User Acceptance of SMS-Based Mobile Advertising Campaigns

7/31/2019 User Acceptance of SMS-Based Mobile Advertising Campaigns

1/22

User Acceptance of SMS-based MobileAdvertising Campaigns

Philipp Heim/Eva Walter / Thomas Reutterer

PLS09


2/22

Background & Motivation

Objectives of our Study

Prior Research

Research Framework and Hypotheses

Empirical Study and Methodology

Results, Implications, Limitations & furtherResearch

Outline


3/22


Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 residents in Europe

Source: DESTATIS 2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006

1996

@ Heim/Walter/Reutterer - 1


4/22


Worldwide

4 billion mobile cellular subscribers at the end of 2008

2000 mobile penetration only 12 per cent, 2008 about 61 per cent

Consumers information overload Loss of efficiency of conventional advertising media

Source: Acharya,Sanjay(ITUWorld Telecommunication,Sept.2008)

Great potential for use within personalised

one-to-one marketing campaigns

e.g. via SMS

@ Heim/Walter/Reutterer- 2


5/22

Objectives of our Study

Primary goals:

To empirically evaluate the potential influencing factors

on consumers acceptance and attitudes towards

SMS-based advertising in a specific advertising campaign

To test the impact of different text layouts on the recipients

perceptions of SMS-advertising



6/22

Prior Research

Research in this area seems to be at a relatively early stage(Barnes/Scornavacca 2004; Tanakinjal et al. 2007; Mort/Drennan 2002)

Relatively large number of studies focusing on the acceptance of

mobile advertising (Haghirian/Madlberger 2005, Tsang et al. 2004, Bauer et al.2004)

Prior research revealed negative attitudes towards mobileadvertising in general.

Problem:

Rather general, context independent notion of mobile advertising

Focus on young target audiences



7/22

Prior Research

Conceptual framework

Technology Acceptance Model (Davis 1989)

Theory of reasoned Action (Fishbein/Ajzen 1975)

Theory of planned Behaviour (Ajzen 1991)

Some other empirically tested constructs

Advertising value (Ducoffe 1995)

Credibility (Brackett/Carr 2001; Tsang et al. 2004) Entertainment/Informativeness/Irritation/Permission (Tsang et al. 2004;

Haghirian/Madlberger 2005)

Personal Innovativeness (Agarwal/Prasad 1998)

Relevance (Barnes&Scornavacca 2004; Tanakinjal et al. 2007)



8/22

Research Framework and Hypotheses

H1a+

Perceived advertising value (ADV) triggers attitude towards the ad (ATT)which has a positive impact on purchase intention (INT)

ENT

INF

IRR

CRE

ADV ATT INT

PERM


REL

AGE EDUSEX

PI

H1b+H2a

+

H2b+

H3-

H4+

H5a+

H5b+

H8+

H9+

H10+

H11+

H12+

H6+

H7+


9/22

Empirical study and methodology

In contrast to previous contributions a specific SMS campaign wasconducted in cooperation with a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) retailer in July 2007

2,150 members of the retailers loyalty program received the SMSannouncing a 20 per cent discount for a specific item

Only members, who had bought the product advertised or a similar product

The item was not featured in any other ad and sold at the regular shelf priceduring the experimentation period

Within 3-4 days the members were contacted at their mobile phone

369 consumers were willing to participate



10/22

Results

.306*

.467*.094*

.079*

.271*

.058

.369* .889*

.192*.010

ADV ATT INT confirmed, ENT strongly affects ADV/ATTAd needs to be relevant (REL) and based on permission (PERM)

ENT

INF

IRR

CRE

ADV.856

ATT.919

INT.790

PERM


REL

AGE EDUSEX

PI

-.010 -.001 .003

.139*

.057


11/22

Results

Experimental Design

2 text versions: 1 Neutral, 1 Inviting (emphasis on the price-discount)

2 structurally similar sub-samples



12/22

Implication

Entertainment and Relevance are of major importance forpositive evaluation and acceptance of a mobile advertisingcampaign

Informativeness and Credibility turned out to be ofsubordinate importance

Irritation seems to be low, which could be an indication thatconsumers are aware of their given permission, but clearinstruction is essential

Daily use of mobile phone affects personal innovativeness



13/22

Limitations & further research

Generalisability:

Promoted product was not necessarily representative for DIYRetailer (low-interest, low price)

So, motivation to visit the store can be expected to be rather lowas relevance has a strong impact

Further investigation of behavioural consequences of theperceptual measures (instead of self-reported behaviour)



14/22

Thank you for your attention!

Source: Cathy Wilcox@ Heim/Walter/Reutterer - 12


15/22

Appendix

SEITE 15Fuzeile


16/22

Appendix

ENTI feel that receiving SMS advertisements from XY is pleasing unpleasing. (Tsang/Ho/Liang 2004)

IRRSMS advertising is annoying (Haghirian/Madlberger 2006)

INFSMS advertising is informative (Ducoffe 1996)

CRESMS advertising is credible (Brackett/Carr 2001)

RELPlease evaluate the product offered: beneficial- not beneficial,needed not needed, essential unessential (Jain/Srinivasan1990)

@ Reutterer/Walter - 14


17/22

Appendix

@ REUTTERER/WALTER - SEITE 19

Formula used to calculate the between group differences in the

structural:


18/22

Appendix

@ REUTTERER/WALTER - SEITE 20

Results of the Sobel-Test:

Source: Chin 200


19/22

Advertising Impact

Attention Interest Desire Action

ReceiptRead/

RecollectionIntention Purchase


84%

71%

69%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Receipt

Read

Recollection

Intention/

Purchase

@ Reutterer/Walter - 10


20/22


Mobile phone usage in Austria in 2008

Nine out of ten persons use a mobile phone

In 2002 -> 69 per cent of households with mobile phone(s)

In 2008 -> 93 per cent

Source: Statistik Austria ICT usage 2008@ Heim/Walter/Reutterer- 1


21/22


5-point rating scales were employed (based on previous studies)

Stone-Geisser test of predictive relevanceADV Q = 0.747; ATT Q = ,831; INT Q = ,377; recommended > 0

For cross-validated redundancy

f > .35 = large effect; > .15 = medium; ~ .02 = small; referring to Cohen 1988

on ADV f

ENT .371

INF .037

IRR .016

REL .162

CRE .002

on ATT f

ENT .171

ADV .245

PERM .073



22/22

68 per cent male / 32 per cent female

Age distribution:


1.90%

4.60%

7.60%

14.10%

17.30%

11.10% 11.10%

14.90%

7.30%

8.90%

1.20%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 > 65 k.A.


User Acceptance of SMS-Based Mobile Advertising Campaigns

Documents

Transcript of User Acceptance of SMS-Based Mobile Advertising Campaigns