatricians questioned had no preference for any
particular formula.

As a result, even while this assertion may be accurate in its precise sense, the suggestion that the majority
of pediatricians favor the formula is false. The American Heart Association's advice to consume more fruits and
vegetables might be mentioned by an orange juice company. If customers believed that this particular brand of
orange juice is recommended by the American Heart Association as a way to prevent heart disease, they would be
duped.
3.9 Significance of theoretical relationship

For the past 50 years, combining theory with practice has been a crucial component of social scientific
research. On this fusion, Petty (2014) made a comment, We should encourage the integration of fundamental
theory-driven research into our broader research activity and its usage in applied research. Consumer behavior
theory has frequently been utilized by public policy scholars to make predictions about how consumers will react
to misleading advertising. For instance, Pechmann (1996) makes predictions regarding customer reaction to
possibly deceptive comparable price statements based on studies on self - reference bias (Kahneman and Tversky
1973).

Burke, Milberg, and Moe (1997) provide predictions concerning possibly deceptive health claims for food
goods based on studies on feature-absent deductions (Simmons and Leonard 1990). Understanding the
psychological foundations of particular types of deception is made easier by this research. To make predictions, it
has typically relied on a single theory, and it does not offer a thorough theoretical understanding of different kinds
of deceit. In contrast, academics have usually emphasized legal frameworks rather than theory-driven predictions
while investigating various types of ad fraud. Usually, these legal frameworks are the result of a case law
examination on deceptive advertising. Typologies for various forms of deceit have been developed using analyses
of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or Lanham Act cases.

In this study, marketing parameters are examined, the evolution of deception as a marketing discipline
component is examined, how and why outcomes have become the focus of theoretical and practical marketing
deception thinking is discussed, and a theoretical model that integrates marketing deception into the larger
framework of mainstream theory and research on human deception is proposed as a conclusion. Lists of different
forms of deceptive claims and discussions of the subtleties involved in evaluating and using those typologies are
common in theorizing on marketing deception. The development of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) served as
the foundation for a legal/regulatory perspective in theory, and consumer behavior and information processing
theories serve as the foundation for a cognitive/behavioral approach.

This study further focuses on direct impact of market deception on competitive edge. As today as already
mentioned companies when don’t find any edge then they use such deceptive tactics to foster their business. This
study will answer the question of survival of such companies and will also acknowledge to the marketers of Iraq
about the advancement of customers knowledge about what is the truth and what is not. It will further help in
decrease of such practices especially in the market of Iraq and will improve the overall goodwill of business
industry of Iraq as well as its Image in rest of the world. This automatically attracts foreign investors, resulting in
the growth of GDP of the Country.
3.10. To sum up

Market deception is becoming more prevalent all over the world, but there have been very few studies
where researchers have given up on this idea, particularly its direct connection to the competitive edge that
businesses seek to obtain, not just in the Iraqi market but all around the world. Companies take shortcuts that can
help them profit at a minimal cost rather than doing a SWOT analysis and properly utilizing the data. This is the
most frequent cause of form failure since the method of increasing profit at a cheap cost through deception
seldom works for very long. Then, it makes little difference to the customer whether the business intended to
mislead its suppliers, rivals, or anybody else. Customers will never again trust that company if they are deceived,
and once they are exposed for what it is, the knowledge spreads like wildfire by word of mouth. Today, thanks to
the development of the digital age, paid bloggers and vloggers play an important role in supplying fuel to the fire.
This study was carried out to determine the association between the use of market deception for establishing
competitive

In this study, marketing parameters are investigated, the development of deception as a marketing discipline
component is examined, how and why outcomes have become the focus of theoretical and practical marketing
deception thinking is discussed, and as a conclusion, a theoretical model that integrates marketing deception into
the larger framework of mainstream theory and research on human deception is proposed. Theorizing on
marketing deception frequently includes lists of several typologies of deceptive claims as well as explorations of
the nuances involved in evaluating and employing those typologies. A legal/regulatory perspective is theoretically
based on the creation of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), while a cognitive/behavioral perspective is
theoretically based on theories of consumer behavior and information processing.

Although reciprocity is a modern marketing notion ideal, the long-held view that a company's only goal is
to make money for its shareholders is at odds with this altruistic perspective (Friedman, 1970). The asymmetries
of information that the producer (marketer) has access to provides a way to fulfill the profit maximization
motivation at the expense of the customer, as famously noted by (Akerlof, 2003). Businesses implicitly balance the
intended end goal of increasing profitability with the potential and perceived risks of false marketing (i.e.,
damaged brand equity, lost customers, and legal retribution). Businesses are more inclined to use misleading
marketing techniques if they believe that the possibility of increased profits outweighs the danger. In order to
increase profits, many marketers will essentially sacrifice some client satisfaction.

One of the most significant assistances is amalgamation to theories and the DMO model. According to
DMO there are three key assumptions on marketing deception. Each of the three key assumptions made by the
DMO model, which have an impact on how marketing deception has been viewed, is covered in greater detail
below. First, compared to normal conversation, marketing has a more flexible definition of what is true. Second,
deceit can happen whether or not the sender intends it. Third, whether there has been marketing deception
depends on whether the results are harmful. An essential qualification applies to the third claim. Other results
may have an impact on how consumers process marketing communications, which in turn may raise or reduce the
likelihood of being duped, even if the customer is not materially harmed (according to the legal definition). The
model's goal is to provide a framework for incorporating the corpus of existing studies on marketing deception
into the more general framework of social-psychological deception theory.

Subsequently, many people are not duped because they recognize these contemporary substitutes for
snake oil, discount both the category and the product, and choose not to purchase them. On the other hand,
marketing for a product with numerous attributes, only some of which are expressed, may be truthful and not
intended to mislead. But if a characteristic that is not disclosed ultimately causes harm to some customers, the
marketing was dishonest. For instance, a restaurant may want to please its patrons with its food but may not
include all of the ingredients on the menu. Even if the restaurant may have had the best of intentions, it may be
considered deceitful if a customer who has a known food allergy to an unstated item becomes ill.

Theoretically there are two theories combined together to get deeper insights. Theory of Deceptions Due
to Semantic Confusion explains the use of unclear language or symbols in commercials or on packaging has the
potential to mislead consumers. Because a promotional claim employs a word or phrase that is similar to one that
is more well-known, semantic confusion may result. Consumers are prone to misinterpret or misunderstand the
claim as a result of this confusion. Once a brand name refers to a specific location, there may be semantic
confusion that results in deception. Regulators in Britain appear to be worried that consumers may take these
expressions to mean that the specific brand of beer is of greater quality than the typical lager. Such expressions
are considered "puffery" in the US, which refers to overstated claims that are disregarded by customers.

With respect to the theory of Source-Based deception Customers are regularly exposed to product
recommendations made by authorities (referred to as "expert sources") or by regular people who have used the
product for a while (referred to as "typical consumer sources"). Such endorsements, however, have the potential
to mislead customers in a variety of circumstances. First, customers may be misled when the "expert" expresses
an opinion on a subject that is outside of his or her field of knowledge. Second, when the expert or endorsing
group has a connection to the advertiser and does not offer an objective opinion, buyers may be deceived. Third,
buyers may believe that a representative sample of experts is being used when marketers claim that the majority
of pertinent experts support the product.

unethical problems are found. Because people may not always agree with their perceptions and notions about
right and evil, some behaviors may not seem morally obvious. What one customer may deem to be deception may
not be deception to another consumer, and so on. Therefore, marketing deception is complicated enough to merit
investigation as a separate issue.

Deception of marketing is not only restricted to goods but services as well Such as internet service
providers. The study focuses on the internet service providers of Iraq practicing deceptive marketing tactics to
gain completive advantage. To serve the purpose, internet suppliers deceive citizens proving fake internet at
costly prices for example more than 50 times the actual cost. Along with being costly, the Internet is also
manipulated by businesses using public infrastructure. They install specialized devices that save Internet
data, such as video and photographs, as well as information from numerous sites utilized in Iraq, making

the value of that data local rather than global.

Referring the theory marketers that employ deception briefly achieve the outcomes they desire, in the
long term they lose a lot; it is difficult to deceive the client more than once. This is especially true about kinds of
marketing deception in Internet provider firms. However, empirical research supports the opposite. Santos et al.
(2021) Investigation revealed the practice of Internet service provider businesses using deceptive marketing
tactics in the Gaza Strip. According to Othu Abdel Karim and Maati Fathi's investigation, the three telecoms
carriers in Algeria give misleading service, which is what the customers of the two companies feel, and Djezzy has
won the first level in marketing deception.

This study further focuses on direct impact of market deception on competitive edge. As today as already
mentioned companies when don’t find any edge then they use such deceptive tactics to foster their business.
Companies producing competitive advantage by ethical and fair means, at the same time there are many
companies creating deceptive marketing to gain profit. Services like weight loss and firms producing cosmetic
products often indulge in misleading advertising to attract customers mold their intentions to purchase. In this
way companies generate increase in their sales volume and hence generate huge revenue. In the same context
Iraqi internet services proving firms are highly involved in deceptive marketing specifically price deception and
hence generating profit from the wallet share of citizen.
 This study further answers the question of survival of such companies and will also acknowledge to the
marketers of Iraq about the advancement of customers knowledge about what is the truth and what is not. It will
further help in decrease of such practices especially in the market of Iraq and will improve the overall goodwill of
business industry of Iraq as well as its Image in rest of the world. This automatically attracts foreign investors,
resulting in the growth of GDP of the Country.
References

Aditya, R. N. (2001). The psychology of deception in marketing: A conceptual framework for research and practice.
Psychology & Marketing, 18(7), 735-761.
Akerlof, G. A. (2003). Behavioral macroeconomics and macroeconomic behavior. The American Economist, 47(1), 25-47.
Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 203.
Association, A. M. (2013). Definition of marketing. http://www. marketingpower.
com/AboutAMA/Pages/DefinitionofMarketing. aspx? sq= definition.
Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life: Vintage.
Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (2015). Deception in the marketplace: The psychology of deceptive persuasion and
consumer self-protection: Routledge.
Bruno, K. J., & Harris, R. J. (1980). The effect of repetition on the discrimination of asserted and implied claims in advertising.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 1(3), 307-321.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2002). The science and practice of persuasion. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 43(2), 40-50.
Craig Andrews, J., & Maronick, T. J. (1995). Advertising research issues from FTC versus Stouffer Foods Corporation. Journal
of public policy & Marketing, 14(2), 301-309.
Dahlén, M., Lange, F., & Smith, T. (2009). Marketing communications: A brand narrative approach: John Wiley & Sons.
Daiku, Y., Serota, K. B., & Levine, T. R. (2021). A few prolific liars in Japan: Replication and the effects of Dark Triad
personality traits. PloS one, 16(4), e0249815.
Davidson, K. (1996). When does creativity become deception? Marketing News, 30(20), 12.
Dictionary, O. E. (1993). Oxford English Dictionary. Simpson, JA & Weiner, ESC.–1989.
Fontanarosa, P. B., Rennie, D., & DeAngelis, C. D. (2003). The need for regulation of dietary supplements—lessons from
ephedra. Jama, 289(12), 1568-1570.
Gaeth, G. J., & Heath, T. B. (1987). The cognitive processing of misleading advertising in young and old adults: Assessment
and training. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 43-54.
Gardner, D. M. (1975). Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach: Deception in advertising needs further definition
and procedures for measurement—Gardner's conceptual approach offers suggestions for both. Journal of
marketing, 39(1), 40-46.
Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The role of consequences. American Economic Review, 95(1), 384-394.
Harris, R. J., & Monaco, G. E. (1978). Psychology of pragmatic implication: Information processing between the lines. Journal
of experimental psychology: General, 107(1), 1-22.
Hastak, M., & Mazis, M. B. (2011). Deception by implication: A typology of truthful but misleading advertising and labeling
claims. Journal of public policy & Marketing, 30(2), 157-167.
Hovenkamp, H. (2010). The Federal Trade Commission and the Sherman Act. Fla. L. Rev., 62, 871.
Islami, X., Mustafa, N., & Topuzovska Latkovikj, M. (2020). Linking Porter’s generic strategies to firm performance. Future
Business Journal, 6(1), 1-15.
Kapferer, J. n. (1995). Brand confusion: Empirical study of a legal concept. Psychology & Marketing, 12(6), 551-568.
Kimmel, M., & Rogler, C. R. (2018). Affordances in interaction–the case of Aikido. Ecological Psychology(just-accepted), 00-
00.
Koththagoda, K., & Herath, H. (2018). Factors influencing online purchasing intention: The mediation role of consumer
attitude. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research, 42(2018), 66-74.
Lee, S., & Yoo, J. (2021). Determinants of a firm’s sustainable competitive advantages: Focused on Korean small enterprises.
Sustainability, 13(1), 346.
Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT) a theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378-392.
McGrew, T. J. (1985). Advertising issues avoided by FTC in past year. Legal Times, 7, 12-13.
Miller, G. R. (1983). Telling it like it isn’t and not telling it like it is: Some thoughts on deceptive communication. The Jensen
lectures: Contemporary communication studies, 91-116.
Miller, G. R., Mongeau, P. A., & Sleight, C. (1986). Invited article fudging with friends and lying to lovers: Deceptive
communication in personal relationships. Journal of social and personal relationships, 3(4), 495-512.
Mitchell, V. W., & Kearney, I. (2002). A critique of legal measures of brand confusion. Journal of Product & Brand
Management.
Newbert, S. L. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: a conceptual‐level empirical investigation
of the resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 29(7), 745-768.
Olson, J. C., & Dover, P. A. (1978). Cognitive effects of deceptive advertising. Journal of marketing research, 15(1), 29-38.
Peterson, L. (1985). Preventive consumer education in children's judgments of televised advertisements. Education and
Treatment of Children, 199-219.
Petty, R. D. (2014). International advertising law and regulation: a research review and agenda–the devil is in the details. The
handbook of international advertising research, 393-413.
Pretorius, M. (2008). When Porter's generic strategies are not enough: complementary strategies for turnaround situations.
Journal of Business Strategy.
Ramsey, H., Dicks, M., Hope, L., & Reddy, V. (2022). Maximising Grip on Deception and Disguise: Expert Sports Performance
During Competitive Interactions. Sports Medicine-Open, 8(1), 1-9.
Reed Jr, O. L., & Coalson Jr, J. L. (1976). Eighteenth-century legal doctrine meets twentieth-century marketing techniques:
FTC regulation of emotionally conditioning advertising. Ga. L. Rev., 11, 733.
Rotfeld, H. J., & Preston, I. L. (1981). The potential impact of research on advertising law. Journal of Advertising Research.
Samsir, S. (2018). The effect of leadership orientation on innovation and its relationship with competitive advantages of
small and medium enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Law and Management.
Santos, D. P., da Rocha Sobrinho, M., de Fatima de Castro Oliveira, M., Costa, N. B., Ferraz, T. M., de Oliveira Reis, F., . . . de
Assis Figueiredo, F. A. M. (2021). Effect of applying a calcined kaolin-based particle film on the photosynthetic
capacity and growth of young eucalyptus plants. Journal of Forestry Research, 32(6), 2473-2484.
Serota, K. B. (2019a). Deceptive marketing outcomes: A model for marketing communications The Palgrave Handbook of
Deceptive Communication (pp. 813-837): Springer.
Serota, K. B. (2019b). Deceptive Marketing Outcomes: A Model for Marketing Communications.