Ethical Considerations in Leveraging the Decoy Effect for Marketing in FMCG
Authors
Senior Research Scholar (Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat, Haryana) (India)
Associate Professor (Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat, Haryana) (India)
Article Information
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2025-11-10
Accepted: 2025-11-20
Published: 2025-11-27
Abstract
This study explores the utilization of the decoy effect as a marketing strategy within the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) sector, focusing on the ethical questions it raises. The decoy effect capitalizes on consumers' cognitive biases by introducing a third product option designed to shift preferences toward a targeted choice without restricting options. Reviewing prior behavioral and neuroscientific research reveals that such tactics effectively shape purchasing behavior and foster brand loyalty. However, potential ethical issues arise, notably the reduction of consumer autonomy and transparency concerns, especially for vulnerable customers. The paper contends that while the decoy effect boosts sales and profits, it is essential to balance these advantages with ethical responsibilities. Through an integrative review of empirical evidence and theoretical insights, the study outlines how marketers can responsibly apply decoy strategies in ways that respect consumers as autonomous decision-makers rather than mere targets for persuasion. Recommendations encourage transparency, fairness, and placing consumer welfare at the forefront to build trust and sustain long-term relationships. Ultimately, responsible application, supported by ongoing research and regulation, can harmonize marketing efficiency with consumer rights, benefiting both businesses and buyers. The paper concludes by advocating ongoing research and the development of regulatory frameworks to ensure that the decoy effect’s use aligns not only with marketing goals but also with consumer rights, ultimately benefiting both businesses and shoppers alike.
Keywords
Decoy effect, FMCG marketing, behavioral economics, consumer behavior marketing ethics.
Downloads
References
1. Chen, N., Liu, J., Fang, H., Luo, Y., Sakai, T., & Wu, X. M. (2025). Decoy effect in search interaction: Understanding user behavior and measuring system vulnerability. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(2), 1-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. Chen, M., Liu, P., & Wu, L. (2022). Consumers' decoy effect when purchasing pork with traceability technologies. Frontiers in public health, 10, 941936. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Sherlin, I., Siswadhi, F., & Sarmigi, E. (2020, April). Analysing the decoy effect on online product purchasing preference: An experimental study. In 6th Annual International Conference on Management Research (AICMaR 2019) (pp. 125-130). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. Chan, E. Y. (2024). Consumer behavior in practice. Springer Books. https://doi. org/10, 1007, 978-3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Wolf, T. (2016). Unlocking Pricing Page Success: The Decoy Effect, in: Conversioner [online]. Available at: https://www.conversioner.com/blog/the-decoy-effect. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. Sellers-Rubio, R., & Nicolau-Gonzalbez, J. L. (2015). Testing the decoy effect in the presence of store brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(2), 113-125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Sunstein, C. R. (2015). Choosing not to choose: Understanding the value of choice. Oxford University Press, USA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. P. (2014). Let ‟ s Be Honest About the Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 520–525. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. Simonson, I. (2014). Vices and Virtues of Misguided Replications: The Case of Asymmetric Dominance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 514–519. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. Slaughter, J. E., Kausel, E. E., & Quinones, Mi. A. (2011). The Decoy Effect as a Covert Influence Tactic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(3), 249–266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. Leonard, T. C. (2008). Richard H. Thaler, Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness: Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2008, 293 pp, $26.00. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. Loewenstein, G., Brennan, T., & Volpp, K. G. (2007). Asymmetric paternalism to improve health behaviors. Jama, 298(20), 2415-2417. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Botti, S., & Iyengar, S. S. (2006). The dark side of choice: When choice impairs social welfare. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 24-38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of consumer research, 33(3), 304-311. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15. Farquhar, P. H., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1993). Decision Structuring with Phantom Alternatives. Management Science, 39(10), 1214–1226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of marketing research, 29(3), 281-295. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(September), 158–174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–99. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19. 99cashdeals. (2025, July 10). Zomato Gold membership 2025: Price, benefits & value. https://99cashdeals.com/zomato-gold-membership [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20. YourStory. (2023, July 11). How Starbucks' 10 cent price hike brewed $85M. https://yourstory.com/2023/07/starbucks-pricing-strategy [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21. The Strategystory. (2020, October 1). The Economist magazine: A story of clever decoy pricing effect. https://thestrategystory.com/economist-decoy-pricing/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]