Industries use persuasion strategies to gain public support when challenged by activist groups on consumer-relevant issues. This marketing practice, termed direct-to-public persuasion, has received limited attention in the field, and thus we have little understanding of when such campaigns fail or succeed. This research introduces a theoretically derived and empirically supported framework that draws from multiple areas, including marketing persuasion, political campaign strategy, sociopolitical legitimacy, and perceptual fit, to identify important differences in the effectiveness of these persuasion strategies on attitudes and voting behavior. The multimethod approach includes a field study of ballot measure voting during a national U.S. election and three experimental studies. The findings contribute new knowledge of asymmetries in public response to industry and activist arguments. Stronger arguments from both sides lead to more favorable outcomes, but activist groups benefit most. Suspicion of activist arguments weakens the impact on attitudes and voting; industry argument suspicion has limited impact, though it does increase the likelihood of voter switching. A financial argumentation strategy works best for the industry side, while societal argumentation is more effective for the activist side. The insights offer guidance for industries and activist groups as argument strategy success is contingent on the side that uses it.

当激进团体在与消费者有关的问题上受到挑战时，行业使用说服策略来获得公众支持。这种称为直接面向公众的说服力的营销实践在该领域受到的关注很少，因此，我们对这种运动何时会失败或成功知之甚少。这项研究引入了一个从理论上衍生并得到经验支持的框架，该框架从多个领域吸取了灵感，包括市场营销说服力，政治竞选策略，社会政治合法性和知觉契合度，以识别这些说服策略在态度和投票行为方面的重要差异。多方法方法包括在美国全国大选中进行的选民投票实地研究和三项实验研究。这些发现为公众对行业和激进主义者的论点做出回应时提供了关于不对称性的新知识。双方强有力的论据导致更有利的结果，但激进主义者团体受益最大。怀疑激进主义者的论点削弱了对态度和投票的影响；业界争论的怀疑虽然影响确实增加了选民切换的可能性，但影响有限。财务论证策略最适合行业，而社会论证则更适合激进主义者。这些见解为行业和激进主义者团体提供了指导，因为争论策略的成功取决于使用它的一方。怀疑激进主义者的论点削弱了对态度和投票的影响；业界争论的怀疑虽然影响确实增加了选民切换的可能性，但影响有限。财务论证策略最适合行业，而社会论证则更适合激进主义者。这些见解为行业和激进主义者团体提供了指导，因为争论策略的成功取决于使用它的一方。怀疑激进主义者的论点削弱了对态度和投票的影响；业界争论的怀疑虽然影响确实增加了选民切换的可能性，但影响有限。财务论证策略最适合行业，而社会论证则更适合激进主义者。这些见解为行业和激进主义者团体提供了指导，因为争论策略的成功取决于使用它的一方。