A multivariate explanatory study into the factors that affect consumers' attitudes, intentions and engagement with indirect mobile marketing.
A dissertation submitted by:
BA (Hons) Marketing The Media School Bournemouth University 2012 - 2013 Word count: 9992
Dissertation Submission Form with Author’s Declaration This form must be fully completed and submitted to the Media School Student Support Reception with 2 copies of your bound dissertation/project. Incomplete submissions will not be accepted. Full Name: Phil Hudson Student ID Reference No: 4229546 Programme: BA (Hons) Marketing Submission Date: …………………………………………………… I declare that this dissertation/project is all my own work and the sources of information and the material I have used (including the internet) have been fully identified and properly acknowledged. Student signature ……………………………………………………… Contact Details Please ensure that details of your contact address for future correspondence and information regarding graduation are up-to-date via the log-in page of the student portal: http://studentportal.bournemouth.ac.uk/log-in/?srclnk=123home Access Permission to the Dissertation I approve the use of my dissertation/project as a reference text for future students on the following basis: Public Access (freely available) Confidential (permission of author required) Strictly Confidential (not available for reference under any circumstances) Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
For Office Use Only Date Received ……………
A multivariate explanatory study into the factors that affect consumers' attitudes, intentions and engagement with indirect mobile marketing.
A dissertation submitted by:
BA (Hons) Marketing The Media School Bournemouth University 2012 - 2013 Word count: 9992
Abstract This paper studies mobile users aged eighteen or over, explaining the factors that impact their attitude toward, their intentions to access and their level of engagement thereafter with indirect mobile marketing and intends to provide insight for marketing practitioners. The study begins by exploring the concept of mobile marketing through academic literature, highlighting areas for new research. It was identified that there is a significant lack of research into indirect mobile marketing and that no other research that separated mobile marketing into two distinct constructs, incentive based and non-incentive based. The paper is conducted in an explanatory manner, utilising a sequential mixed methods approach. Quantitative data was first collected using questionnaires, with qualitative data collected afterwards to explain the findings from the first method. The results of this study found that participants had a more positive attitude toward non-incentive based forms of indirect mobile marketing and consequently are more likely to use it. Peers were found to be influential toward participants intentions and it was further found that peer influence depends on how experienced the participant’s peers are with technology. It was also found that participants engaged more with non-incentive based forms when they were using it for informational purposes and more with incentive based forms when it was perceived to be engaging or enjoyable. The study concludes by providing practical recommendations for practitioners, as well as highlighting limitations and areas for future research.
Table of contents Figure list! Abbreviations! VIII VIII
1.0 Chapter One: Introduction!
1.1 Overview! 1.2 Proposed research rationale! 1.3 Direction of research!
1 1 2
2.0 Literature Review!
2.1 Mobile marketing! 2.2 Indirect Mobile Marketing (IMM)! 2.3 Personal differences! 2.4 Uses and Gratiﬁcations (U&G)! 2.4.1 Entertainment! 2.4.2 Informativeness! 2.4.3 Irritation! 2.5 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)! 2.6 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)! 2.7 Post-request behaviour! 2.8 Summary! 2.9 Conceptual framework!
3 5 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 10 11 11
3.1 Overview! 3.2 Research aim! 3.3 Research objectives! 3.4 Methodological underpinning! 3.5 Research philosophy! 3.6 Research approach!
12 12 12 13 13 13 V
3.7 Research strategies! 3.8 Time horizons! 3.9 Sampling! 3.10 Quantitative sample! 3.11 Questionnaire structure! 3.12 Pilot research! 3.13 Quantitative data analysis and interpretation! 3.14 Questionnaire pilot conclusion! 3.15 Qualitative sample! 3.16 Interview structure! 3.17 Interview pilot conclusion! 3.18 Qualitative data analysis and interpretation! 3.19 Ethics! 3.20 Reliability! 3.21 Validity! 3.22 Evaluation of reliability and validity!
14 15 16 16 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 23 23
4.0 Findings and Analysis!
4.1 Overview! 4.2 Participant proﬁles! 4.3 Overview of ﬁndings! 4.4 Objective One! 4.4.1 Objective One summary ! 4.5 Objective Two! 4.5.1 Objective Two summary! 4.6 Objective Three! 4.6.1 Objective Three summary! 4.7 Objective Four! 4.7.1 Objective Four summary !
24 24 25 26 29 30 32 33 35 36 38 VI
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations!
5.1 Evaluation of ﬁndings! 5.2 Contribution to academia! 5.3 Research implications! 5.4 Limitations! 5.5 Future research!
39 41 42 43 43
6.0 References! 7.0 Appendices!
7.1 Appendix 1 - Questionnaire! 7.2 Appendix 2 - Questionnaire Raw Data! 7.3 Appendix 3 - Quantitative research participant characteristics! 7.4 Appendix 4 - Interview structure! 7.5 Appendix 5 - Interview summary 1! 7.6 Appendix 6 - Interview summary 2! 7.7 Appendix 3 - Interview summary 3! 7.8 Appendix 8 - Full interview transcription! 7.9 Appendix 9 - Interview summary 4! 7.10 Appendix 10 - Non-incentive based correlations (objective 3)! 7.11 Appendix 11 - Incentive based correlations (objective 3)! 7.12 Appendix 12 - Non-incentive based correlations (objective 4)! 7.13 Appendix 13 - Incentive based correlations (objective 4)! 7.14 Appendix 14 - The research onion! 7.15 Appendix 15 - SPSS screenshot! 7.16 Appendix 16 - Research ethics form! 7.17 Appendix 17 - Midpoint review form!
53 64 75 76 80 83 86 90 103 106 107 108 110 112 113 114 116
Figure list Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Location Based Advertising Conceptual Framework Research Variable Origins Strategies to enhance reliability Strategies to enhance trustworthiness Strategies to enhance validity Sample frame Quantitative ﬁndings Objective one quantitative ﬁndings 4 11 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 30 32 33 33 36 37
Figure 10: Objective two quantitative ﬁndings Figure 11: Perceived usefulness and the subjective norm
Figure 12: Objective three signiﬁcant non-incentive based correlations Figure 13: Objective three signiﬁcant incentive based correlations Figure 14: Signiﬁcant non-incentive based correlations Figure 15: Signiﬁcant incentive based correlations
Abbreviations IMM = Indirect Mobile Marketing U&G = Uses and Gratifications TRA = Theory of Reasoned Action TAM = Technology Adoption Model NIB IB = Non-incentive based = Incentive based
1.0 Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Overview This chapter aims to provide insight into the direction of the dissertation. An introduction to mobile marketing will highlight some of the key issues surrounding the industry with the intention of contextualising the focus of the research. 1.2 Proposed research rationale Possibly the most ubiquitous personal item in the world, the mobile phone has become increasingly important to consumers’ everyday lives and is at the forefront of an ever-changing technologically driven society (Jayawardhena et al., 2009). Technological developments have created new marketing communications channels and are considered to potentially improve the possibilities to reaching consumers, by allowing personalisation of the content and context of the message (Heinonen & Strandvik, 2007). The growth of mobile has led Forbes (2013) to formally highlight mobile marketing as becoming an ever-important element of marketers strategy this year (2013): “While it feels like we hear the word “mobile” more than our own names these days, global marketers haven’t entirely caught up; 90% of them have a mobile site, but only 20% include mobile strategies as a fully integrated part of their overall marketing plan. If nothing else on this list comes to fruition, count on “mobile” being a bigger, bolder line item on every major marketer’s strategy this year.” Davis (2013) states that one of the most exciting developments will be mobile marketing’s integration with point-of-sale. Davis continues to explain that retail environments now have the opportunity to enhance shopping experiences, offering promotions, discounts, coupons and information, through use of QR codes.
Page 1 of 116
The research area’s perceived importance has resulted in it receiving increasing attention from academics and practitioners concerning various types of mobile marketing tactics (Okazaki et al., 2012), however it is noted by academics such as; Okazaki (2005), Unni & Harmon (2007), Bauer et al. (2005) that there is a scarce amount of research surrounding it. This paper attempts to address the gaps in literature and provide useful insight for practitioners considering to use indirect mobile marketing. 1.3 Direction of research Chapter Two reviews existing research into indirect mobile marketing and presents gaps for research. Chapter Three provides the research aim and objectives and provides a methodological approach as to its undertaking. Chapter Four provides an analysis and presents the findings derived from the research against each research objective of this paper, whilst interrogating existing literature. Lastly, Chapter Five will conclude with clarification and evaluation of the findings, whilst contextualising their implications for marketing practitioners and presenting gaps for further research.
Page 2 of 116
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Mobile marketing Mobility, immediacy, and instrumentality were found to be the strongest instrumental motives in predicting the use of cellular phones (Leung & Wei, 2000). Concerning this, Lee and Benbasat (p50, 2003) claimed: “As mobile technology improves, the features of mobile devices will become equivalent to those of desktop computers, except for the screen size.” Okazaki (2005) posits that many smartphones offer an array of services, including: web browsing, SMS (short message services), MMS (multimedia message service), banking, payment, emailing, gaming, GPS (global positioning service), web chat, QR (quick response) code scanning and much more. Ktoridou et al. (2007) claim that these features have lead to the growth of mobile marketing as a communication tool, due to the immediacy they offer and the level of penetration within populations. Bauer et al. (p182, 2005) define mobile marketing as: “An innovative form of commercial communication. Personal, ubiquitous, interactive, localised, dialogue-oriented communication.” Mobile marketing differs from mobile advertising; as by Salo’s (p1, 2004) definition: “Any paid message communicated by mobile media with the intent to influence the attitudes, intentions and behaviour of those addressed by the commercial messages.”
Page 3 of 116
Tähtinen (2005) addresses the lack of clarity in meaning of both of these definitions and concluded that mobile marketing and mobile advertising referred to the same phenomenon. This study will therefore use the term mobile marketing, but will use constructs and theory from both definitions. There are broadly two approaches to mobile marketing, push and pull (Bruner & Kumar, 2007; Paavilainen, 2002). Kölmel and Alexakis (2002) state that the definition of push and pull is different to that of traditional marketing communications as it refers to advertising and sales promotion, targeting the end consumer as opposed to intermediaries. Kölmel and Alexakis (2002) further make a distinction location based and non-location based methods. They illustrate this distinction below:
Figure 1 - Kölmel and Alexakis (2002) When utilising the push approach, the advertiser directly sends (pushes) messages to the consumer. With the pull approach, the consumer requests information to be send to their device on a one-time basis (Bruner & Kumar, 2007). When using mobile services, consumers want tailored content (Robins, 2003) and mobile as a platform offers an array of opportunities for personalisation through use of data on consumers’ devices (Scharl et al., 2005). Targeted mobile marketing improved results over mass marketing, but was clogging consumers inboxes, due to companies’ tendencies to over-communicate (Kölmel & Alexakis, 2002). As mobile phones are a very personal possession (Bruner & Kumar, 2007) push-style mobile marketing was be considered by consumers as intrusive and as spam (James, 2000), which is ultimately self-damaging to the sender.
Page 4 of 116
Paavilainen (2002) claims that marketers should place emphasis on pull-style mobile marketing where the mobile channel complements traditional media and is consumer initiated, predominantly based upon the premise of providing the consumer with some form of value. However it is acknowledged by scholars that there is a distinct lack of research in this area of mobile marketing (Okazaki, 2005; Unni & Harmon, 2007; Bauer et al., 2005). Okazaki (2005) defined research surrounding pull-type mobile marketing as ‘scarce’, with his 2004 paper ‘How do Japanese consumers perceive wireless ads’ being the main contributor to the area. However Okazaki’s (2005) paper is now seven years old and other research has been conducted since. 2.2 Indirect Mobile Marketing (IMM) The Direct Marketing Association (p7, 2012) define indirect mobile marketing as: “Mobile enhancement of traditional media and retail environments requiring consumer initiated interaction with the marketing initiative.” Okazaki et al.’s (2012) study analysed the content of QR-codes and from this were able to differentiate between two-forms of indirect mobile marketing; incentive based and non-incentive based. Incentive based forms utilise: discount coupons, product samples, downloads, loyalty points and access codes. Nonincentive based forms are informational and typically lead to a corporate website, brand website or other types of publicity driven content. Okazaki et al.’s study found that 85 percent of the sample offered no direct incentive. Okazaki et al. further state that to extend the current study, a behavioural model should be used to understand consumers’ intention to access IMM. 2.3 Personal differences Bauer et al. (2005) state that an individual’s existing knowledge is a central psychological determinant of consumer behaviour. Sheth (1968) found that an innovation is perceived to be less complex if the consumer already possesses a certain amount of knowledge about the innovation, or something similar to it.
Page 5 of 116
Selnes and Gronhaug (1986) found subjective knowledge to be a stronger motivator of purchase-related behaviours than objective knowledge. Flynn & Goldsmith (1999) developed and empirically validated a scaled set of questions to test participants’ subjective knowledge, of which Bauer et al. (2005) utilised in their study, which was designed to understand consumers’ acceptance of mobile marketing. 2.4 Uses and Gratifications (U&G) Bogart (1965) suggests that many people may use a specific medium or specific media content merely because they encounter it. Bogart (1986) also explains that the nature of this exploratory behaviour is a common form of mass media use. A functionalist approach to understanding media consumption is offered by the uses and gratifications perspective (Eighmey & McCord, 1998). The uses and gratifications perspective seeks to examine audience media uses whilst considering psychological and social needs (Blumler, 1979). Previously it has had many applications, originating from radio (Herzog, 1942), to more recently the internet (Luo, 2002) and mobile phones (Leung & Wei, 2000). Herzog (1942) states that gratification is some aspect of satisfaction reported by users related to the active use of the medium in question. Leung and Wei (2000) found that mobility and immediate access were unique dimensions of mobile phone use motivations that were previously unidentified in U&G literature. Albeit, these dimensions were in relation to use of mobile phones and indirectly related to U&G for mobile marketing. Luo’s (2002) study identified three key U&G antecedents for understanding users’ attitudes to the web: entertainment, informativeness and irritation. These constructs from U&G theory were used as they were identified within Luo’s literature review to be the most robust and important in determining a user’s attitude (Eighmey & McCord, 1998; Herzog, 1942).
Page 6 of 116
Okazaki (2004) used irritation and infotainment (informativeness and entertainment combined) to establish mobile users’ formulation of behavioural intention toward mobile promotion sites through pull-style banner advertising. The outcome of this research essentially replicated Luo’s (2002) nomological model for understanding users’ attitudes to the web as well as further supporting and extending Luo’s (2002) findings that informativeness, entertainment and irritation are key gratifiers for wireless and wired internet usage. Each of these constructs shall now be analysed in more detail: 2.4.1 Entertainment Eighmey and McCord (1998) state that this construct refers to the extent to which the medium in question is fun and entertaining to the user. McQuail (1985) states that entertainment is ability to fulfil users’ needs for enjoyment, emotional release, escapism or hedonistic pleasure. Research by Stern and Zaichowsky (1991) suggests that a higher entertainment value is likely to benefit the media user and provide motivation to use the medium more frequently. Grant and O’Donohoe’s (2007) research identified the mobility of entertainment (texting, verbal conversation and internet services) as the primary factor for mobile phone usage within young people. 2.4.2 Informativeness Chen (1999) defines informativeness as the extent to which the medium in question provides users with resourceful and helpful information. Bauer et al. (1968) suggest that media users consider an advertisement's ability to provide information the fundamental reason for accepting it. Chen and Wells (1999) notice a positive correlation between informativeness and attitude towards a website. Ducoffe (1995) notices a positive correlation between informativeness, advertising value and attitude toward advertising. Grant and O’Donohoe’s (2007) research opposed Okazaki’s (2004) paper and found that young people had little motivation to use mobile phones to obtain information. Albeit, Grant and O’Donohoe’s (2007) findings were of low reliability, due to the participants lacking evidence of purchase related intentions. Page 7 of 116
2.4.3 Irritation Adetunji et al. (2012) define irritation as how the message may distract or irritate the user. Ducoffe (1996) states that irritating advertisements may stimulate anxiety, dilute experiences and distract attention. Luo (2002) and Lin (1999) state that irritation is a negative gratifier and discourages use of a given platform. Ducoffe (1996) further found a negative correlation between irritation and attitude towards the advertisement. Luo (2002) explains that within the eBusiness context, irritation can be caused by advertising that is too big or flashy, or by tracking user information and behaviour without prior consent. 2.5 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is a model used to determine behavioural intention using three general constructs; attitude (A), subjective norm (SN) and behavioural intention (BI) (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980). Azjen (2001) has collected and further validated the TRA’s applicability to an array of content domains. Bruner and Kumar (2007) state that for further research, the TRA is an obvious candidate for understanding attitudes toward mobile advertising due to the nature of the constructs it proposes and its previous validation across a spectrum of content domains. Pavlic et al. (2012) used the TRA to explore the usage potential of mobile marketing of organisations and consumers. Pavlic et al. found that the subjective norm played the most crucial role in the implementation of mobile marketing services and that users will usually consult peers or experts before use. The research also found that perceived usefulness has a significant positive correlation to the intention of using mobile marketing. Hung et al. (2003) used an extension of the TRA (the theory of planned behaviour) to model consumers behavioural intention toward WAP services. Hung et al.’s study used multiple attitude constructs, including two from the technology adoption model (TAM) (Davis, 1985); ease of use and usefulness. Page 8 of 116
Sheppard (1988) suggests drawbacks to this model and states three limiting conditions to the prediction of behaviours; goals versus behaviours (the difference between a goal intention and a behavioural intention, the lack of choice (or lack of alternatives), intentions versus estimates (when a person intends to do something but actually does something different). 2.6 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information systems theory developed by Davis (1985). The TAM models how users come to accept and ultimately use a technology. It suggests that two key factors will influence their decision; perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness is defined by Davis (p.320, 1989) as: “How a system is capable of being used advantageously.” Davis (p.320, 1989) also defines ease of use as: “The degree to which a person believes using a particular system would be free of effort.” Lu et al. (2003) developed a TAM to explain the factors influencing user acceptance of wireless internet through mobile devices. Lu et al. found the existing TAM constructs (usefulness and ease of use) useful for confirming previous TAM results in a new situation (wireless internet) and further state that the constructs dig deeper into the essence of how user acceptance takes form. Scharl et al. (2005) used the TAM’s constructs as well as components from the TRA to construct their model of successful SMS advertising. Scharl et al.’s methodological approach utilised both quantitative and qualitative research methods to investigate mobile marketing through SMS (short message service). The paper validates the use of TRA and TAM for understanding consumer intentions toward mobile marketing and further posits the potential for virality as an outcome of mobile marketing.
Page 9 of 116
Chuttur (2009) provides criticisms of this model and states that limited heuristic, predictive and explanatory value can be derived from its constructs. Despite this, it is still a widely used model for understanding technology acceptance. 2.7 Post-request behaviour Greenwald and Leavitt (1984) claim that involvement is the motivation to process information and an important factor of advertising effectiveness. Burnkrant and Sawyer (1983) state that relevance of the information is a key antecedent of involvement. Engagement is defined by the ARF (Plummer et al. p.10, 2006) as: “Turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context.” Ephron (2005) describes engagement as a demand creation paradigm, opposing metrics such as reach or awareness which are more traditional measures of advertising success. As consumers are increasingly placing emphasis on geographically unbound real-time consumption of media, on any platform or device advertisers are consequently seeking to increase engagement to maximise their return on investment (Wang, 2006). Heath (p.8, 2007) defines the level of engagement as: “The amount of subconscious feeling going on when an advertisement is being processed.” Wang’s (2006) study on the impact of contextual relevance on advertising engagement concluded that users are unlikely to look for advertisements to process and thus engagement is only initiated by contextual relevance. Wang further states that internet technologies can be used to reach consumers with highly targeted advertisements contrived from user data and that these advertisements should be placed (in the online context) adjacent to editorial contents visited by consumers.
Page 10 of 116
2.8 Summary From the literature reviewed it is possible to identify many gaps in existing literature that require further research. At present there is a distinct lack of research within IMM and pull mobile marketing (Okazaki, 2005; Unni & Harmon, 2007; Bauer et al., 2005), but more specifically in understanding users’ attitudes and behaviours towards IMM (Okazaki et al., 2012). 2.9 Conceptual framework From an understanding of the existing literature and the gaps within it, a conceptual framework has been developed to examine the variables affecting behaviour and attitudes towards IMM.
Figure 2 - Conceptual Framework Page 11 of 116
3.1 Overview This section will outline the proposed research methodology of this study; providing an evaluation of methods and approaches and concludes by highlighting the strategies that will be used to increase validity and reliability. 3.2 Research aim This paper studies mobile users aged eighteen or over and aims to explain the factors that impact their attitude toward, their intentions to access and their level of engagement thereafter with indirect mobile marketing and intends to provide insight for marketing practitioners. 3.3 Research objectives • To identify mobile consumers’ attitudes towards incentive based and nonincentive based forms of indirect mobile marketing • To examine mobile consumers’ behavioural intention for incentive based and non-incentive based forms of indirect mobile marketing • To identify the key antecedents that influence mobile consumers’ post-request engagement towards incentive based and non-incentive based forms of indirect mobile marketing • To identify personal differences impact on attitude toward different types of mobile marketing
Page 12 of 116
3.4 Methodological underpinning Saunders et al. (2009) propose the research onion (appendix 14) to aid methodological formulation. The research onion provides a funnelled structure and will be utilised within this methodology. The research onion has been adapted to include explanatory research strategies; the highlighted areas illustrate the choices made. 3.5 Research philosophy For the research to be guided correctly, using the appropriate techniques, the research philosophy must first be established as this will underpin the research strategy and the methods that will form the strategy (Saunders et al., 2009). The pragmatic worldview is ultimately concerned with using the research methodology that will be answer the research questions, resulting in pragmatic knowledge (Johnson & Christensen, 2010). Creswell et al. (2007) state that a pragmatistic worldview invokes practicality, multiple stances (objectivism and subjectivism), combining pluralistic approaches, problem centred and real-world practice oriented. 3.6 Research approach Due to the nature of the research aims, that seek to identify, examine and explain attitudes, (the formulation of and the actual) behavioural intention and engagement; a mixed methods approach was used to answer the research questions. Johnson et al. (p123, 2007) define mixed methods research as: “The type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration.” Johnson and Turner (2003) further emphasise the benefits by stating that the fundamental principle of using mixed methods is to collect multiple sets of data using different research methods and approaches in such a way that the resulting data has complementing strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses. Page 13 of 116
The research objectives and the conceptual framework test existing theories, specifically; TAM, TRA and U&G upon the relatively new phenomenon of IMM, that results in the research design being both deductive and inductive. Malthora and Birks (2007) state that an inductive research approach identifies an area of enquiry with little or no theoretical frameworks. Participants are aided to explain the nature of issues in a particular context. However this research is also deductive as the area of mobile marketing broadly contains research surrounding it (TAM, TRA, U&G), allowing research to be guided using predetermined variables adopted from other studies utilising instruments to measure these variables (Malthora and Birks, 2007). Due to the inductive and deductive nature of the research, Blaikie (2009) supports the use of a mixed methods approach, with the use of quantitative methods to test hypotheses against data and qualitative processes to induce data from participants. 3.7 Research strategies The research proposed was conducted in an sequential explanatory manner. Creswell (2003) explains that the sequential explanatory strategy is characterised by the collection and analysis of quantitative data, followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data, with priority typically given to the quantitative side of the research. Creswell further acknowledges that the main advantage of this strategy is the ability of qualitative data to explain results of quantitative data, bringing complementary benefits and contextualisation to the dataset. Additionally, Kemper et al. (2003) support the use of this strategy, claiming it’s most frequently used for inductive and deductive research, where the quantitative study may yield unexpected findings of which a qualitative study is used to explain them. Within this strategy there are several different methods available to gather the information required. Saunders et al. (2009) state that the key options available are; in-depth interviews, questionnaires and focus groups.
Page 14 of 116
Questionnaires would be useful for the quantitative and deductive side of the research as they fulfil three key purposes; measurement, description and inference (Kumar, 2011). Kumar further adds that questionnaires are used to measure sociological variables, describe characteristics of a given population and infer why a population’s attitudes, beliefs and motivations may vary from one group to another. Questionnaires are therefore appropriate as the measurement of sociological variables is of prime importance to this research for understanding participants attitudes and behaviours towards mobile marketing. Being able to describe and infer about the population surveyed will also help to understand the limitations of this research and directions for future research from it. Focus groups are a common method for quantitative and inductive research as they are useful for gaining insight into consumers’ impressions and concerns about the research topic and allows for interactions between participants to gain deeper insight (Marczyk et al., 2010). However McDaniel and Gates (1998) state that focus groups create group pressure and participants may potentially answer dishonestly but inline with normative expectations of peers. This is particularly important as Pavlic et al. (2012) found that the subjective norm played the most crucial role toward mobile marketing implementation, meaning that peer influence highly influenced decision making and that this could impact the integrity of data derived from focus groups. Proctor (2003) suggests structured interviews as an alternative. Proctor explains that structured interviews will benefit the research due to increased rapport between the participant and the interview, a longer amount of time devoted to one person enhances the relationship and the depth of information received from the participant. 3.8 Time horizons The research is cross-sectional, as it is studying a particular phenomenon (indirect mobile marketing) at a particular time (Saunders et al., 2009). The key drawback with using an explanatory sequential strategy is that it takes longer to conduct than mono method strategies (Creswell, 2003) which makes time management a key factor. Page 15 of 116
3.9 Sampling Sequential mixed methods sampling involves the selection of units of analysis for a mixed method study, through the use of probability and purposive sampling strategies (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2008). Kemper et al. (p.205, 2003) state: “The first study uses a quantitative sample (large and randomised). For the second study, a purposeful qualitative sample is selected.” 3.10 Quantitative sample Questionnaires will use simple random sampling. This method is most relevant due to the explanatory sequential approach being used and the pragmatistic manner of which the research is being conducted. The sample population will consist of: • Mobile phone owners • Males and females aged eighteen plus • Online (international) As this population is so large it would be impractical to collect information from the whole population. A sampling frame will be used and the questionnaire will be posted in online technology forums for completion, with the intention of increase reliability from participants having a heightened understanding of mobile marketing. This approach will sacrifice the generalisability of the research for increased reliability.
Page 16 of 116
3.11 Questionnaire structure The questionnaire will be hosted online using Qualtrics. Participants will be directed to it with either a hyperlink or a URL in the online forums chosen. Pavlic et al.’s (2012) study used five-point Likert scales to measure agreement with statements. Kothari (2009) suggests Likert scale measurements are ideal for respondent-centred studies as they allow measurement of how responses differ between participants and between stimuli. The structure of the questionnaire will be based upon the conceptual framework previously illustrated (figure 2). Within the conceptual framework many of the research variables have been adopted from previous studies. Figure 3 below shows their origins and the questions which they are in:
Construct Individual differences Incentive based Non-incentive based Informativeness, Entertainment, Irritation (reverse scored), Usefulness, Ease of Use Subjective Norm
Literature source Bauer et al. (2005); Flynn (1999)
Survey questions Q2, Q3, Q4
Okazaki et al. (2012) Okazaki et al. (2012)
Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8 Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12
Luo (2002); Ko et al. (2005); Bauer et al. (2005); Davis (1989); Pavlic et al. (2012)
Taylor and Todd (1995); Pavlic et al. (2012)
Taylor and Todd (1995); Ko et al. (2005); Bauer et al. (2005); Pavlic et al. (2012)
Taylor and Todd (1995)
Page 17 of 116
3.12 Pilot research McBurney and Vhite (2009) state that once a protocol has been developed a pilot study should be used to find bugs in the procedure. Blaxter et al. (2006) state that the value of pilot research cannot be overestimated as research doesn’t always work out as envisaged. Teijlingen and Hundley (2001) claim that there are many benefits to pilot research including testing the adequacy of research instruments and assessing the data analysis techniques to uncover potential problems. 3.13 Quantitative data analysis and interpretation Data collected from the online questionnaire was imported into SPSS for analysis (appendix 15). Specifically SPSS will be used to analyse the data for correlations and to calculate the multivariate constructs proposed in the conceptual model. Hung et al. (2003) used the TRA with multiple attitude constructs to predict behavioural intention and validate the use of data in this way. Questions that ask participants whether they agree with negatively phrased questions were reverse scored to ensure accurate calculations. Values within intermediate calculations were not rounded to minimise the difference between the final answer and the exact answer. Final answers were rounded to three decimal places (Bluman, 2011). 3.14 Questionnaire pilot conclusion From the questionnaire pilot it was found that some minor question rephrasing was required, such as removing marketing-based jargon to ensure accurate interpretation by participants. After the amendments were completed, the questionnaire was ready to go live.
Page 18 of 116
3.15 Qualitative sample Interviews used purposive homogenous sampling, whereby questionnaire participants who state that they are willing to partake in further research will be selected proportionally based upon having experience with mobile marketing. To enhance validity, participants were chosen purposively based upon their response to the question: ‘I am familiar with mobile marketing.' Two participants were chosen from one answer and three from another to ensure that there is more than one person participating from each category. 3.16 Interview structure The interview structure was created after quantitative analysis had taken place conforming to the explanatory sequential structure of this research. The interviews were conducted online using Skype allowing for a real-time conversation as if both parties were in the same room. McGivern’s (2009) framework for conducting in-depth interviews breaks them into three parts: introduction, main body and wind down. The interviews utilised this structure and are outlined in appendix 4. 3.17 Interview pilot conclusion The pilot interview went as expected and no major changes were required before the main interviews were conducted.
Page 19 of 116
3.18 Qualitative data analysis and interpretation The data collected from interviews was recorded and transcribed from which analyses were carried out. Malthora and Birks (2007) propose a four-stage process for analysis qualitative data: 1. Data Assembly: Compiling data from all sources 2. Data Reduction: Reducing the amount of raw data through coding transcripts 3. Data Display: Public presentation of data and deduction of findings 4. Data Verification: Emphasis upon the findings in context of other theories and data sources Wimmer and Dominick (2011) propose grouping data into appropriate and meaningful categories with explanations emerging from the data. This method of analysis was utilised within the second stage of Malthora and Birks (2007) four-stage process. 3.19 Ethics As the purpose of this research is to gain insight into consumer attitudes and behaviour all respondents remained anonymous and were be made aware of their anonymity before partaking in any part of the research. Data collected from this research will be securely stored for three months for analysis and validation to be undertaken, after this period it will be destroyed. Data will not be passed onto any third parties.
Page 20 of 116
3.20 Reliability Saunders et al. (p.156, 2009) define reliability as: “The extent to which data collection techniques or analysis procedures will yield consistent findings.” The following strategies will be used to enhance the reliability of the quantitative research: Potential bias Participant error Strategy to enhance Definitions of the research matter were provided before each section of the research took place, with stimuli material to illustrate these definitions. Using online technology forums for the sample frame was further intended to reduce participant error as this population is likely to have had more experience with these kinds of technologies in the past. Participant bias Anonymity was ensured to all participants before the research took place.
Page 21 of 116
As reliability is a term derived from quantitative researchers Bryman (2012) suggests trustworthiness as an alternative measure. Bryman further states that trustworthiness is constructed from four elements; credibility, transferability, dependability and conformity. The following strategies were used to enhance trustworthiness:
Criteria for trustworthiness Credibility
Strategy to enhance
Interview participants will be asked to reconfirm their answers from the quantitative research, to avoid biased assumptions or interpretation of data beforehand. Sample purposively taken from quantitative research based upon experience with mobile.
Interviews were highly structured to ensure consistent elicitation of answers.
Interviews were recorded and summarised or transcribed and kept for analysis. Member checks were conducted, with all participants, all of which verified the transcription/ summaries (Bryman, 2012).
Pilot was successfully conducted and a topic guide was used to ensure participants did not go too far off topic.
Figure 5 Bryman (2012) notes several issues for online research including the lack of universalism it affords and issues with building rapport whilst using qualitative methods. The sample population is extracted from online forums, so consumers who do not have the internet are not included in the sample anyway. To build rapport with interview participants Skype will be used to provide a real-time experience.
Page 22 of 116
3.21 Validity Saunders et al. (2009) state that validity is concerned with whether the findings are really about what they appear to be about. Bryman (2012) states that there are four types of validity; measurement, internal, external and ecological. The following strategies were used to enhance each type of validity:
Type of validity Measurement
Strategy to enhance
Constructs and questions have been adopted from other studies (figure 3).
Triangulation will be utilised through the use of questionnaires and interviews in an explanatory sequential manner to ensure the data are telling you what you think they are telling you (Saunders et al., 2009).
Measure personal differences to explain how generalisable the research is.
Use of stimuli material to reflect real-world examples of IMM.
Figure 6 3.22 Evaluation of reliability and validity In summary, the research has been designed to maximise reliability and validity however the main weakness is external validity due to the sample not being representative of the general population.
Page 23 of 116
4.0 Findings and Analysis
4.1 Overview This chapter presents the analysis and findings from the research conducted and evaluates them in relation to each of the research objectives. In total 93 questionnaires were started, with only 51 fully completed and usable for the research. The incomplete questionnaires were omitted from the final data set to avoid discrepancies in the results. Sequentially following the questionnaires five interviews were conducted, lasting on average 30 minutes. 4.2 Participant profiles The quantitative sample frame (appendix 3) was skewed toward males (30:21) and 18-24 year olds. These characteristics were expected due to the survey distribution method and sample acquired, but are to be considered concerning the generalisability of the results. Participant characteristics also favoured those adept with technology; with 35/51 stating that they are very experienced mobile users, with the majority being early adopters and familiar with mobile marketing. The qualitative sample frame purposively selected participants that were familiar with mobile marketing. Their familiarity was assessed from their response to the question ‘I am familiar with mobile marketing’, of which two were selected who strongly agreed and three were selected who agreed. It was important to select more than one participant of the two subgroups to maximise validity. Figure 7 below illustrates the sample frame:
Participant A B C D E Figure 7
Gender Male Female Male Male Male
I am familiar with mobile marketing Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree
Page 24 of 116
4.3 Overview of findings Figure 8 shows the quantitative findings transposed into the conceptual framework. These statistics will be further analysed in relation to each of the research objectives in the following sections.
Figure 8 - Quantitative findings Page 25 of 116
4.4 Objective One To identify mobile consumers’ attitudes towards incentive based and nonincentive based forms of indirect mobile marketing.
Incentive based score (IB) 0.53 0.0025 0.30666667 0.01 0.43 0.227
Non-incentive based score (NIB) 0.59666667 -0.1175 0.60666667 0.195 0.48 0.307
Difference (IB-NIB) 0.06666667 -0.115 0.3 0.194 0.05 0.080
Informativeness Entertainment Irritation Usefulness Ease of Use Calculated attitude Figure 9
Figure 9 shows the calculated scores for each antecedent toward forming the attitude. The key findings for each form of IMM are now highlighted. More positive attitude toward non-incentive based Results from the questionnaire showed that participants had a positive attitude about both forms of IMM, but were more favourable toward non-incentive based. The attitude score was calculated as the mean score from all antecedents. • Incentive based calculated attitude: 0.227 • Non-incentive based calculated attitude: 0.307 Bruner and Kumar’s (2007) study found a significantly more positive attitude toward location based mobile advertising (push and pull methods) than was found in this study toward IMM. Although at the time of their study, many participants answered hypothetical questions and had not previously used any form of mobile advertising. Page 26 of 116
The key difference between the calculated attitude for both forms was that nonincentive based was perceived as less irritating and more useful than incentive based. Interviews revealed two key themes toward explaining these results; personal and contextual relevance and time versus reward. These findings also replicated those of Stern and Zaichowsky (1991) who found that a higher entertainment value will provide more motivation to use the medium and Okazaki (2004) who found users to be highly motivated to use mobile phones to obtain information. Personal and contextual relevance This finding regards the extent to which the initiative is personally and contextually relevant to the participant. Personal relevance refers to the relevance of the initiative to targets in the geographic area within it and contextual relevance refers to the relevance of the initiative to the situation (Wang, 2006). Participant A (male, strongly agree) clarifies this point with the following statement: “I think it all comes down to personal preference and ease of use, what adverts are showing at the right time. Personal relevance and where you are.” This supports Wang (2006) who claims that engagement is only initiated by contextual relevance. Without contextual relevance, users may perceive the initiative to not be engaging which may result in a negative attitude toward it.
Page 27 of 116
Time versus reward Participants stated that a time versus reward trade-off was one of the key factors determining intention. Participant B (female, strongly agree) stated: “If the thing I’m going to get out of it is worth my time.” It was further uncovered that when participants do not fully understand the value proposition of an IMM initiative, they’re less likely to use it. Participant C (male, agree) stated: “I personally don’t tend to enter competitions so I probably wouldn’t scan it, because you don’t really know what you are getting.” This reinforces Paavilainen’s (2002) findings of the need to clearly demonstrate value to consumers to encourage their requests. The concept of time versus reward is also supported by findings from the TAM constructs (ease of use and usefulness), which scored positively for both forms, inferring that participants perceive both forms to be easy to use and useful. Interviews revealed the importance of the TAM constructs, with Participant B stating: “If it’s easy more people will want to do it.” Participant A further clarifies the importance of two of the TAM construct by stating: “It has to be easy to use and fast otherwise I will give up, I don’t have time to waste. It all boils down to whether it’s useful to me, as to whether I would use it or not.” Participant E (male, agree) mentioned using incentive based forms to pass time, only when he was bored and there was nothing else to do. He further explained that even though he was using it to pass time, it still had to be very quick otherwise he would find some other means of passing time.
Page 28 of 116
The discovered importance of the TAM constructs replicates the findings of Davis (1989) and Lu et al. (2003) in their respective applications; they’re critical to user acceptance of IMM. However this may also be due to the sample being skewed toward technologically adept users, meaning that if a more broadly representative sample was chosen some users would find it harder to use. Participants perceived non-incentive to be more informative than incentive based and incentive based more entertaining than non-incentive based. This was an expected result as each forms’ definition explicitly states that nonincentive is for information based marketing, whereas incentive based offers kind of reward for using the initiative. This enhances validity as it demonstrates that participants have a clear understanding of what each form of mobile marketing is, potentially reducing participant error due to misunderstanding of key concepts. 4.4.1 Objective One summary In response to Objective One, it was found that participants’ attitudes were more favourable to non-incentive based IMM. The underlying reasons for this are personal and contextual relevance and the time versus reward of using the initiative.
Page 29 of 116
4.5 Objective Two To examine mobile consumers’ behavioural intention for incentive based and non-incentive based forms of indirect mobile marketing.
Incentive based score (IB) 0.226527778 -0.02 -0.14 0.2 -0.03048611 0.41 -0.440
Non-incentive based score (NIB) 0.30680556 0.16 0.02 0.14 0.0518888896 0.51 -0.458
Difference (IB-NIB) -0.080277782 -0.18 -0.16 0.06 -0.0823749996 -0.1 0.018
Calculated attitude Attitude weight Peer influence Subjective norm Calculated intention (CI) Stated intention (SI) CI - SI Figure 10
Figure 10 shows the calculated scores for each antecedent that forms behavioural intention. The key findings for each form of IMM are now highlighted. More likely to use non-incentive based forms of IMM Results from the questionnaire showed that participants were more likely to use non-incentive based forms of mobile marketing. Calculated Intentions (CI) were constructed from the TRA and returned lower scores than the Stated Intention (SI) construct. However the TRA’s validity was strong as it yielded consistent differences between the CI and SI (CI-SI).
Page 30 of 116
The two key factors that caused this difference were the more positive attitude to non-incentive based and peers think that you shouldn’t use incentive based. More positive attitude toward non-incentive based The previous objectives unpicked the differences in attitude between incentive based and non-incentive based forms of IMM. The TRA uses the attitude score within its calculation and is therefore important to determining the behavioural intention score. The incentive based score was further amplified due to the negative attitude weight that it received. Peers think you shouldn’t use incentive based Interviews explained that there are broadly three reasons why peers thought that they shouldn’t use incentive based IMM, these were; perceptions of it being a waste of time, it wasn’t sociable and it was dependent upon how technologically experienced your peers were. It was explained that peers may perceive using incentive based IMM as a waste of time. However, it also comes back to the issue previously raised of risk versus reward. Regarding this, Participant B claimed that she didn’t really care what other people thought but it mainly depended upon what the reward was. Participant E thought that others may perceive it as a waste of time, but it really depends on how long it takes to use it. He further states: “If it’s not a quick thing, then it’s not very sociable.” Participant C explained that it maybe dependent upon how technologically experienced your peers are: “People who aren’t familiar with mobile marketing might think, what are they doing?”
Page 31 of 116
Peers think that I should use incentive based IMM .384** 0.11
Peers think that I should use nonincentive based IMM .359** .426**
I find incentive based IMM useful I find non-incentive based IMM useful Figure 11
These findings are further illustrated in figure 11 above and replicate Pavlic et al.’s (2012) findings of correlation between the subjective norm and perceived usefulness. Participant D (male, agree) furthered this by claiming that he thought if his peers were more technologically skilled, they would not only encourage him to use it, but demonstrate and teach him how to use it. However within the interviews Sheppard’s (1988) limitations of the TRA as a model for predicting behavioural intention became evident. Participants referred to using IMM (particularly non-incentive based) when there was a lack of alternative choice, which doesn’t truly present their behavioural intention. Concerning this in some cases, participants expressed goal intentions as opposed to behavioural intentions, whereby using either form of IMM was the means to an end. It must also be considered that these are estimates; participants stated the importance of many other contextual variables that influenced their decision to request the initiative and that any of these variables can result in the participant doing something other than predicted by the TRA. 4.5.1 Objective Two summary In response to Objective Two, it was found that participants were more likely to use non-incentive based forms of IMM. The main reasons for this were a more positive attitude toward it as well as a positive influence from peers.
Page 32 of 116
4.6 Objective Three To identify the key antecedents that influence mobile consumers’ postrequest engagement towards incentive based and non-incentive based forms of indirect mobile marketing.
I would use non-incentive based IMM to learn about unknown things Non-incentive based IMM is a good way to research I would use non-incentive based IMM to learn about useful things I perceive non-incentive based IMM to be entertaining Non-incentive based IMM is enjoyable I find non-incentive based IMM useful
0.291 0.064 .616** .504** .386*
0.333 0.333 .558** .620** .551**
.550** .453** .489** .502** .551**
0.147 0.206 0.285 .509** 0.138
Figure 12 - Significant non-incentive based correlations (all correlations appendix 10)
Absorbing I would use incentive based IMM to learn about unknown things I would use incentive based IMM to learn about useful things I perceive incentive based IMM to be entertaining Incentive based IMM is enjoyable I find incentive based IMM useful Incentive based IMM is quick to use .457** .394* 0.104 .431* .489** .565**
Stimulating .428* -0.068 .518** .529** 0.271 0.165
0.183 0.06 .370* 0.351 0.211 0.25
-0.081 0.086 0.114 0.156 0.157 -0.019
Figure 13 - Significant incentive based correlations (all correlations appendix 11) Page 33 of 116
Figures 12 and 13 show the significant correlations found. All correlations found were positive. The key findings that result in higher levels of engagement for each form of IMM are now highlighted. Information Results from the questionnaire supported Okazaki’s (2004) findings and showed that participants who used non-incentive based mobile marketing to learn about new things, to research, or to learn about useful things correlated with higher levels of engagement. Participant C claimed that because the user requests the initiative, they are likely to be interested in the information that is returned, making them feel more involved. Participant B further validated this point by stating: “I think that non-incentive based is engaging, as you would only use it if you wanted to learn about something, otherwise why else use it?” It was also found that participants who used incentive based mobile marketing to learn about unknown or useful things correlated with higher engagement. Participant A stated that both incentive based and non-incentive based can be informative and emphasises the need for real-time relevance with both types, but even more so with incentive based. Entertaining and enjoyable Results from the questionnaire supported Stern and Zaichowsky’s (1991) findings and showed that participants who used non-incentive based mobile marketing and found it entertaining, enjoyable and useful correlated with higher engagement.
Page 34 of 116
Participant D stated that when he scanned a non-incentive based mobile marketing initiative he expected it to offer some benefit from scanning it as opposed to finding the same information from a web browser. He mentioned that he wouldn’t expect to see pages of text, but maybe a video that could explain something more efficiently whilst being easier to use, fun and more unique. This supports Robins’ (2003) findings that consumers wanted tailored content on their mobile devices. Participant C further validates this point: “Some mobile marketing links give you information on a single page in the vaguest form, it needs to be interactive or displayed in a unique fashion.” It was also found that participants who perceive incentive based mobile marketing entertaining and enjoyable correlated with higher engagement. However Participant B stated that the extent to which incentive based is entertaining depends on the incentive available. Regarding competitions, she stated that creating a sense of anticipation was good. Quick and useful Results from the questionnaire supported Scharl et al.’s (2005) findings and reconfirmed Lu et al.’s findings of the TAM’s applicability to new situations (IMM). Results showed that participants who found incentive based IMM quick and useful correlated with higher engagement. 4.6.1 Objective Three summary In response to Objective Three, it was found that the U&G antecedents are of prime importance to engagement. Non-incentive based forms should provide something more than just information, with participants referring to initiatives need for interactivity. Incentive based forms need to be quick to use and useful.
Page 35 of 116
4.7 Objective Four To identify personal differences impact on attitude toward different types of mobile marketing.
Age I am an group experienced mobile user -.338* -0.14 0.039
I am an early adopt er
I am familiar with mobile marketing
Non-incentive based IMM is irritating Non-incentive based IMM makes me feel anxious
-0.276 -0.064 0.022 0.056
Figure 14 - Significant non-incentive based correlations (all correlations appendix 12) Older people less likely to find it irritating Results from the questionnaire showed that participants who were older were less likely to find non-incentive based irritating, or feel anxious whilst using it. Participant A thought that older people were less likely to feel anxious or irritated by non-incentive based mobile marketing as they may not fully understand it and are stereotypically not as experienced with it. Although the data analysed did not reveal that older participants from the sample had any less knowledge of mobile marketing than the younger participants. However this may have been because the sample was disproportionately skewed towards younger people, which significantly reduces the generalisability of this finding.
Page 36 of 116
I am an experienced mobile user 0.006
I am an early adopt er 0.066
I am familiar with mobile marketing 0.053
I would use incentive based IMM to pass time Using incentive based IMM allows me to accomplish tasks more quickly Using incentive based IMM is pleasant
Figure 15 - Significant incentive based correlations (all correlations appendix 13) Females more likely to use it to pass time Results from the questionnaire showed that females are more likely to find incentive based IMM pleasant and use it to pass time, whereas older people are less likely to use it to pass time. Participant B thinks that females are more likely to find incentive based pleasant as “girls love a bargain or a deal” and states that it made her excited and fantasise at the prospect of saving money or winning something. She also thought that females are more likely to use it to pass time out of boredom, as older people haven’t had the technology all of their lives so are less likely to feel the urge to pass time using it. Participant C expressed that gender specific differences depend on personal relevance and further explained his belief that females have better targeted mobile marketing at present through mediums such as magazines: “Women more likely to buy magazines so maybe more targeted and therefore favourable towards it.”
Page 37 of 116
Participant E also thought that mobile marketing is better tailored to females and that females are more likely to take an interest in incentive based forms. These findings may oppose those of Wang (2006) as participants were looking for adverts to pass time and when looking to pass time, contextual relevance wasn’t as important. Early adopters more likely to use it to accomplish tasks more quickly Results from the questionnaire also showed that early adopters are more likely to use incentive based IMM to accomplish tasks more quickly. Participant D stated that he wasn’t an early adopter, but still used IMM to do things quicker. Participant E strongly believed he was an early adopter and claimed he used his phone to do most simple things quicker. However with IMM he stated “It’s a spur of the moment thing”, again referring to contextual relevance. 4.7.1 Objective Four summary In response to Objective Four, it was found that females are more likely to use incentive based to pass time which may override the need for contextual relevance and early adopters were more likely to use incentive based IMM to accomplish tasks more quickly.
Page 38 of 116
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Evaluation of findings This paper studied mobile users aged eighteen or over and aimed to explain the factors that impacted their attitude toward, their intentions to access and their level of engagement thereafter with indirect mobile marketing and intended to provide insight for marketing practitioners. Attitudes It was found that attitudes were more favourable towards non-incentive based IMM. Contextual relevance has been found to be of prime importance in forming users’ attitudes, intentions and engagement due to the location-based and realtime nature of IMM. This wasn’t a variable measured quantitatively within the survey, but it emerged from interviews as the U&G antecedents are wholly dependent upon contextual relevance. Antecedents The U&G antecedents found that non-incentive based was more informative, more irritating but less entertaining that incentive based. These were an expected results due to the nature of each form. These findings were inconsistent with those of Haghirian et al. (2005) who found that mobile marketing as a single construct to have increased informational and entertainment values, but a significantly more negative irritation value. The TAM antecedents also emerged as key drivers for users’ intentions to access IMM. IMM has to be fast and quick to use, otherwise users will not use it, even if they are bored or are using it to pass time. Participants still thought, however, that IMM should provide clear instructions for use as even experienced mobile users were put off of using it at times when how to use the technology seemed ambiguous or unclear.
Page 39 of 116
Participants expected non-incentive based to either be faster to use than other means of accessing information or to provide something unique and possibly entertaining. It was uncovered from the interviews that in cases where speed wasn’t the critical factor determining use, users also expected non-incentive to be interactive in some way. This supports the findings of Huang (2012) who found interactivity to be a critical success factor of mobile marketing campaigns. Intentions Prior to this study, none other have researched mobile marketing as two distinct constructs; incentive based and non-incentive based. Whilst studies previously calculated a positive behavioural intention for mobile marketing as a single construct (e.g. Bauer et al., 2005), it was found that when conceptualised as two, users were not inclined to use the incentive based forms. Peers The influence of peers was also found to be important, but very much dependent on what the user’s peers were like. It was found that if the user’s peers were more familiar with technology and mobile marketing that they are likely to positively influence a user to use it and vice versa. Engagement Users of non-incentive based forms were found to engage more when they’re using it for informational purposes. It was also found that some users expect non-incentive based to be more than a quick way of getting to a generic website that provides information. Some users expected interactivity and/or tailored content (such as video) to provide an enriched experience. Users of incentive based forms were found to engage with the initiative more when it was perceived to be engaging or enjoyable. It was also found that users expect it to be informative and quick to use. Some participants emphasised that they enjoyed a sense of anticipation and not knowing what you’re going to get with using an incentive based initiative, however it must also be considered that some users explained that not knowing what they would be getting would cause them to not use it at all. Page 40 of 116
Personal differences Personal differences had an impact on the use of incentive based mobile marketing more than non-incentive based. Females were more likely to use it to pass time and more likely to find it pleasant, whereas older people were less likely to use it to pass time. It was also found that early adopters would use it to accomplish tasks more quickly. These findings emphasise the need to understand who the initiative is targeted to, as this may reveal what they expect from it and the level to which they will engage with it. 5.2 Contribution to academia The research has built upon Bauer et al. (2005) by conceptualising mobile marketing as two distinct constructs, incentive based and non-incentive based. Bauer et al.’s research reported a positive attitude and behavioural intention for mobile marketing as a single construct, whereas this research found that attitude and behavioural intention is significantly highly for non-incentive based forms of IMM. The research also furthers Luo’s (2002) work, as it found that the U&G antecedents were also principal gratifiers in the context of IMM. Specifically, the research further validated the findings of Stern and Zaichowsky (1991) by finding that a higher entertainment value will provide more motivation to use the medium and Okazaki (2004) who found consumers to be highly motivated to use mobile phones for information. This research also extends Davis (1989) and Lu et al.’s (2003) work by replicating their findings in the new situation of IMM. However the extent to which this research validates these findings is reduced due to the limited generalisability of the study. Notably the study replicated Pavlic et al.’s (2012) findings of the importance of the subjective norm and perceived usefulness. These findings have been extended into the area of IMM but require further research due to the sampling that this study used.
Page 41 of 116
5.3 Research implications Part of the aim of this research was to provide practical implications for marketing practitioners. Drawing from the conclusions made and findings presented the following recommendations are provided. Ensure contextual relevance with all initiatives Initiatives must be contextually relevant to their surroundings for consumers to perceive the initiative as useful. Consider personal relevance and the likely profile of user in that location Initiatives must be relevant to the target market - the consumers within the locale of the initiative. As all consumers are different, a target market must be defined based upon who you want to use the initiative and targeted to the likely characteristics of that consumer. Ensure all initiatives are quick and easy to use, with basic instructions to encourage use Initiatives must not only be quick and easy to use, but perceived as quick and easy to use. Despite technology such as QR codes having been around for many years, many consumers may still not understand how to use them or how long they will take to use. Practitioners should consider including basic instructions for how to use the initiative on the advertisement. Where possible, clearly demonstrate the value proposition to the user Initiatives should clearly illustrate the value they will provide to consumers from using it, otherwise potential consumers can be put off from using it. This is especially important with incentive based forms where consumers may not want to risk their time for the chance of winning something. Locate initiatives where users are looking to pass time Particularly with incentive based forms of IMM, locating initiatives where users are actively seeking to pass time may encourage them to use it as there is less risk of their valuable time being wasted. Examples that arose from the research (e.g., public transport, restaurants) were already being exploited by marketers using IMM. Page 42 of 116
Understand the user to understand how they will engage Developing tailored initiatives, for specific types of user will increase their engagement with the initiative. Creating consumer personas and targeting the IMM to each persona will enhance user experiences. 5.4 Limitations The research was designed pragmatically to aid the aim and objectives and consequently the results obtained were those that were sought-after. However the research does have some limitations. The small sample size and the sample’s experience with mobile marketing meant that the data obtained is not representative of the broader population, inferring that the generalisability of the study should not be relied upon. The sample is, however a true representation of the desired population and was used to better explain the data into this sparsely researched area. Qualitative data helped to strengthen the reliability of the initial findings by adopting the sequential explanatory approach. Strategies were taken to maximise the reliability and validity of each method however some issues could not be resolved, such as the researcher’s inexperience with the primary research methods used. Findings were consistent and inconsistent with the academic theory explored, however, it should be acknowledged that the previous research surrounded this area and was not directly focusing on IMM or mobile marketing conceived as two distinct constructs. 5.5 Future research Due to the limitations of this research, further research needs to be conducted into IMM to re-validate this study's findings. Contextual relevance of IMM emerged to be a key theme for forming attitudes, intentions and engagement and needs to be explored in further research. It was also identified that differences in gender could impact attitudes towards different forms of IMM. This wasn’t a primary theme of this research and needs to be further explored. Page 43 of 116
Adetunji, R. and Mohmad Yazam, S., 2012. Assessing Audiences' Satisfaction of Advertising Digital-Billboard: A U&G Theoretical Perspective. In: 2nd International Conference on Arts, Social Sciences & Technology. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall. Ajzen, I., 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 27-58. Audi, 2013. The Audi Augmented Reality Print Ad. Available from: http://brandinginopenspace.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/419805-1.jpg [Accessed 28 April 2013]. AXE, 2013. New AXE Day and AXE Night. Available from: http://cdn2.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AXE-300x15 9.jpg [Accessed 28 April 2013]. Bauer, H. H., Barnes, S. J., Reichardt, T., and Neumann, M. M., 2005. Driving consumer acceptance of mobile marketing: a theoretical framework and empirical study. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6 (3), 181-192. Bauer, R. A., Greyser, S. A., Kanter, D. L., Weilbacher, W. M., Courtney, A. E., and Gale, C., 1968. Advertising in America: The consumer view. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University Boston. Blaikie, N., 2009. Designing Social Research. Wiley. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., and Tight, M., 2006. How to Research. McGraw-Hill Education.
Page 44 of 116
Bluman, A., 2011. Elementary Statistics: A Step By Step Approach. McGraw-Hill Education. Blumler, J. G., 1979. The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6 (1), 9-36. Bruner, G. C. and Kumar, A., 2007. Attitude toward location-based advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7 (2), 3-15. Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods. OUP Oxford. Burnkrant, R. E. and Sawyer, A. G., 1983. Effects of involvement and message content on information-processing intensity. Information Processing Research in Advertising, 43-64. Chen, Q., 1999. Attitude toward the site. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (5), 27-37. Chuttur, M., 2009. Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Indiana University, USA . Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 1-21. Coca Cola, 2011. Coca Cola at the Design Museum. Available from: http://inspirationalgeek.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/337989933-61a255d0940d 81d74dcc0ca2658a6fb1-4e1214b8-scaled.jpg [Accessed 28 April 2013]. C o c a C o l a , 2 0 11 . C o k e m u s i c c a m p a i g n . A v a i l a b l e f r o m : http://2d-code.co.uk/images/coca-cola-qr-codes.jpg [Accessed 28 April 2013]. Creswell, J. W., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L. P., 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Wiley Online Library. Page 45 of 116
Davis, F. D., 1985. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Davis, F. D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319-340. Davis, J., 2013. Mobile marketing is poised to be the biggest story of 2013. Available 19 March 2013]. DMA, 2012. DMA iLoop Mobile Primer. Available from: http://www.the-dma.org/segment/segmentfiles/mobile/DMA_iLoop_Mobile_Prim er.pdf [Accessed 28 January 2013]. Ducoffe, R. H., 1995. How consumers assess the value of advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 17 (1), 1-18. Ducoffe, R. H., 1996. Advertising value and advertising on the web. Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (1), 21-36. Eighmey, J. and McCord, L., 1998. Adding value in the information age: Uses and gratifications of sites on the World Wide Web. Journal of Business Research, 41 (3), 187-194. Ephron, E., June 20, 2005. Delivering the Message: How Consumer Involvement Flows from Magazine Edit to Advertising. Mediaweek, 20 June 2005. Flynn, L. R. and Goldsmith, R. E., 1999. A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46 (1), 57-66. Forbes, 2013. 5 Surprising Marketing Trends for 2013. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/thesba/2013/01/23/5-surprising-marketing-trends-fo r-2013 [Accessed 12 April 2013]. Page 46 of 116 from: http://www.cmo.com/articles/2013/3/15/_6_mobile_marketing_.html [Accessed
Grant, I. and O'Donohoe, S., 2007. Why young consumers are not open to mobile marketing communications. International Journal of Advertising, 26 (2), 223246. Greenwald, A. G. and Leavitt, C., 1984. Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 581-592. Haghirian, P., Madlberger, M., and Tanuskova, A., 2005. Increasing advertising value of mobile marketing-an empirical study of antecedents. In: System Sciences. HICSS'05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE. Heath, R., 2007. How do we predict advertising attention and engagement? University of Bath working paper. Heinonen, K. and Strandvik, T., 2007. Consumer responsiveness to mobile marketing. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5 (6), 603-617. Herzog, H., 1942. What do we really know about daytime serial listeners. Radio Research, 1943, 3-33. Huang, R. Y., 2012. The identification, ranking and categorization of mobile marketing success factors. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 7 (2), 8697. Hung, S. Y., Ku, C. Y., and Chang, C. M., 2003. Critical factors of WAP services adoption: an empirical study. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2 (1), 42-60. James, D., 2000. It'll Be a Wireless, Wireless, Wireless, Wireless, World. Marketing News, 25-29.
Page 47 of 116
Jayawardhena, C., Kuckertz, A., Karjaluoto, H., and Kautonen, T., 2009. Antecedents to permission based mobile marketing: an initial examination. European Journal of Marketing, 43 (3/4), 473-499. Johnson, B. and Christensen, L., 2010. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. SAGE Publications. Johnson, B. and Turner, L. A., 2003. Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 297-319. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Turner, L. A., 2007. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112133. Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., and Teddlie, C., 2003. Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 273-296. Ko, H., Cho, C.-H., and Roberts, M. S., 2005. Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 57-70. Kölmel, B. and Alexakis, S., 2002. Location based advertising. The First International Conference on Mobile Business. Kothari, C. R., 2009. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International (P) Ltd.. Ktoridou, D., Epaminonda, E., and Vrontis, D., 2007. Technological and cultural aspects of the use of mobile marketing evidence from Cyprus. Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies, 2007. NGMAST'07. The 2007 International Conference on, 19-28. IEEE. Kumar, R., 2011. Research Methodology. APH Publishing. Page 48 of 116
Lee, Y. E. and Benbasat, I., 2003. Interface design for mobile commerce. Communications of the ACM, 46 (12), 48-52. Leung, L. and Wei, R., 2000. More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77 (2), 308-320. Lewis, P., Saunders, M. N., and Thornhill, A., 2009. Research methods for business students. Pearson. Lin, C. A., 1999. Online service adoption likelihood. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (1) 79-89. Lu, J., Yu, C. S., Liu, C., and Yao, J. E., 2003. Technology acceptance model for wireless internet. Internet Research, 13 (3), 206-222. Luo, X., 2002. Uses and gratifications theory and e-consumer behaviors: a structural equation modeling study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2 (2), 4454. Malhotra, N. K. and Birks, D. F., 2007. Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. Prentice Hall/Financial Times. Marczyk, G. R., DeMatteo, D., and Festinger, D., 2010. Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. Wiley. Marlboro, 2012. Free gift QR code. Available from: http://qrmedia.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Marlboro_QR_code.JPG.scaled5 00-150x150.jpg [Accessed 28 April 2013]. McBurney, D. H. and White, T. L., 2009. Research Methods. Cengage Learning. McDaniel, C. D. and Gates, R. H., 1998. Marketing Research Essentials. SouthWestern College Pub.. Page 49 of 116
McGivern, Y., 2008. The Practice of Market Research: An Introduction. Prentice Hall/Financial Times. McQuail, D., 1985. Sociology of mass communication. Annual Review of Sociology, 11 (1) 93-111. National Park Service, 2012. Map Box with QR Code. Available from: http://www.nps.gov/samo/parknews/images/Map-Box-with-QR-Code-Compress ed_1.jpg [Accessed 28 April 2013]. Okazaki, S., 2004. How do Japanese consumers perceive wireless ads? A multivariate analysis. International Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 429-454. Okazaki, S., 2005. New perspectives on m-commerce research. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6 (3), 160-164. Okazaki, S., Li, H., and Hirose, M., 2012. Benchmarking the Use of QR Code in Mobile Promotion. Journal of Advertising Research, 52 (1), 102-117. Paavilainen, J., 2002. Mobile business strategies: understanding the technologies and opportunities. Addison-Wesley Professional. Pavlić, D., Jadrić, M., and Ćukusić, M., 2012. Influence of Various Factors on the Intended Use of Mobile Marketing Services. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 9 (6), 179-188. Plummer, J., Zaltman, G., and Mast, F., 2006. Engagement: Definitions & Anatomy. ARF White Paper. Proctor, T., 2005. Essentials of Marketing Research. Prentice Hall. Robins, F., 2003. The marketing of 3G. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21 (6), 370-378. Page 50 of 116
Robson, C., 2002. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. John Wiley & Sons. Salo, J., 2004. The success factors of mobile advertising value chain. Business Review, 4 (1) 93-97. Scharl, A., Dickinger, A., and Murphy, J., 2005. Diffusion and success factors of mobile marketing. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 4 (2), 159173. Selnes, F. and Gronhaug, K., 1986. Subjective and objective measures of product knowledge contrasted. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1) 67-71. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., and Warshaw, P. R., 1988. The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer research, 15 (3), 325-343. Sheth, J. N. and Venkatesan, M., 1968. Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (3), 307-310. Snodgrass, S., 2012. Push vs Pull: Best Mobile Marketing Strategies for Customers. Available from: http://www.v3im.com/2012/10/push-vs-pull-best-mobile-marketing-strategies-for -customers/#ixzz2QFQNa8XL [Accessed 12 April 2013]. Stern, B. and Zaichowsky, J. L., 1991. The impact of 'entertaining' advertising on consumer responses. Australian Marketing Researcher, 14 (1), 68-80. Tähtinen, J., 2005. Mobile advertising or mobile marketing. A need for a new concept?. Frontiers of e-Business Research, 1 (1), 152-164. Taylor, S. and Todd, P. A., 1995. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144-176.
Page 51 of 116
Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A., 2008. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. SAGE Publications. van Teijlingen, E. and Hundley, V., 2001. The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update, (35), 1-4. Vi r g i n M e d i a , 2 0 11 . Yo u r g u i d e g o e s d i g i t a l . Av a i l a b l e f r o m : http://cdn3.1stwebdesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Product_Informati on.jpg [Accessed 28 April 2013]. Wang, A., 2006. Advertising engagement: A driver of message involvement on message effects. Journal of Advertising Research - New York, 46 (4), 355-368. Wimmer, R. D. and Dominick, J. R., 2011. Mass Media Research: An Introduction. Cengage-Wadsworth.
Page 52 of 116
7.1 Appendix 1 - Questionnaire Indirect Mobile Marketing This questionnaire examines consumers' attitude, intention and behaviour towards indirect mobile marketing. It will make reference to, define and provide examples of two different types of indirect mobile marketing, incentive based and non-incentive based.This survey should take approximately 7 minutes of your time to complete.To participate in this questionnaire you must be at least 18 years old and a mobile phone owner. Your responses are voluntary and confidential. Responses will not be identified individually; all responses will be anal y s e d c o l l e c t i v e l y. I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e e m a i l email@example.com.Thank you for participating in my research.Phil Hudson, Marketing Level H student
Q1 Do you own a mobile phone?
m Yes (1) m No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
m Male (1) m Female (2)
Page 53 of 116
Q3 Age group
m 18-24 (1) m 25-34 (2) m 35-44 (3) m 45-54 (4) m 55-64 (5) m 65+ (6)
Q4 How do you feel regarding the following statements: Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree (4) Disagree (1) Agree nor Disagree (3) I am an experienced mobile user (1) I am an early adopter (2) I am familiar with mobile marketing (3) Strongly Agree (5)
Page 54 of 116
To continue, please read the following definition that will be used for this section.What is incentive based indirect mobile marketing? Incentive based forms utilise: discount coupons, product samples, downloads, loyalty points and access codes.Please see the examples below:
(Coca Cola, 2011) Page 55 of 116
Page 56 of 116
Q5 This section will question your perceptions of incentive based indirect mobile marketing. Indirect Mobile Marketing is hereby abbreviated to IMM. Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (2) nor Disagree Agree (5) (1) (3) I would use incentive based IMM to learn about unknown things (1) Incentive based IMM is a good way to research (2) I would use incentive based IMM to learn about useful things (3) I perceive incentive based IMM to be entertaining (4) I would use incentive based IMM to pass time (5) Incentive based IMM is enjoyable (6) Incentive based IMM is a habit (7) Incentive based IMM is irritating (8) Incentive based IMM is distracting (9) Incentive based IMM makes me feel anxious (10) Using incentive based IMM allows me to accomplish tasks more quickly (11) I find incentive based IMM useful (12) Incentive based IMM is easy to use (13) Incentive based IMM is quick to use (14)
Page 57 of 116
Q6 This section will question what you think others think of you for using incentive based indirect mobile marketing. Strongly Disagree Neither Agree (4) Disagree (2) Agree nor (1) Disagree (3) Peers think that I should use incentive based IMM (1) What my peers think is important (2) Q7 This section will question your attitude and intentions toward incentive based indirect mobile marketing. Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Disagree (2) nor Disagree (4) (1) (3) Using incentive based IMM will make me feel good (1) Using incentive based IMM is pleasant (2) My attitude toward incentive based IMM is important (3) I would use incentive based IMM (4) If I am likely to use it - Dis... Is Selected, Then Skip To End of BlockIf I am likely to use it - Str... Is Selected, Then Skip To End of BlockIf I am likely to use it Nei... Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Block Q8 Incentive based indirect mobile marketing is: Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree (4) Disagree (1) Agree nor Disagree (3)
Absorbing (1) Stimulating (2) Clever (3) Attentiongrabbing (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Strongly Agree (5)
Strongly Agree (5)
Page 58 of 116
To continue, please read the following definition that will be used for this section.What is non-incentive based indirect mobile marketing?Non-incentive based forms are informational and typically lead to a corporate website, brand website or other types of publicity driven content.Please see the examples below:
(Coca Cola, 2011)
Page 59 of 116
(Virgin Media, 2011)
(National Park Service, 2012) Page 60 of 116
Q9 This section will question your perceptions of non-incentive based indirect mobile marketing. Indirect Mobile Marketing is hereby abbreviated to IMM. Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly Disagree (2) nor Disagree (4) Agree (1) (3) (5) I would use nonincentive based IMM to learn about unknown things (1) Non-incentive based IMM is a good way to research (2) I would use nonincentive based IMM to learn about useful things (3) I perceive non-incentive based IMM to be entertaining (4) I would use nonincentive based IMM to pass time (5) Non-incentive based IMM is enjoyable (6) Non-incentive based IMM is a habit (7) Non-incentive based IMM is irritating (8) Non-incentive based IMM is distracting (9) Non-incentive based IMM makes me feel anxious (10) Using non-incentive based IMM allows me to accomplish tasks more quickly (11) I find non-incentive based IMM useful (12) Non-incentive based IMM is easy to use (13) Non-incentive based IMM is quick to use (14)
Page 61 of 116
Q10 This section will question what you think others think of you for using nonincentive based indirect mobile marketing. Strongly Disagree Dis(1) agree (2) Peers think that I should use nonincentive based IMM (1) What my peers think is important (2) Q11 This section will question your attitude and intentions toward non-incentive based indirect mobile marketing. Strongly Dis- Neither Agree Agree Strongly Disagree (1) agree nor Disagree (4) Agree (2) (3) (5) Using non-incentive based IMM will make me feel good (1) Using non-incentive based IMM is pleasant (2) My attitude toward nonincentive based IMM is important (3) I would use non-incentive based IMM (4) If I would use non-incentive b... Is Selected, Then Skip To Please leave your email address. You ...If I would use non-incentive b... Is Selected, Then Skip To Please leave your email address. You ...If I would use non-incentive b... Is Selected, Then Skip To Please leave your email address. You ... Q12 Non-incentive based indirect mobile marketing is: Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree (4) Disagree (1) Agree nor Disagree (3) Absorbing (1) Stimulating (2) Clever (3) Attentiongrabbing (4) Page 62 of 116 Strongly Agree (5) Neither Agree Agree Strongly nor Disagree (4) Agree (3) (5)
Q29 Please leave your email address. You maybe contacted for verification that you took part in this survey, or if you stated interest in taking part in a follow up interview. You will not be contacted for any other reason. This is necessary for the validation of the research. Q13 Would you like to be contacted for a follow up interview?
m Yes (1) m No (2)
Page 63 of 116
7.2 Appendix 2 - Questionnaire Raw Data
V1 R_6X4wTdx0FmqcHj f R_7Ty0UvWjBEdQb ch R_e4Z1IXdV5hLXmx 7 R_dgnKUbNHhmXB XeZ R_57lGBFwQbXRX5 Sl R_beXjm9PpNCKwIzb R_doN1VKqQcJMQjt 3 R_a4R8HorSEeJLDs p R_1FZIqgiZIZvz6hD R_26lUyJsJfw1aU4Z R_8kKPvZ4IJjZ3FEF R_26nyHV8xYOah0 UJ R_86MX05YlEIs4rNH R_73fKxE0VxXkw35 P R_5awZtNIGi8YTgu9 R_7Vd57mS22MN49 TL R_bpVOjYhhH64ZSi9 R_8dASovGa2KnSqBT R_9FdmZ1yY2dmzU xf R_2ggncINyyUOn9cx R_3WXIbSFdCR1VIf r R_9WQuwPHvFrut7 DL V6 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 9 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 7 V8 28/02/2013 13:45 28/02/2013 14:52 28/02/2013 14:52 28/02/2013 16:38 28/02/2013 16:50 02/03/2013 13:06 02/03/2013 13:18 02/03/2013 13:38 03/03/2013 11:48 04/03/2013 04:32 04/03/2013 14:40 04/03/2013 14:57 04/03/2013 15:05 04/03/2013 15:07 04/03/2013 15:07 04/03/2013 16:15 04/03/2013 18:01 04/03/2013 18:12 04/03/2013 18:13 04/03/2013 18:31 04/03/2013 18:30 04/03/2013 18:59 V9 28/02/2013 13:49 28/02/2013 15:03 28/02/2013 15:07 28/02/2013 16:45 28/02/2013 17:29 02/03/2013 13:15 02/03/2013 13:27 02/03/2013 13:49 03/03/2013 12:06 04/03/2013 04:41 04/03/2013 14:48 04/03/2013 15:07 04/03/2013 15:10 04/03/2013 15:12 04/03/2013 15:13 04/03/2013 16:20 04/03/2013 18:12 04/03/2013 18:18 04/03/2013 18:25 04/03/2013 18:37 04/03/2013 18:38 04/03/2013 19:26 V10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
Page 64 of 116
R_6zoIITDA7D2jo9v R_cOuQ2iJY6l6DXc V R_6nemnO9sKjuinGt R_0ojFqWHkSnwEN sF R_5zqld9pfhrmCPIh R_9GHiYCQAS7D1LlX R_1Nhee2hku7GGtb7 R_3W8ECFH2mEWIuEJ R_1TdRjrTOViHW1St R_5C7mmTIPQZgfx 0F R_0fAfHthvq14gwRv R_8wzQpV1DsnbAP 8F R_eg6peYY0wJraKY l R_bggXA2e0rpXcAU5 R_86aTdaxQkDU7uSx R_aXhWlHXtYLMnMLb R_88L806tc6qHbwo J R_5sEw16vM1nO4S 3z R_8ccsZDeM0fdpriB R_cZ9BeTrG4C0vezr R_1zX8yxuuvjQqvIx R_ctOTcLAJmgSgd8h R_3map4Fu7Y7zNY wt
184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 48 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 74 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 3 22.214.171.124 1 126.96.36.199 5 188.8.131.52 1 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 7 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 7
04/03/2013 19:41 04/03/2013 20:04 04/03/2013 20:10 04/03/2013 20:38 04/03/2013 20:52 04/03/2013 20:53 04/03/2013 21:21 04/03/2013 22:13 04/03/2013 22:56 05/03/2013 12:29 05/03/2013 14:46 05/03/2013 18:02 05/03/2013 19:55 05/03/2013 20:40 06/03/2013 06:27 06/03/2013 10:54 06/03/2013 12:36 07/03/2013 10:04 07/03/2013 12:24 07/03/2013 12:35 07/03/2013 13:45 07/03/2013 18:40 07/03/2013 19:59
04/03/2013 19:50 04/03/2013 20:12 04/03/2013 20:16 04/03/2013 20:50 04/03/2013 20:59 04/03/2013 21:00 04/03/2013 21:42 04/03/2013 22:16 04/03/2013 22:59 05/03/2013 12:34 05/03/2013 14:52 05/03/2013 18:08 05/03/2013 20:02 05/03/2013 20:46 06/03/2013 06:34 06/03/2013 10:59 06/03/2013 12:47 07/03/2013 10:08 07/03/2013 12:32 07/03/2013 12:46 07/03/2013 13:51 07/03/2013 18:44 07/03/2013 20:04
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Page 65 of 116
R_2idF32ENNeZYgbX R_3ekwNmVVXeRSeMt R_3P24Ny1JsWJgS Md R_5uVX3rE0GM79w kl R_9XBvWFhCRKCm HWJ R_6GvgHCoCs1hiC FL
188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 41 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 85 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199
07/03/2013 20:20 07/03/2013 23:38 10/03/2013 17:01 10/03/2013 17:25 10/03/2013 17:36 10/03/2013 20:32
07/03/2013 20:35 07/03/2013 23:44 10/03/2013 17:09 10/03/2013 17:39 10/03/2013 17:45 10/03/2013 20:44
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 1 2 1 2
Page 66 of 116
Q4_ 1 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 5
Q4_ 2 5 5 3 4 4 2 5 4 3 5 5 2 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 3 1 4 5 4 4 4 4 3
Q4_ 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 5 3 5 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 5 4 5 4 5 3
Q5_ 1 2 4 3 4 4 3 2 1 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 2 4 4
Q5_ 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 1 4 5 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 4
Q5_ 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 1 4 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 2 3 4
Q5_ 4 3 5 3 2 5 4 4 1 4 5 4 2 2 4 5 3 4 3 5 4 5 1 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 1 4 4
Q5_ 5 4 4 3 1 4 4 2 1 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 5 1 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 4
Q5_ 6 2 5 4 3 4 4 4 1 3 5 4 2 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 1 4 4
Q5_ 7 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 5 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 4 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 3 2
Q5_ 8 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 5 2 3 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 3
Q5_ 8RE V 4 3 4 3 5 3 4 5 4 5 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 4 3 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 3
Q5_ 9 3 3 2 4 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 2 3 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 3
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1
Page 67 of 116
1 1 2 4 2 1 3 3 5 1 5 2 4 4 1 3 2 2 1
5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5
4 4 5 3 4 3 5 2 4 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 5 5
5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 2 4 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 5 3
4 4 5 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 5 2
3 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 4 1 4 4 2 3 5 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 5 4
2 4 5 2 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 4 1 3 4 2 3 5 3
3 4 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 1 4 1 3 3 1 3 3 4
2 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 4
4 4 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 2
4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 3 2 4 3 2 4
2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 4 2 3 4 2
3 4 1 5 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 1
Page 68 of 116
Q5_ 9RE V 3 3 4 2 5 3 4 5 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 1 4 3 4 4 3 2
Q5_ 10 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 3 4
Q5_ 10R EV 3 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 3 5 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 4 4 5 4 3 2
Q5_ 11 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 5 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 1 3 2 5 1 3 3 2 3 4 3
Q5_ 12 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 2 4 1 4 4 4 3 4 2
Q5_ 13 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 1 4 5 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 4
Q5_ 14 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 1 4 5 3 2 4 4 4 4 1 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3
Q6_ 1 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 5 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 2 4 3 5 3
Q6_ 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 1 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 3
Q7_ 1 2 4 3 3 4 2 3 1 4 5 3 2 2 4 3 4 3 1 4 3 3 1 3 3 4 3 3 3
Q7_ 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4
Q7_ 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 2 4 4 4 4
Q7_ 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 3 1 3 5 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 1 4 4 4 4 5 2
Q8_ 1 2 4 3 4 2 #NU LL! #NU LL! #NU LL! #NU LL! 5 #NU LL! 2 #NU LL! 5 3 4 2 3 4 #NU LL! 3 #NU LL! 4 4 4 4 3 #NU LL!
Page 69 of 116
2 2 2 3 3 2 5 1 3 2 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 4 5
1 2 5 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 1
5 4 1 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 5 5
4 1 4 3 3 3 3 1 4 1 3 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 3 2 3 4 2
4 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 2 3 5 2
4 4 3 5 2 4 1 3 4 4 2 2 4 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 5
4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 2 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 4 5
2 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 2
4 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 2
4 1 4 3 3 3 4 1 3 2 4 2 3 2 1 3 1 4 3 1 4 4 2
4 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 3 1 4 3 2 4 4 2
2 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 4 3 2 3 3 2
4 1 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 2 2 4 3 4 1 4 4 2 3 5 3
4 #NU LL! 4 3 #NU LL! 3 4 #NU LL! 2 #NU LL! 2 #NU LL! #NU LL! 2 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 4 4 #NU LL! #NU LL! 4 #NU LL!
Page 70 of 116
Q8_ 2 2 5 3 1 4 #NU LL! #NU LL! #NU LL! #NU LL! 5 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 4 4 4 2 4 5 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 3 4 3 3 3 #NU LL!
Q8_ 3 4 5 4 3 4 #NU LL! #NU LL! #NU LL! #NU LL! 5 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 4 4 4 4 4 4 #NU LL! 5 #NU LL! 3 5 4 5 4 #NU LL!
Q8_ 4 4 4 4 4 5 #NU LL! #NU LL! #NU LL! #NU LL! 5 #NU LL! 3 #NU LL! 4 4 4 5 4 3 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 3 4 4 5 5 #NU LL!
Q9_ 1 3 3 4 4 4 2 4 1 4 5 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 5 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
Q9_ 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 4 1 3 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 3
Q9_ 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 1 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
Q9_ 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 1 3 5 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3
Q9_ 5 4 4 2 4 2 4 3 1 3 5 2 4 4 2 2 3 2 4 1 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 3 2
Q9_ 6 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 1 4 5 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3
Q9_ 7 2 3 2 3 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 4
Q9_ 8 2 4 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 5 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 1 4 3 4 1 2 2 2 3 4 4
Q9_ 8RE V 4 2 4 4 5 3 3 5 4 1 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 5 2 3 2 5 4 4 4 3 2 2
Q9_ 9 2 3 2 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 4 4
Q9_ 9RE V 4 3 4 4 5 2 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 2 2
Page 71 of 116
4 #NU LL! 5 3 #NU LL! 3 4 #NU LL! 2 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! #NU LL! 3 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 4 3 #NU LL! #NU LL! 4 #NU LL!
5 #NU LL! 4 4 #NU LL! 4 4 #NU LL! 3 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 4 5 #NU LL! #NU LL! 4 #NU LL!
4 #NU LL! 2 4 #NU LL! 4 3 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 5 #NU LL! #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 4 #NU LL! 4 5 #NU LL! #NU LL! 4 #NU LL!
4 1 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 5 4
4 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 3 5 4
4 1 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 4 2 3 4 3 3 1 4 4 4 3 5 4
2 1 4 4 5 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 4 4 2 3 4 4
2 1 3 4 5 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 4 4 2 3 3 4
3 1 4 3 5 4 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 1 4 3 2 3 4 3
2 1 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 4
1 4 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 1 4 2 4 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 2 2
5 2 3 3 5 4 3 3 4 5 2 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 4 4
1 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
5 2 2 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
Page 72 of 116
Q9_ Q9_ Q9_ Q9_ Q9_ Q9_ Q10 Q10 Q11 Q11 Q11 Q11 Q12 Q12 Q12 Q12 Q13 10 10R 11 12 13 14 _1 _2 _1 _2 _3 _4 _1 _2 _3 _4 .0 EV 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 4 1 1 1
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 3 4 4 5 1
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 4 4 4 4 1
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 4 5 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 2 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 5 4 2 4 4 3 4 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2
3 5 3 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4
3 5 3 4 4 4 3 5 2 2 1
4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 1
3 5 3 4 2 4 4 4 1 2 4
3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 4
3 5 3 3 2 3 4 2 1 3 2
3 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
4 5 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
3 5 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4
4 3 2 2 4 4 4 3 2 4 4
4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 3 1 2 2 1 1 3
4 3 5 4 4 5 5 3
3 4 5 4 2 4 4 3
4 4 5 4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4
3 3 4 4 2 4 4 3
3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3
3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! !
Page 73 of 116
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 2 3 4 3 1
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 2
4 1 1
2 5 5
3 4 3
3 4 5
5 4 4
4 4 4
4 3 4
4 3 3
4 3 4
4 3 4
3 3 3
4 4 3
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 4 4 4 4 1
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! #N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! #N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 2 2 4 2 3 2 4 4 2 1
1 2 2
5 4 4
1 4 2
4 2 2
4 2 2
4 2 2
4 4 2
3 3 2
1 3 2
3 3 2
5 3 2
4 4 2
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! #N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 2
1 3 3
5 3 3
3 2 2
4 4 4
4 4 3
4 4 3
3 3 3
3 2 3
2 3 3
4 3 3
3 3 3
4 4 3
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! #N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 2
3 3 2 3
3 3 4 3
4 3 3 3
4 3 3 3
4 4 4 3
4 4 3 3
3 4 3 3
3 3 2 3
4 3 3 4
4 3 3 4
4 4 2 3
4 4 4 3
#N #N #N #N 2 ULL ULL ULL ULL ! ! ! ! 5 3 5 3 5 4 5 2 2 2
Page 74 of 116
7.3 Appendix 3 - Quantitative research participant characteristics
Gender Male Female Age Group 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 I am an experienced mobile user Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I am an early adopter Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I am familiar with mobile marketing Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 4 9 22 15 1 5 12 23 10 Frequency 1 0 1 14 35 Frequency 32 8 5 4 2 Frequency 30 21 Frequency Frequency
Page 75 of 116
7.4 Appendix 4 - Interview structure Introduction: • Details of participant • Why they were chosen • Purposive, knowledge of mobile marketing • Response from survey • Privacy and confidentiality • Data will be stored securely for 3 months until analysis and validation is completed • Audio recording tools are being used to gather this data • Outline of ground rules • Speak from own experience • The goal is to gain a deeper understanding • Purpose of research • This paper studies mobile users aged eighteen or over and aims to explain the factors that impact their attitude toward, their intentions to access and their level of engagement thereafter with indirect mobile marketing and intends to provide insight for marketing practitioners. Length of interview • 40 minutes - 1 hour Main body: • Introduce concepts and present stimuli material • The Direct Marketing Association (p7, 2012) define indirect mobile marketing as: “Mobile enhancement of traditional media and retail environments requiring consumer initiated interaction with the marketing initiative.” • Incentive based forms utilise: discount coupons, product samples, downloads, loyalty points and access codes. • Non-incentive based forms are informational and typically lead to a corporate website, brand website or other types of publicity driven content. • Funnelling technique start with simple questions to build rapport and proceed with more complex questions later • Flexible approach to gain depth of insight • Guide questions by research objectives Questions: Page 76 of 116
Personal differences • What do you typically use your mobile phone for? • How much time per day do you typically spend on it? • What typically gratifies these uses ? • You said you were a *RESPONSE FOR EARLY ADOPTER*, what influenced this response? • Do you think that experience with mobile influences users’ attitudes towards it? • Why do you think this? Thoughts on findings: Non-incentive based: • Older people less likely to find it irritating • Older people less likely to feel anxious Incentive based: • Females more likely to use it to pass time • Older people less likely to use it to pass time • Early adopters more likely to use it to accomplish tasks more quickly • Females more likely to find it pleasant Past experience with mobile marketing • What form(s) of mobile marketing have you used? • Examples of a time in the past when you have used mobile marketing? • What influenced your decision to use it? • How did it make you feel? • In what ways did it provide gratification? • What did your peers think of you using it? • To what extent did peers influence your decision to use it? Antecedents/attitude • When would you typically use incentive/non-incentive based mobile marketing? • What is the most important factor to determine behavioural intention for each form of mobile marketing? Page 77 of 116
• Why are these the most important? • How important are the TAM antecedents to determine behavioural intention? • Do you believe that peers perceive either form of mobile marketing as a waste of time, if so, why? Thoughts on findings: • Non-incentive perceived as more informative • Incentive based perceived as more entertaining • Non-incentive perceived as less irritating • Non-incentive perceived as slightly more useful • Both similarly perceived as easy to use • Intention was found to be higher for non-incentive based, why do you think this would be Engagement • Would you engage differently with different forms of mobile marketing and why? Thoughts on findings: Non-incentive based: • To learn about unknown things correlated with higher engagement • Good way to research correlated with higher engagement • To learn about useful things correlated with higher engagement • Entertaining correlated with higher engagement • Enjoyable correlated with higher engagement • Useful correlated with higher engagement Incentive based: • To learn about unknown things correlated with higher engagement • To learn about useful things correlated with higher engagement • Entertainment correlated with higher engagement • Enjoyment correlated with higher engagement • Useful correlated with higher engagement • Quick to use correlated with higher engagement Page 78 of 116
Wind down: • Signal the end • Summarise topics covered • Ask for a final key thought that the researcher should consider
Page 79 of 116
7.5 Appendix 5 - Interview summary 1 Participant A interview Interview date: 25/03/2013 Interview method: Skype Participant’s location: Home Interview length: 30:55 Personal differences Participant A typically uses his mobile phone for business emails, general web browsing, instant messaging and spends around 12 hours using phone his phone per day. He stated that ease of use is the main gratifier, as it is a quicker way of dealing with information. Participant A said that he’s an early adopter due to having the latest and greatest gadgets, e.g. having a Mac before it was cool. He thinks that past experience with mobile isn’t as important as the content of the advertising. He further states that it’s risk vs reward, what does the user get out of it if they have to scan a QR code for example. How easy is it to use and what sort of brand it is are two other key factors, but more importantly, it must have personal relevance towards the user. Participant A thought that older people were less likely to feel anxious or irritated by non-incentive based mobile marketing as they may not fully understand it and are stereotypically not as experienced with it. He thought females would use it a lot to pass time if it was in fashion magazines. He placed emphasis on personal/cultural relevance with incentive based forms. He thought that early adopters would use mobile marketing to accomplish tasks quicker, e.g. non-incentive based for fulfilling a function is more likely as the more experienced a user is with technology and they will typically have a lower uncertainty avoidance toward it.
Page 80 of 116
He stated that he would use incentive based for interaction with the initiative but primarily more revealing hidden information. He thinks that incentive based may work well in lads magazines, Lynx stimuli is a good example of this. “It depends what you get out of it, whether I would do it or not.” Concluded my stating he would rather use non-incentive as it’s actually fulfilling a function. Past experience with mobile marketing Participant A has used incentive based at restaurant before and non-incentive based via NFC at bus stops to see bus times. “It all boils down to whether it’s useful to me, as to whether I would use it or not.” He reckons that males are driven to non-incentive based as they are typically looking for a specific function to be fulfilled. “Gratification depends on whether it fulfils the function it was supposed to do.” “If it works then I’m neutral, if it doesn’t work I probably wouldn’t do it again.” He further states that application/content quality is key to use, otherwise it would be a waste of time. For Participant A, the need for information is a key driver. States that peer influence is dependent upon what phones your peers have and how experienced they are with mobile technology. If they have experience with mobile marketing in the past they are more likely to tell their friends to do it. Antecedents/attitude States that he may use incentive based in a group, but it’s dependent upon the actual incentive, personal relevance and the situation. Page 81 of 116
“South West trains have NFC based advertising where you win prizes if you scan, but never used it as never had time to scan.” States that he didn’t risk time for incentive based without knowing the incentive available. Participant A further emphasises the need of real-time relevance, which he perceives to be most important for incentive based. He further adds that as long as non-incentive based is fulfilling a purpose, it’s useful. “It has to be easy to use and fast otherwise I will give up, I don’t have time to waste.” He thinks that non-incentive based is informative to the extent of personal relevance, incentive based and non-incentive based can both be informative, but it’s dependent upon it being useful at the time. Participant A further states that non-incentive based may be perceived as more irritating if it wasn’t as useful or personally relevant at the time of seeing the advert. Participant A believes that both types are fairly easy to use with the prerequisite of users installing some kind of software application to scan apps, or some initiatives being limited to only phones with NFC, which is a smaller sector. He would use non-incentive based more as it’s fulfilling a function but with incentive based he would worry about entering his mobile number or email as he thinks he could get spammed meaning there’s a risk of giving away data about yourself, compared to the reward. Engagement Participant A doesn’t think you would engage differently based upon form of mobile marketing, but states that it’s all about what it’s offering the user; ease of use and UI design. If it’s poorly designed, or non-incentive based, I might use it once then bin it. “I think it all comes down to personal preference and ease of use, what adverts are showing at the right time. Personal relevance and where you are.” Page 82 of 116
7.6 Appendix 6 - Interview summary 2 Participant B interview Interview date: 26/03/2013 Interview method: Skype Participant’s location: Home Interview length: 28:41 Personal differences Participant B typically uses her mobile phone for social media, catching up with friends, playing with apps, reading the news and “keeping up with what’s going on out there”. Her most frequently used app is the Daily Mail; which updates frequently, is quick to use and informative. She typically spends 6 hours a day using phone and information is the most important gratifier. She isn’t a complete early adopter but always buys the latest technology. She further explains that if people aren’t experienced they may feel negative as they don’t understand what mobile users are doing/what you can do with mobile. Older people may typically have this view, but not all of them, only those without smartphones; If you’re not exposed to it, you won’t know any different. She concludes that older people may not understand mobile, but if they are experienced this, isn’t representative of the population. Participant B thinks that females are more likely to use it to pass time out of boredom, whereas older people haven’t had this technology all of their life so are less likely to feel the urge to pass time using it, whereas younger people don’t know any different. She uses her phone to accomplish tasks quicker, e.g. instead of using laptop, using it for functions such as television, online browsing; placing emphasis on her mobile replacing her laptop due to ease of use and speed of use. Participant B thinks that females are more likely to find incentive based pleasant as “girls love a bargain or a deal” and states that it makes you excited/fantasise at the prospect of saving money or winning something. Page 83 of 116
She emphasises importance of good incentive and that incentives make you want to use it more. Past experience with mobile marketing She hasn’t been in a situation needing information with a non-incentive based form being present to supply information. But she recently used incentive based in a restaurant; scanning it on her phone and completing a survey to win a free meal. She completed it whilst waiting at table for the bill so didn’t waste any time. The incentive was the main driver for using the initiative. This created a feeling of excitement in her, as she did not know what was going to come up on the screen and there was an element of surprise. Her whole group of friends used the same initiative at the restaurant, by which the group influenced her use by showing her how easy it was to use and bringing it to Participant B’s attention. “If it’s easy more people will want to do it.” But she claimed that she wouldn’t do it by herself, as she may not of noticed it or even of thought about it. Antecedents/attitude Participant B said that she would use incentive based for the incentive and would only use non-incentive when there’s a need for information. She further explained that the most important factor for her decision to use is “if the thing I’m going to get out of it is worth my time”, referring to risk versus reward. Her usage depends on who she’s with, how easy/quick it is to use and if she was bored, once again mentioning time versus reward. She didn’t think that it was irritating: “It’s not in your face or ugly, it’s there for you to use it if you want to use it, no one is making you. I think it’s a good idea as it allows you to learn more about something.” And further explained that she Page 84 of 116
doesn’t think it’s irritating when it’s integrated into traditional media, as you expect it to be there now. She thinks that both forms are quite easy to use, as long as you already have the app. “If I wanted to know about something, I would’ve probably researched about it already, so there wouldn’t be an urgent need.” “If they’re on the front of shop windows I probably wouldn’t want to stop and scan, whereas if I was at a table I would have time the to spare.” “I wouldn’t particularly care what people thought of me using it, but depends on what the incentive is.” Engagement Participant B stated that she is more likely to use incentive based. She thinks that non-incentive is engaging as you would only scan if you wanted to learn about something, otherwise why else use it? But she also thinks that how entertaining incentive based is depends on what incentive is, however even entering competitions or codes creates a good sense of anticipation. She thinks that the initiative being quick to use is most important as she didn’t want to be wasting time. “Think IMM as a whole is a really good idea, but I think incentive for me I would be more interested in using as there’s more potential for me getting something out of it. However even with non-incentive I think there is still an incentive as you are still getting something out of it, even though it might not be a physical thing”
Page 85 of 116
7.7 Appendix 3 - Interview summary 3 Participant C interview Interview date: 28/03/2013 Interview method: Skype Participant’s location: Home Interview length: 33:02 Personal differences Participant C typically uses his mobile phone for texts and calls, internet, Facebook, Twitter, other apps, and games. He described his usages as information driven. His most used apps were Google Chrome as browser for information and Trainline for train times. He typically spends 2 hours per day using his mobile phone. His usage is driven by a need for information, ease of use and accessibility. It’s important that mobile marketing makes getting information quicker. Participant C described himself as a mid-term adopter; not the first to have technology but generally does have some of the most up-to-date technology available. He claimed that smartphones are making it easier for anyone to get the information that they need. “People who aren’t experienced may not be aware of what mobile can offer them, and may not understand how it works. In some cases these people may feel more negative as unless they’ve tried it they aren’t going to be aware of how accessible the technology really is.” “Older people will be more easily impressed by technology. As they are less exposed to it, so they see a novelty value.” Participant C expressed that gender specific differences depend on personal relevance. He further explained his belief that females have better targeted mobile marketing at present, through mediums such as magazines. “Women more likely to buy magazines so maybe more targeted and therefore favourable towards it.” Page 86 of 116
Past experience with mobile marketing He has used non-incentive based mobile marketing at train stations to get train time, as he already had the QR code reader so it was a matter of convenience, rather than running around the station to find the times out, or typing the information into his phone to find the times out. “I can just scan it to get times straight away.” His main gratification was getting information and saving time. “I found it easy to use as you just point the phone at the poster.” “Some people may feel ridiculous about pulling their phone out and scanning a poster.” “People who aren’t familiar with mobile marketing might think, ‘what are they doing?’” He thinks that others may think mobile marketing is a waste of time, so those who are more self conscious maybe less likely to use mobile marketing in a public space. He then explained that he doesn’t think it matters much particularly as it varies from person to person. He thinks that his peers positively influence use as they are aware of what mobile marketing is and the convenience it affords. Antecedents/attitude “I would personally use non-incentive based, mainly for using it as a quick way for gathering information.” “I personally don’t tend to enter competitions so I probably wouldn’t scan it, because you don’t really know what you are getting.” He mentioned the potential risk of wasting your time scanning it, especially with incentive based forms. He explained, however that with non-incentive based mobile marketing, you typically know what you are getting.
Page 87 of 116
“Information is the most important factor to determine my usage. Ease of use and speed of use are imperative to use.” “If mobile marketing wasn’t the quickest way of getting information you would typically use a browser and it would be redundant. However, Incentive based is different as you are getting something out of it, as opposed to just information.” “People that haven’t used it before aren’t aware of what it does so may perceive it as a waste of time. Lack of knowledge will make them think this way.” “I don’t think non-incentive based would be irritating as it’s normally discreet with the way it’s positioned within posters. If it’s not personally relevant I would just ignore it, I don’t think it would get in the way. The only time people find it irritating are when the aesthetics of the advert are crucial to what it’s doing. It should be tactfully designed.” He stated that both forms are quite easy to use, of which the barriers to usage are typically needing a smartphone, NFC and a QR code reader app. Stated he would use non-incentive based more than incentive based. “I think a younger audience ( would use non-incentive based as they typically lead busier lifestyles.” Engagement “I would engage more with incentive based as there’s more of a novelty value.” “In some cases it outlines exactly what you are getting and some are being clever not, letting you know what you are going to get.” He claimed that needing information makes you feel more involved, so you get more out of it. “I think non-incentive is mainly there to serve a purpose.” Page 88 of 116
“Users need an incentive to use non-incentive mobile marketing over a browser, some unique offering integrating some form of interactivity - distinguishing itself more than its browser counterpart.” “Some mobile marketing links give you information on a single page in the vaguest form, it needs to be interactive or displayed in a unique fashion.” “Incentive based is essentially advertising, so it’s another way of pushing products. This could put me off as it will take time to ultimately receive an advert, which is annoying. With the emphasis on the result being further advertising as opposed to an incentive that they are mean’t to be getting. This could be risky if asking for further information such as an email address, especially when it asks users to sign up for a newsletter. Only for a big incentive would I enter my personal information, must be beneficial to both parties.” “With incentive based it has always got to be enjoyable as that’s the point, whereas with non-incentive it’s about getting information quickly, however it can also be entertaining. If the marketing was a bit clunky or poorly designed I would be put off, it needs to be quick and accessible.” Participant C stated that he would be more likely to scan in public if there’s a better incentive. “In summary, it is a great idea but for it to be accessible in the future, more people need to be made aware of how it works. And it’s all about interactivity, they need to push the interactivity of mobile marketing.”
Page 89 of 116
7.8 Appendix 8 - Full interview transcription Participant D full interview transcription Interview date: 01/04/2013 Interview method: Skype Participant’s location: Home Interview length: 32:30 Interviewer (italics): Okay, hi Participant D, this is the interview for my research. You were chosen for it because of your knowledge of mobile marketing, which you said in the survey and you said you were happy to do an interview. There’s just a few bits we need to talk about first, privacy and confidentiality. Your data from this interview will be stored for 3 months until analysis and validation is completed. Audio recording tools are being used to gather this data so that the interview can be transcribed. The research is about speaking from your own experience and it’s about gaining a deeper understanding into the area of research. The purpose of this interview is to explain the factors the impact mobile users’ attitudes towards, intentions to access and engagement with mobile marketing, to provide insight for mobile marketing practitioners. It should take around half an hour to 45 minutes to complete. So before we start we are going to use a quick definition that I think we used in the survey as well, which is basically what the research is about, so... Indirect mobile marketing is stated as: The mobile enhancement of traditional media and retail environments requiring consumer initiated interaction with the marketing, so it’s QR codes, URLs, anything that can take something offline into mobile. So broadly, there’s two forms of this; there’s incentive based forms, which are like discount coupons, product samples, downloads, loyalty points - which I think you’ve seen from the folder. And non-incentive types which are typically informational and lead to a website, a brand page or some other type of informational content. So, we’re just going to start quite broad, so what do you typically use your mobile phone for? Participant D: Just, the general calling and texting, erm, I use it to just literally to check my website sometimes on it to see if everything’s fine on that. And just generally I can use it for anything really, from booking tickets to cinema, to even booking a reservation for a restaurant on my phone before. Erm, yeah so just Page 90 of 116
generally probably Facebook, Twitter, those kind of things that most people tend to use it for. Erm, but then also the internet as well, so for anything I need, if there’s maybe a competition I would want to enter I might do that by my phone, and yet I use my phone a lot for satellite navigation as well. As it’s cheaper than a Tom Tom. So yeah, those kind of things really. That tends to be what I use my phone for really. So it’s typically more information based stuff than entertainment? Yeah, yeah. Okay, so how long do you typically spend on it a day, roughly? Erm, oh it can really vary. Somedays I can be on it for maybe a couple of hours for the whole day, but then there will be other days where it doesn’t stop. I’d be on my phone, say, the majority of the day. So, I suppose it just depends on the actual, what’s happening that day, like if I have a really busy day coming up. Then probably on the phone a little bit more. Which doesn’t help with my phone as the batteries not great! And I’m constantly, you know, whenever you can plug your charger in... come on charge up! And then, yeah so it really depends on the day. Okay, so would you say that your kind of an early adopter when it comes to technology. You have gadgets first? What do you mean, sorry? So, do you typically have the latest technology like mobile phones before most other people? No, not at all. You couldn’t be any far wronger. Yeah, it really sort of, I get a new phone as and when I need it. Erm, I’m not one of these that will queue up outside the Apple shop waiting for the new Apple iPhones, to come out, no I haven’t got time for that s***. Page 91 of 116
So, do you think that experience with the mobile technology can kind of influence their attitude toward using it? Yeah I think so, I think that if you’ve had a good experience of using it before, then you would probably, erm, tend to carry on doing the same sort of thing. So if you’ve used, erm, you’re internet on the phone for something in particular, for example, you scanned a QR code and it worked, then, you know, you would probably do that again. I think once you’ve got used to it, it’s the initial do it the first time and get that past get, that out the way and if that works, you’d be a bit more comfortable with it. Okay, so basically we found in the survey, from this section... so this is about the non-incentive based form to start with, that older people found it less irritating, but were also less likely to feel anxious about using it. Do you have any thought as to why older people may feel less worried about using it? Erm, I think it’s because it’s got to the point now where you have to use it. I know older people, my parents are a prime example, erm something like this my Dad would think is completely weird, actually talking to a laptop, he’d just think is bizarre, he just won’t be able to get his head around it. But then, you know, I know others who are probably a bit more clued up on using technology than I am, so it really sort of varies. It varies really, yeah, I think that people are having to get used to it, simply because of the climate that we’re in and the technologies constantly changing, so if you don’t try and keep ahead of the game with, or even keep alongside things that are coming in and out of use then, you know, you’re just going to drift past everyone else and it’s going to take so long to get back into normality, if that’s what you want to call it, erm yeah I think they just simply have to keep tabs. You can’t not, you know, be sort of, erm, be ignorant to it, you sort of have to, erm, learn new stuff. Okay, and with incentive based it was found that females are more likely to use it to pass time and older people are less likely to use it to pass time. Erm, do you have any thoughts surrounding why women, may use it to pass time more than older people? Page 92 of 116
They probably like a bit of a gossip. You know, I know you can access most, erm, magazines and things like that online pretty quick, so, I think they, I dunno they just generally, thinking about a couple of girls I know at work who are constantly online, looking at fashion and dresses and makeup and stuff like that so they’re always soft of on there and they’re always looking at it, so I think, yeah, I would kind of agree that women tend to be on there a little bit more. I think with an older person, it’s more of a needs must, you know, if you go on there you go on there if you need to do something. Where as a younger women may go on there as she may have a spare half an hour, so I’m going to go online and have a look at something, or she might even buy something online, or whatever. But, I tend to agree I think that’s probably quite right that women tend to be on there a little bit more. Do you think it’s because it’s better targeted towards women? It’s not something they have for men to use as much? I think it probably comes down to, erm when you think about it, it probably comes down to something like, i know this probably sounds quite basic but, erm, shopping for example. So, like think of a woman shopping, a woman can walk around a shopping mall, go into every single shop and go back to the first shop and buy the first f****** item that she bought in the first place. Now a man, will go into a shop, buy the first thing he wants, buy it, done. So, with a man you go online, you know what you're doing, you get want you want on there, whether it’s checking the football scores, or checking this checking that, you know exactly what you’re gonna do, you’ve got a plan and you relatively stick to that plan. You know, you get what you want done, but with a women, they will go on there and they might originally have a plan of what they want to go on, but it sort of diverts slightly, so they will do a bit of a few things as well because they reckon they can multitask and all of that bull, you know and then erm, yeah I just tend to think it’s probably, it probably is a little more advertised towards women because when you look online a lot more of the advertisements seem to be targeted towards the women because I think, the woman rather than the man seems to be the one who would click on a link towards a product or a service. I hope that answers your question. Page 93 of 116
No it does, yeah definitely does. Without sounding too sexist! No it’s okay, it’s okay. Well going shopping with women is a bit of a shocker. Well it’s actually been proven that women shop differently to men, after tracking them around malls and stuff. Yeah, and if you’ve ever been around a shopping mall with a women you will know exactly what I mean, it’s a f****** nightmare. Erm, so the last bit of this section was that people who, erm were typically early adopters of technology, so people that have technology first were more likely to accomplish tasks more quickly. But then, you also said that you use it to accomplish tasks more quickly, so how would you kind of, do you think there’s an impact between how early you have technology, as to how you use it in any way? Erm... Or do you not think it matters? I don’t think it really matters to be honest, erm, I can’t see if you’ve got, don’t get me wrong, if you’ve got a certain technology first and before anyone else and you can do a task quicker than anyone else, then great, that puts you ahead of the game. But, no I don’t think so, I think it’s just per person really. It’s up to them. Okay, so the next section is about past experience with mobile marketing. So could you give me an example of a time when you’ve used some kind of mobile marketing initiative? Page 94 of 116
I use QR codes pretty much all the time now for my work, erm just to try and entice people into my site, simply just because it’s a quick way now that people can scan a QR code and they’re in. Erm, not for work I might’ve seen something, for example I went into the Apple store and saw a QR code for a bit more information on an iPad. I scanned that and it gave me all of the information I could need and I didn’t even need to ask anyone because it gave you everything you wanted. Prices, payment plans the whole lot. And it’s better than having to go to someone and making yourself look a bit thick, rather than saying “I don’t know what I’m doing here”. You know, it told me everything I needed, so I was just like, yeah, I think that I’m using QR codes a little bit more now. Other methods of mobile marketing, erm, I’m just trying to think really. I generally just use, probably mobile, I use it just to lookup things at the moment, erm, it’s probably the main thing. I’m just trying to think if there’s anything else, really. Erm, QR codes really are the main thing I would tend to use really. It seems to be the thing that’s working for me the most at the minute. So, it’s mainly for information, well accessing information quicker than other means? Yeah definitely. If you can get everything that you need quicker than the old fashioned way then why not. Okay, so were you with anyone else when you used it, or was you by yourself? Erm, I’ve been with friends before when I’ve used it, erm for example when I was in Apple I was with a couple of mates then. And I asked them initially and I asked one of them, what do you know about it. And one of them was trying to give me a bit of a bulls*** reason about why you should get it, and erm, it literally just said on the side of it, if you want anymore information, scan the code. So that’s what I did and you know, I’ve done things like that with them. I’ve tried to, erm, even when I do my gigs I try and get people to go towards the QR codes as much as possible. Erm, simply because it’s a quick and easy way of getting them to a site, you know. Once they are there then, you’ve got them there and you hopefully have the power that you’ve got on your site to direct Page 95 of 116
them into the right area that you want to take them. For example, on my site, I want people to buy tickets for my shows, so erm, by having a QR code, I can direct them straight into the upcoming events and they can look at the events and think right, oh he’s performing and bing, they’re straight onto the ticket site and they’ve bought the tickets, so that’s the plan at the moment that it works that way. Whether it’s a 100% like that, I don’t think so, because there’s still a lot of people that tend to erm be a little bit worried about using the internet, you still have that stigma of certainly with older people that you find that people are like, “oh god, if I put my credit card details online someone potentially could take money out of my bank account”. And, if happens, it really does happen. I’ve had it happen to me two or three times recently, erm, you know, so I think if we could get past that stigma of people being a bit like “oh, the internet is a dangerous place”, then mobile marketing would shoot up. Okay, okay, erm, so do you think that other people influence people’s decision to use it. Did they influence your decision to use it in the Apple store? No. No I don’t think they did, not at all. I think it’s just there and rather than sort of, erm, getting bits and pieces in regards to information I just scanned the code and got everything I wanted. So, no I don’t think they had anything to do with it at all. Do you think if you felt less comfortable with the technology, because obviously you’ve used it quite a lot before, do you think if you haven’t really used it before, that peers would kind of influence your choice to use it more? Erm, yeah possibly. I think if I had a, if there was a couple of friends of mine that were a bit like, you need to get on this, you know it’’s really great, it will tell you everything you need to do. All you’ve got to do is scan it, I’ve never done it before and they showed me how to do it, I’d realise, oh actually it’s not that hard and it opens up a whole new sort of, erm, way of getting information, then yeah, I think peer pressure would direct you more inline to doing it and getting involved with it.
Page 96 of 116
Okay, well the next section is on attitudes, erm, so it’s about, when would you typically use incentive based mobile marketing, versus non-incentive based, so, are they kind of context specific? Erm, can you explain that a little bit sorry. So, the incentive based types, are like the voucher-based ones, the entertainment where you get something for scanning it, whereas the non-incentive based is like for information, erm kind of to find out about something new. Or do you think it’s not as context specific, e.g. in certain situations you would use one instead of the other? I think you probably tend to pull yourself towards, you know, everybody likes being given something for nothing. If there’s a voucher, or a “scan this and get a free download” or something along those lines, I think you are sort of more enticed to sort of scan that, and I think that would push you forwards towards getting more involved with online marketing if you were getting something out of it. Now, that’s not completely saying like “oh, I would never scan anything that never gave me anything” because there’s things out there that you need all the time, but erm, I think mainly, if you’re getting something out of it, you tend to make more of an effort. Okay, so, is it more about what you’re getting out of it, like the time versus the reward, do you think?
Erm I definitely think it’s probably sort of, erm you get a better reward, there’s more of actually a chance that you’re going to scan it, that code, or go on that website, you think “what am I going to get out of this? Am I going to get something that’s worthwhile for me”. So I think yeah definitely, erm, you know everyone wants something. If it’s free, then you’re going to get involved. Erm, what do you think is the most important factor to get you to use it then? For both types do you think? So is it easy to use, the reward, information, erm? Page 97 of 116
I think it’s sort of the combination of the three. Okay I think it needs to be quite simple to use. So you wouldn’t want something scanned and there was 7 or 8 pages of just jargon because you’re never going to read it. If it was along the lines of you scanned it and maybe there was a video for example. You’ve summarised what normally those 7 or 8 pages of text would be into what it’s all about and made it very sort of easy to use and there was no problem with it, it was very simple and it made it a little bit more fun. You know, I think you’ve just got to make thinks as really simple as possible for people because, I think people have got less of an attention span now than they probably did before because technology has got stronger and has become more developed, so people are less likely to erm, probably waste their time if that’s the right way of putting it. They want things done now, they want them very quick, so like this is what I want now, it’s happening. So yeah, so I think it’s a little bit of everything really. Okay, so you think that it shouldn’t be, like a generic page at the end of when you’ve scanned something, it should be something special, it should be something different to a normal webpage that you can get from Google? Yeah definitely. cause you’re making the effort of actually going on there. Yeah, okay. So in this section, here’s what we found from the surveys, so it would be good just to get some thoughts on it. So non-incentive based was found to be more informative than incentive based, but incentive based was found to be more entertaining, so would you kind of think that? Yeah, yeah. I totally agree to that. I think that there’s no incentive then it’s going to be more information based, you wouldn’t text in something like that to, erm, you’re not going to go on that to entertain you, you’re going to go on it because you want to find something out, you need information, so yeah definitely.
Page 98 of 116
Okay, non-incentive based was also perceived as, kind of less irritating, but more useful than incentive based. Irritating and useful kind of conflict, so do you think that if you saw a QR code, do you find QR codes annoying to see on posters or out in public spaces? Or are they kind of part of what you expect now? I think you just have to get used to them. Originally, don’t get me wrong when they first started coming out you wondered what the hell they were, erm and you think why has somebody just put a barcode in the bottom of a poster, or why is there a barcode just randomly like next to this product, it didn’t make any sense. But I think now it’s just the norm, now. And I don’t know if it’s irritating, erm, no. I don’t know, I think they are very different so if you were checking something out on a certain site then you’re on it for a different reason that might be irritating, but if you’re going on it for information, I think it really depends on what you’re using it for. So is it about personal relevance? Would you say? Yeah I think so. I think if it’s literally up to the said person of what they’re going on there for. Okay, so to finish this section it was found that people were more likely to use, in general, non-incentive based. Erm, what would you kind of use more? I think you’ve already said that you’ve used non-incentive based forms before more for information? Yeah, no, I think that’s right really. I think if it’s incentive it’s literally, it’s the fun factor really. You’re not going on non-incentive based for the fun factor because it’s not usually about that. Okay, so we’re moving onto the last section which is about how involved people feel with the different types. Erm, it’s just about how would you engage differently with incentive based versus non-incentive based. I mean, I’ve spoken to people before and they’ve said that when they are entering a competition they will feel kind of really excited about seeing what they are going to get, but then Page 99 of 116
sometimes entering isn’t actually worth it at all. Whereas with non-incentive based they just may not use it because they can get the information from other sources. Yeah, erm, it’s a tricky one. I must admit I don’t know. I’m not really sure of the answer to that one. I know that doesn’t really help you at all but erm, yeah it’s a bit, hm. Well, I can give you some examples of what we’ve found, so erm, non-incentive based, we found that people who used it to learn about unknown things, to research, to learn about useful things, correlated with what we call higher engagement, so them being more involved in using it, so, yeah, erm but we also found that users who found it entertaining or enjoyable and useful had an even better time with using it. So, do you think that even though it’s an informational kind of driven thing, do you think that it still has to be entertaining, or enjoyable in using in someway? Yeah I think it needs to be entertaining, you have to sort of erm, you know, try and make everything you do sort of keeping you switched on as long as possible because most people sort of switch off after 20 minutes in any case, especially after a long period of time so if you’re online and it’s keeping you entertained and something different is happening all the time, erm, then yeah I think that they would be right, it does keep people a bit more switched on, rather than if you’re going on something that’s generally for information, you’re going on for a different reason as well, if you’re on for information, you are literally going on there for said things. You might be finishing a dissertation or doing it to try and finish a said piece of work. I’m only thinking about what I’ve used it in the past for and I’ve probably used it for revision to a point and I’ve probably used it for fun things as well, so erm, I don’t know, it’s difficult, it does sort of keep you entertained. It’s a shame that both can’t be as entertaining as each other, cause then I think if it was non-incentive based and it was actually sort of entertaining I think it might keep people on there a little bit longer, who knows. Okay, alright. Erm, so the next section looks at incentive based. So, those who found incentive based useful and quick to use felt more involved with using it. Page 100 of 116
Do you think that how important is it to be quick to use when you are getting an incentive, is that key? Yeah, it does need to be really important, you need to be able to go onto it like *thumb click*. Definitely has to be really quick, really easy, cause if there is something, an incentive, it might be quite a small incentive; none of the incentives that you go on are going to be massive things really, they will be things that you think “oh lovely” you know, I get that for nothing, or I get that for joining a site; wonderful but everything’s taking it’s time, are you going to be waiting around a while? No, I don’t think so. I think it’s got to be sort of instant otherwise people will lose interest. Okay, well that’s pretty much it. Could you summarise your thoughts that you could put into a final, little statement? Or anything towards the whole area in general? Erm, I think it just generally needs to be, you need to make both sides. Whether it’s non-incentive based, or incentive based entertaining. It has to sort of keep people interested, otherwise you will switch of, it’s just a standard thing, it’s like anything, you know if you’re reading a book and that’s not entertaining, then you will switch off. You just won’t take any notice of it, so it does need to be a lot more, erm, to be able to empower the user, so it needs to be quicker, easier to use and all of those kind of things, and then as well I think people need to be a bit more, when these new things are coming out like when the QR code came out, so if you went down the street and did a survey to Joe public asking them about what a QR code was, not many of them would know, but now, for some reason QR codes seem to be public place, now I think in the future something is going to replace the QR code or complement it, or bring people into online marketing in some new ways, but erm, whatever is brought into the market, initially, from the off tell people what the hell it is. So, erm, yeah as long as it’s sort of introduced in the right way and introduced in such a way that anybody can get it, because I know myself I have to make my advertising as clear and as simple, cause if I think right, if an idiot can understand it, anyone can understand it, and I think that’s the way that you’ve got to look at it. because if you put something on a page and if you think, “well I know what this is about” Joe public might not, is that person who’s looking at it, you know might not be thick but Page 101 of 116
don’t get me wrong, you have to treat them a little bit as “right this person has no idea what this is” and make it as basic for said person as you can so there’s no problems and they totally understand. Right, thanks for that I’m just going to stop recording.
Page 102 of 116
7.9 Appendix 9 - Interview summary 4 Participant E Interview Interview date: 01/03/2013 Interview method: Skype Participant’s location: Home Interview length: 27:16 Personal differences Participant E typically uses his mobile phone for communication, social media, games and finding stuff out on the move. His use is more information based, however entertainment is important too - quite a lot of both. Typically spends an hour per day on his mobile phone, uses it quite a lot and is his main choice of finding out something. Getting information quickly is the main gratifier. “For stuff I don’t need to know, but just can, because it’s there.” - Accessibility and ease of use. Thinks that he is an early adopter due to having a big interest in technology and has always had the best and the newest technology. Thinks that experience with technology does positively impact users attitudes. “I don’t find mobile marketing irritating because I know it’s going to be there.” He further explains that if a mobile marketing initiative wasn’t contextually relevant, it could be annoying, but that’s a general rule for marketing anyway. He thinks that mobile marketing is better tailored to females and that females are more likely to take an interest in incentive based forms. “Older people have got other things to do. They don’t really need the incentives to be honest.” He uses his phone to do most simple things quicker, incentive based mobile marketing can allow you to find out about things quicker. “It’s a spur of the moment thing.”
Page 103 of 116
Past experience with mobile marketing Participant E has previously used incentive based forms that are typically SMS based. The main reason for this was that he didn’t have to pay for texts, it was very quick, he had nothing better to do at the time and was bored. “You don’t put much thought into it to be honest.” He thinks that others may perceive it as a waste of time, but it really depends on how long it takes to do it. “If it’s not a quick thing, then it’s not very sociable.” “It depends on how much effort it is.” - Risk vs reward. “QR codes are probably popular because they are quick and easy to use.” Antecedents/attitude Participant E stated that he would be more likely to use incentive based if he was bored, or to pass time. Whereas non-incentive based would be used if he had a need for information. “I like information more than entering a competition. You know what you’re going to get.” “It depends on what you’re getting out of it.” “If the incentive is better you are probably willing to put more time into it.” Participant E thought that non-incentive was more informative and that incentive based was more entertaining. “It could be annoying if it wasn’t something you wanted to know, or was misleading.” Participant E said he would be more likely to use non-incentive based as he didn’t really like incentives. He further explained that it’s dependent on what you’re like as a person. Page 104 of 116
Engagement He thinks that if you are actively researching something you are interested in, you will be more involved. He thinks that information based should just be about the information, otherwise it might be perceived as gimmicky. It’s predominantly about speed of access and knowing what you are going to get. He thinks that it is possible to learn things from incentive based. Even though Participant E was using incentive based forms on the train to pass time, speed of access is still very important as there are other things that you can pass time with. Finally concluded that there’s a lot of cross-over between both types of indirect mobile marketing. “It comes down to the offer and how much time it takes to do. If there’s nothing on offer, it doesn’t matter how much time you’ve got, you’re not going to do it. It’s a trade-off between time and reward.”
Page 105 of 116
7.10 Appendix 10 - Non-incentive based correlations (objective 3) Absorbing Stimulating Clever Attenti ongrabbi ng .342*
I would use non-incentive based IMM to learn about unknown things Non-incentive based IMM is a good way to research I would use non-incentive based IMM to learn about useful things I perceive non-incentive based IMM to be entertaining I would use non-incentive based IMM to pass time Non-incentive based IMM is enjoyable Non-incentive based IMM is a habit Non-incentive based IMM is irritating Non-incentive based IMM is distracting Non-incentive based IMM makes me feel anxious Using non-incentive based IMM allows me to accomplish tasks more quickly I find non-incentive based IMM useful Non-incentive based IMM is easy to use Non-incentive based IMM is quick to use
0.291 0.064 .616** 0.308 .504** 0.153 -0.114 0.059 0.046 0.184
0.333 0.333 .558** -0.022 .620** -0.038 0.047 0.114 0.157 0.043
.550** .453** .489** 0.219 .502** 0.069 0.081 0.24 0.233 0.227
0.147 0.206 0.285 0.011 .509** -0.118 0.109 0.159 0.123 0.132
.386* -0.003 -0.066
.551** 0.212 0.048
.551** 0.058 0.143
0.138 0.173 0.15
Page 106 of 116
7.11 Appendix 11 - Incentive based correlations (objective 3) Absorbing Stimulating Clever Attenti ongrabbi ng -0.081 0.184 0.086 0.114 0.247 0.156 0.032 0.332 0.146 0.352 0.04
I would use incentive based IMM to .457** learn about unknown things Incentive based IMM is a good way 0.347 to research I would use incentive based IMM to .394* learn about useful things I perceive incentive based IMM to be entertaining 0.104
.428* 0.042 -0.068 .518** 0.079 .529** 0.199 0.026 0.027 -0.007 0.195
0.183 0.043 0.06 .370* 0.252 0.351 0.232 0.143 0.015 0.224 0.135
I would use incentive based IMM to -0.341 pass time Incentive based IMM is enjoyable Incentive based IMM is a habit Incentive based IMM is irritating Incentive based IMM is distracting Incentive based IMM makes me feel anxious Using incentive based IMM allows me to accomplish tasks more quickly I find incentive based IMM useful .431* 0.341 0.129 -0.132 0.018 0.248
0.271 -0.147 0.165
0.211 0.21 0.25
0.157 0.235 -0.019
Incentive based IMM is easy to use 0.216 Incentive based IMM is quick to use .565**
Page 107 of 116
7.12 Appendix 12 - Non-incentive based correlations (objective 4)
Age gro up
I am an experienced mobile user -0.117
I am an early adopt er
I am familiar with mobile marketing
I would use non-incentive based IMM to learn about unknown things Non-incentive based IMM is a good way to research I would use non-incentive based IMM to learn about useful things I perceive non-incentive based IMM to be entertaining I would use non-incentive based IMM to pass time Non-incentive based IMM is enjoyable Non-incentive based IMM is a habit Non-incentive based IMM is irritating Non-incentive based IMM is distracting Non-incentive based IMM makes me feel anxious Using non-incentive based IMM allows me to accomplish tasks more quickly I find non-incentive based IMM useful Non-incentive based IMM is easy to use Non-incentive based IMM is quick to use
0.13 0.2 0.071 -0.1 0.076 0.087 -0.01 0.124
-0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.15 -.33 8* -0.2 -.29 3* -0
-0.092 -0.055 -0.053 0.028 -0.14 0.019 0.039 -0.085
-0.046 0.061 0.115 0.222 0.184 0.146
-0.276 -0.064 0.08 0.022 0.004 0.056
0.129 0.096 0.125
-0.2 -0.1 -0.2
-0.073 0.141 0.176
-0.036 0.099 0.025 0.001 -0.063 -0.094
Page 108 of 116
Age gro up
I am an experienced mobile user -0.145 -0.074
I am an early adopt er 0.165
I am familiar with mobile marketing -0.049
Using non-incentive based IMM will make me feel good Using non-incentive based IMM is pleasant
Page 109 of 116
7.13 Appendix 13 - Incentive based correlations (objective 4) Gen der Age I am an grou experip enced mobile user -0.1 -0.026 I am an early adopt er 0.049 I am familiar with mobile marketing 0.205
I would use incentive based IMM to learn about unknown things Incentive based IMM is a good way to research I would use incentive based IMM to learn about useful things I perceive incentive based IMM to be entertaining I would use incentive based IMM to pass time Incentive based IMM is enjoyable Incentive based IMM is a habit Incentive based IMM is irritating Incentive based IMM is distracting Incentive based IMM makes me feel anxious
0.244 -0.11 -0.001
0.167 -0.1 .292* -.34 4*
0.14 0.006 0.215 0.027 -0.05 0 0.119 0.033
0.268 0.066 0.146 0.193 0.051 0.041 -0.076 .312*
0.193 0.053 0.133 0.033 -0.087 -0.06 0.017 0.14
0.178 -0.1 0.171 0.09 0.157 -0.2 0.158 -0.2 0.034 -0.3
Using incentive based IMM 0.072 0.04 allows me to accomplish tasks more quickly I find incentive based IMM useful Incentive based IMM is easy to use Incentive based IMM is quick to use 0.029 0.02 0.2 -0.2
0.004 -0.035 0.1
0.133 0.03 0.056
0.119 -0.141 -0.003
Page 110 of 116
Using incentive based IMM will make me feel good Using incentive based IMM is pleasant
0.124 -0.1 .310* -0.2
Page 111 of 116
7.14 Appendix 14 - The research onion
(Saunders et al., 2009)
Page 112 of 116
7.15 Appendix 15 - SPSS screenshot
Page 113 of 116
7.16 Appendix 16 - Research ethics form
Status Date Approved
Researcher Details Name School Status Course / Research Centre Do you intend to apply for external funding to support this research project? Project Details Title
Philip Hudson Media School Undergraduate (BA, BSc) BA Marketing No
A multivariate explanatory study into the factors that affect consumers' attitudes, intentions and engagement with indirect mobile marketing. Proposed Start 28/02/2013 Date Proposed End 30/04/2013 Date Supervisor Carole Platt
Summary (including detail on background methodology, sample, outcomes, etc.) A multivariate explanatory study into the factors that affect consumers' attitudes, intentions and engagement with indirect mobile marketing.
External Ethics Review Research Literature Does your research require external review through the NHS National Research Ethics Service (NRES) or through another external Ethics Committee? No
Is your research solely literature based? Human Participants
Page 114 of 116
Will your research project involve interaction with human par- Yes ticipants as primary sources of data (e.g. interview, observation, original survey)?
Please give a summary of the ethical issues and any action that will be taken to address these. Explain how you will obtain informed consent (and from whom) and how you will inform the participant about the research project (i.e. participant information sheet). Anonymity Data storage Final Review Will you have access to personal data that allows you to iden- No tify individuals OR access to confidential corporate or company data (that is not covered by confidentiality terms within an agreement or by a separate confidentiality agreement)?
Will your research involve experimentation on any of the follow- No ing: animals, animal tissue, genetically modified organisms?
Will your research take place outside the UK (including any and No all stages of research: collection, storage, analysis, etc.)?
Please use the below text box to highlight any other ethical concerns or risks that may arise during your research that have not been covered in this form.
Page 115 of 116
7.17 Appendix 17 - Midpoint review form
To be completed & signed by Dissertation Supervisor & Student
Family name: HUDSON Programme Title: BAM
The Media School
First name: PHIL
Title: MOBILE MARKETING
The dissertation requires students to: 1. Define and apply an appropriate research topic and framework; Student has identified an appropriate research area or topic to be explored with a clearly defined argument, thesis or application of conceptual framework. Student making progress Little/no evidence of work Student making good but topic needs further or clarity of topic yet proprogress & is on target work vided
2. Critically analyse the findings; Student has demonstrated an understanding and ability to critically analyse, synthesise and evaluate the academic literature and/or research findings and/or primary or secondary research as appropriate. Student understands and Student needs to work/ Little/no evidence of abilis able to analyse literaread further on this but ity to critically analyse ture/ findings has some understanding literature/findings
3. Locate and evaluate the findings in the context of existing research and/or professional practice; Student has demonstrated an understanding and ability to derive academically rigorous conclusions that demonstrate a contribution to knowledge. Student understands and Student needs to work/ Little/no evidence of is able to derive rigorous read further on this but awareness of how work conclusions/contribute understands what is recontributes to knowledge to knowledge quired NA NA NA 4. Produce coherent, well-articulated and presented outcomes of the work. This will include producing, presenting and defending written work, artefacts or a verbal presentation as appropriate. Little/no evidence that Student well prepared Student aware of restudent is prepared or and able to deliver wellquirements but needs to able to deliver to required presented work work further on this standard NA NA NA
Overall Progress: Signed:
Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory (at risk of failing the dissertation) Supervisor: CPLATT Student: PH
Date of Review: 25/02/13 Supervisor to give completed signed form to Dissertation Unit Leader and supply the student with a copy if required