Mobile advertising: The influence of emotional attachment to mobile devices on consumer receptiveness

This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 04:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing CommunicationsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Mobile advertising: The influenceof emotional attachment to mobiledevices on consumer receptivenessAilsa Kolsaker a & Nikolaos Drakatos aa School of Management, University of Surrey, Guildford , UKPublished online: 10 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Ailsa Kolsaker & Nikolaos Drakatos (2009) Mobile advertising: The influenceof emotional attachment to mobile devices on consumer receptiveness, Journal of MarketingCommunications, 15:4, 267-280, DOI: 10.1080/13527260802479664

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260802479664

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13527260802479664

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260802479664

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Mobile advertising: The influence of emotional attachment to mobiledevices on consumer receptiveness

Ailsa Kolsaker* and Nikolaos Drakatos

School of Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Mobile advertising has grown rapidly over recent years, yet volume is not necessarily agood measure of consumer acceptance. Earlier studies have explored acceptance interms of content; here we focus on the communication medium, the mobile device.Building upon Vincent’s (2006) premise that emotional attachment to mobile phones isa likely key influence on future adoption of new services, we explore whether this holdstrue for mobile users’ receptiveness to mobile advertising. Our research reveals thatusers are emotionally attached to their mobile devices and that attachment is to a largedegree attributable to a sense that the device is an essential part of life with a value thatgoes beyond simple communication. Those with a strong sense of attachment are morereceptive to mobile adverts, however overall users generally find them irritating.It appears that advertisers have hitherto been insufficiently user-centric; responses areas important as the message yet there is a tendency to concentrate on what is being sentrather than how it is received. We conclude that consumer receptiveness might improveby targeting users who are strongly attached their mobile devices.

Keywords: mobile devices; emotional attachment; mobile advertising; consumerreceptiveness

Introduction

Widespread use of mobile devices, technological convergence, unbroken connectivity

and real-time interaction has encouraged the marketing industry to embrace wireless

technologies. Low cost and high penetration make mobile advertising attractive (Barwise

and Strong 2002) and advertisers have developed alerts, SMS, voice calls, MMS and

interactive video streaming to reach prospects and customers, often with personalised

messages. Strategy Analytics (2007) forecast that mobile advertising worldwide could be

worth $14.4 billion by 2011, accounting for one-fifth of Internet advertising expenditure.

Recently Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have acquired mobile advertising networks in a

quest to exploit new, potentially profitable communication channels. Adoption rates for

mobile video are increasing rapidly; US subscriptions have reached 8.4 million (Whitney

2007) and it is expected that as Third Generation (3G) technologies become more

widespread and image quality improves, interest will increase further.

In this paper we focus upon the relatively under-researched area of consumer

responses to mobile advertising. In contrast to earlier content-oriented studies, our

research focuses explicitly on the extent to which users’ attachment to their mobile device

influences receptiveness to mobile advertising. Earlier research indicates that permission-

based mobile adverts are more acceptable than others (Barwise and Strong 2002; Salo and

ISSN 1352-7266 print/ISSN 1466-4445 online

q 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13527260802479664

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Marketing Communications

Vol. 15, No. 4, September 2009, 267–280

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Tahtinen 2005), suggesting that users like to feel in control of the communication. This

may be due in part to the intensely personal nature of the mobile device which, unlike a

land-line, is not usually shared with others. To encourage opt-in companies are employing

an increasingly creative combination of push–pull advertising strategies. While both

innovative and entertaining, most campaigns are content-driven and success is measured

in terms of reach and behavioural outcomes; a short-term, somewhat myopic perspective

that is insufficiently cognisant of the consumers’ affective responses or the long-term

effect on brand equity.

Earlier research highlights the dangers of an over-enthusiastic focus on content; for

Taaffe (2007), companies face challenges in relation to technical quality, possible

intrusion and unsolicited messaging. For Cuneo (2007), too many companies cannot resist

the temptation to stream unsolicited adverts to mobile devices, suggesting that spam could

become a problem in the wireless environment. Mobile devices are intensely personal;

they are customised, always on and communication takes place in real time. While these

features offer advertisers new opportunities, they also present unique challenges in

relation to relevance, privacy and intrusion. The growth of mobile advertising suggests

that consumers are generally receptive, but currently the empirical evidence is insufficient

to judge whether growth is attributable to receptiveness or simply advertisers’ effectively

exploiting a new low-cost, mass-market channel. The objectives of this paper are to

increase understanding of the relationship between users and their mobile devices,

to ascertain whether this relationship influences user receptiveness to mobile adverts and

to consider the implications for the advertising industry.

Literature review

The existing literature on mobile advertising focuses mainly on how to improve consumer

acceptance. This is difficult to measure as metrics may be misinterpreted, for example,

recent UK data indicate that over 37% of mobile subscribers have received SMS adverts

(Wireless Week 2008), but whether these were welcome is not recorded. In this section we

review the (relatively limited) literature on users’ relationship with their mobile devices

and, from it, construct a framework for our research. We draw also upon recent research

on mobile advertising that underlines its importance to the future of marketing

communications.

Mobile devices have developed beyond simple telephonic communication to become

functionally sophisticated, ubiquitous and socially embedded. As a result users now

consider them indispensable and, as such, are becoming emotionally attached (Fox 2001;

Ellwood-Clayton 2003; Vincent and Harper 2003; Lasen 2004, 2005; Vincent 2005, 2006;

Vincent, Haddon, and Hamill 2005; Wehmeyer 2007). For many users, mobiles are an

extension of themselves (Hulme 2003; Lasen 2004; Vincent, Haddon, and Hamill 2005;

Wehmeyer 2007) to the extent that removal of the device is described as terrible (Vincent

and Harper 2003) and even ‘likened to the loss of a limb’ (Hulme 2003, 3). In a study by

Henley Management College (2003), almost half of 25–34-year-olds likened the loss of a

mobile to bereavement. According to Lasen (2004), the inability to use a mobile device as

and when desired causes feelings of misery. With this in mind, rather than focusing on the

volume of adverts pushed into wireless cyberspace, advertisers may benefit from

considering consumers’ reactions to receiving adverts on these intensely personal, ‘must

have’ devices.

The ability to keep in touch with family and friends when on the move, arranging and

rearranging appointments and communicating with ease is instrumental in creating an

268 A. Kolsaker and N. Drakatos

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

ongoing attachment to the mobile device (Vincent 2006). Users benefit from a reassuring

sense of not being alone even when geographically removed from their social network.

Some years ago Harlow and Zimmerman (1959) and Harlow and Harlow (1962) identified

the need that humans have for ‘contact comfort’, that is to say the feeling of belonging to a

group and being in touch with other human beings. This may be even more pertinent now;

in modern, fragmented societies dispersed social networks act increasingly as the focus for

emotional attachment (Vincent 2006). Mobile devices clearly have a role to play in

sustaining these ties. Keeping the device on provides a sense of being easily contactable

and easily able to contact others (Vincent 2005; Vincent, Haddon, and Hamill 2005).

In Vincent’s (2006) study, teenagers revealed that they would be lonely without a mobile

phone, highlighting the importance attributed to continuous contact with friends. Users are

able to act spontaneously and emotionally, whether spur-of-the-moment meetings or

emotive text messaging, and these attributes, in tandem with the ‘always on’ facility, are

crucial to the creating of emotional attachment. For Vincent and Harper (2003), some

users have a way of thinking and feeling about mobile devices strong enough to be

described as ‘highly charged’; anxiety can arise when the user is not connected. This may

occur even when the disconnection is temporary, such as running out of battery power or

being unable to answer the phone (Vincent and Harper 2003; Lasen 2004). An even

stronger emotional response is triggered when the network fails and anxiety turns to anger

(Vincent, Haddon, and Hamill 2005). Mobile devices may therefore be regarded as

distance mediators with a crucial role in reassuring users of their physical and

psychological security.

The second important strand of emotional attachment is using the mobile device to

manage one’s private and emotional life (Henley Management College 2003).

Increasingly sophisticated functionality means that many devices now serve as personal

organisers, not simply of directory or diary-type information, but of photographs, text

and video messages. Storage and communication functionality play crucial roles in

structuring and organising memories, work and social lives; emotional attachment

develops as users increasingly depend upon them in ways that are crucial to their lives

(Vincent and Harper 2003). In several studies, users declared that they simply could not

manage without their mobiles (Ellwood-Clayton 2003; Lasen 2005; Vincent 2005,

2006; Mintel Oxygen Report 2007).

The third component of emotional attachment identified in the literature is feeling part

of the modern world. For Fox (2001), possessing a mobile phone gives users a sense of

belonging to a group and being part of the scene. For Vincent and Harper (2003), it denotes

being ‘cool’. Of course, not all users are equally concerned about being modern and up-to-

date. The Henley (2003) study categorises users as ‘Connected but Unattached’ who use

devices mainly for calls and little else; ‘Prosthetics’ who remember life before mobile

devices and consider them to be an extension of self, used mainly for administration and

organising; and ‘Cyborgs’ who cannot imagine life without their mobile device. There is

some indication that older consumers fall into the first two categories while younger

generations are more likely to be Cyborgs, using their phones to communicate with each

other and, increasingly, with brands (Brand Republic 2006). Forty-six per cent of 25–34-

year-olds in the Henley (2003) study were classed as Cyborgs who claimed that they could

not function without their mobile phone, regarding them as essential (emphasis added) to

friendships, entertainment and even mental well-being. A further study identifies an

‘addictive’ use of mobile phones among 16–20-year-olds. For females, the addiction is

related to ‘trendy’ and ‘impulsive’ consumption styles while for males it is driven by

enthusiasm for technology (Wilska 2003). For some users the mobile device (which for many

Journal of Marketing Communications 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

must be fashionable as well as functional) transcends simple communication to become an

element of what binds them both to each other and to current narratives of modernity.

Finally, personalisation is an indication of the particularly emotional character of the

users’ attitudes towards their mobile devices (Vincent and Harper 2003). Users are

attached to what their mobile devices offer because they contain a wealth of personal,

unique and highly valued information. Users fear losing their mobile devices because

much of the information stored on them would be difficult to replace (Vincent 2005). It is

not only information that is personalised; users customise their mobile devices by

downloading ringtones, wallpaper, screen savers and games that provide pleasure and

entertainment. The device becomes a highly customised, intensely personal, valued piece

of kit in its own right. In contrast to the communication functionality where the device

serves as a conduit for person-to-person communication, in the entertainment and pleasure

mode the emotional attachment occurs between the user and the device (Vincent 2005).

Exclusive value to the individual, whether through information or entertainment,

customisation and personal ownership are essential elements of personalisation,

engendering feelings of emotional attachment.

Against this background of user attachment, we now consider consumer reaction to

mobile advertising. Although activity is increasing rapidly, there is evidence of mixed

responses (Tsang, Ho, and Liang 2004; Parry 2007). A study of European consumers

indicates that 43% consider it positive (InterQuest and Mobile Marketing Association in

Leppaniemi and Karjaluoto 2005). Further research (HPI Research in Leppaniemi and

Karjaluoto 2005) indicates that those aged between 16–45 years old welcome it,

particularly where incentives are offered. In a UK study 50% of the sample were happy to

receive adverts on their mobiles (Taaffe 2007). Other studies suggest varying levels of

receptiveness in different countries and between age groups (Dickinger et al. 2004;

McCormick 2008). Acceptance appears to be influenced by opt-in (Leppaniemi and

Karjaluoto 2005; Barnes and Scornavacca 2008); incentives (Tsang, Ho, and Liang 2004;

Grant and O’Donohoe 2007; Taaffe 2007; Judge 2008); informative content (Carroll et al.

2007; Grant and O’Donohoe 2007; Ranchhod 2007); credibility (Tsang, Ho, and Liang

2004; Haghirian and Inoue 2007); and privacy (Leppaniemi and Karjaluoto 2005; Grant

and O’Donohoe 2007; Barnes and Scornavacca 2008). Clearly, for mobile adverts to be

welcomed, they must offer a clear value proposition to the receiver. Thus, tempting though

it may be to exploit new technology to increase the reach and frequency of adverts,

advertisers need to be user-centric. For Yuan and Tsao (2003) audiences should be

segmented according to consumer interests, needs and activities. In aggregate, the

evidence is somewhat mixed and suggests opportunities for further improvement in

consumer acceptance.

Research methodology

The key elements of emotional attachment identified in earlier literature provide the

framework for our research. Starting with Vincent’s (2005) prediction that emotional

responses to mobile devices are likely to be a key influence on future adoption of new

services, we seek to answer the following research questions:

. What is the level of users’ emotional attachment to mobile devices?

. What is the key driver of emotional attachment?

. Is attachment related to user perceptions of benefits of mobile advertising?

. How influential is attachment in user receptiveness to mobile advertising?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Hypothesis 1 is concerned with exposing the key driver of emotional attachment. In testing

the hypothesis we also ascertain the level of user attachment. Based on the literature we

posit that:

H1: The ability to stay in touch with family and friends is the most influential factor in

users’ emotional attachment to their mobile device.

The second hypothesis seeks to expose whether emotional attachment is related to users’

perceptions of the benefits of mobile advertising:

H2: There is a relationship between the strength of emotional attachment to the mobile

device and perceived benefits of mobile advertising.

Finally, the third hypothesis explores whether strength of attachment is related to

receptiveness to mobile adverts:


device and receptiveness to mobile adverts.

In the absence of a readily available sampling frame this research utilises snowball

sampling to reach mobile phone owners between the ages of 18–44 with an email account,

accessible to a researcher based at the University of Surrey. Data protection legislation

prevented access to a publicly recognised, pre-validated sampling frame, however as

mobile penetration rates exceed 100% in many European countries, and the UK rate has

reached 110%, it was thought likely that e-mail distribution of a quantitative instrument

would easily reach individuals in the research population. Though the limitations of

snowballing are well rehearsed, it has advantages in terms of response rate. Additionally,

the sampling technique was considered appropriate as a pragmatic, expeditious approach

to an exploratory study in a new field. It was estimated that the survey would reach

300–400 people, which again was accepted as reasonable for this type of study. The

instrument was hosted at the university, with emails containing a hyperlink to the host site.

The research instrument contained three parts: Part I comprised items measuring users’

attachment to mobile devices. This section contained the four factors identified in the

literature as comprising emotional attachment: communication; self-management;

belonging to the modern world; and personalisation. Items were developed to test each

construct since there exists no pre-tested and validated instrument to measure emotional

attachment to mobile devices. Part II measured users’ appreciation of the benefits of mobile

advertising; and Part III measured users’ receptiveness to mobile adverts. Each construct

comprised between 10 and 12 items and all items were measured using a five-point Likert

scale, where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree. In addition, users were asked

about ownership of mobile devices, what type of device they owned, what they used it for

and how often they use it. Mobile advertising was defined as either SMS or MMS messages;

there was no attempt to distinguish between different kinds of adverts in this research.

Initial pilot testing utilising responses from those involved in the first round of

snowballing indicated that some revisions were necessary to improve instrument

reliability, so items were removed and replaced as required to create robust constructs.

Further piloting produced Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of a. 0.7 in each case indicating

acceptable reliability and suitability to be applied for further inferential analysis. Of the

300 emails sent, after follow-up reminders, 243 questionnaires were completed, a response

rate of 81% (confirming the benefit of snowball sampling). Though quota sampling was

not employed, gender distribution is surprisingly balanced; 51% female, 49%

male. The sample contains relatively few in older age groups; only 18% aged over 36


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

(a potential disadvantage of snowball sampling), while 82% are aged 35 or under, with

40% of the total sample aged 18–25.

All those sampled own a mobile device: 44% own more than one and 35% own a 3G

phone. The majority of respondents (55%) use their mobile device for less than eight hours

per week, and a minority are heavy users (12% use it for over 26 hours per week).

Following the categories employed in the Henley (2003) study we asked users to declare

their level of attachment to their mobile device (although the Henley nomenclature was

not employed in the instrument). On the basis of their self-declaration, respondents were

divided into the three categories: Connected but Unattached, Prosthetics and Cyborgs by

taking the total ‘attachment’ values from the five-point Likert scale and re-coding them to

populate the three categories. Totals ranging from 5 to 11 were included in value ‘1’,

Connected but Unattached; 12 to 18 were recoded as ‘2’, Prosthetics; and 19 to 25 coded

‘3’, Cyborgs. Employing this method, 20% of the sample were categorised as Connected

but Unattached, 34% as Prosthetics and 45% as Cyborgs. Our sample therefore contains a

relatively high proportion of users who declare themselves strongly emotionally attached

to their mobile device. This is reflected in the fact that 75% claim an interest in

technological innovation, with just over half describing it as ‘fascinating’. Overall, the

profile of users in our study suggests that many are technophiles; given the self-selecting

nature of the sampling methodology this is not entirely unexpected.

Interestingly, although mobile advertising is a relatively recent phenomenon almost all

(236 participants) have received them. When asked whether they find them irritating,

62.6% either agree or strongly agree. When asked whether they are useful, 60% either

disagree or strongly disagree. These initial descriptives suggest a general lack of

enthusiasm and irritation over mobile advertising. Initial analysis of the descriptive

statistics produced by the data was then followed by hypothesis testing.

H1: The ability to stay in touch with family and friends is the most influential factor in

users’ emotional attachment to their mobile device.

Descriptive statistics indicate that users in our sample are moderately attached to their

mobile devices (mean 3.27, SD 1.06). As anticipated, we found that they value the ability

to keep in touch easily with friends and family (mean 4.0, SD .938). Initial analysis using

descriptive statistics also indicates that users regard mobile devices as crucial to their daily

lives (mean 4.0, SD .913). In testing H1 however, our interest lay specifically in measuring

the strength of relationships between the four independent variables and the dependent

variable, emotional attachment. Table 1 presents the results of correlation analysis; for

reasons of interest and expediency only relationships where the correlation coefficient

r . .30 are included in the table (weaker relationships are excluded).

Table 1. Relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable, emotionalattachment to mobile device.

AttachmentPersonal

relationship Part of lifeKeep

in touch Customised

Attachment 1 .536 .613 .461 .351Personal relationship 1 .508 .421 .335Part of life 1 .493 .398Keep in touch 1 –Customised 1

All correlations are significant at the .01 level (2 tailed).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

We then sought to identify which independent variable best predicts emotional

attachment using linear regression. Adjusted R2 was calculated to .452, F(5, 230) ¼

39.745, p , .05.

Correlation and regression analysis reveal a strong, statistically significant relationship

between users regarding mobile devices as an essential part of life and emotional

attachment. As such, they are clearly well established and socially embedded.

Additionally, there is a reasonably strong, statistically significant relationship between

having a personal relationship with the mobile device, in which it is valued for its own

sake rather than as a conduit for communication, and attachment. That these two variables

are most strongly related to emotional attachment indicates the centrality of mobile

devices to users’ lives, going beyond a simple appreciation of their value as a vehicle for

keeping in touch. It may be that the strength of these relationships reflects the interest that

our sample group has in technology (bearing in mind that all own at least one mobile

device, one-third (34.6%) own a 3G phone, over half (51.5%) indicated that they find

technology fascinating and over three-quarters (77.5%) are interested in technological

innovation). The ability to keep in touch with family and friends is also valued however;

Table 2 indicates a moderately strong, statistically significant relationship between this

and emotional attachment. The weakest of the four relationships is between the

personalisation of one’s mobile device and emotional attachment; that is not to say that it

is unimportant however, simply that it is not as strongly related to attachment as the other

variables. On this basis, we conclude that H1 is not supported; our research finds that

emotional attachment to mobile devices goes beyond simple communication to a more

fundamental dependence.


device and perceived benefits of mobile advertising.

Descriptive statistics indicate that users generally do not appear particularly appreciative

of the benefits of mobile advertising (mean 2.68, SD .996) even though there is moderate

agreement that it is the new age of advertising (mean 3.25, SD 1.05). To explore the

potential benefits the instrument contained a series of items such as increasing product

awareness and knowledge, facilitating relationships between companies and customers,

facilitating interactive communication, as well as level of interest in acquiring a device

that can receive adverts and in engaging with companies in this way. Table 3 shows

relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable, mobile

Table 2. Factors affecting emotional attachment to mobile device.

Coefficientsa

Unstandardisedcoefficients

Standardisedcoefficients

Model B Std error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) .401 .258 1.558 .120Part of life .331 .059 .352 5.612 .000Customised .080 .059 .072 1.357 .176Close contact family/friends .176 .064 .157 2.754 .006Personal relationship

with mobile device.265 .057 .276 4.665 .000

a Dependent variable: attached to the mobile device.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

advertising is a positive development overall; once again for reasons of interest and

expediency only those relationships where the correlation coefficient r . .30 are shown

(weaker relationships are excluded).

Table 3 indicates that users perceive relatively few benefits, however those that

acknowledge benefit relate to the advertisement helping to improve product awareness and

product knowledge and helping to build ongoing relationships between consumers and

companies. There is a relatively weak relationship between the facilitation of interactive

communication between companies and consumers and positive perceptions of mobile

advertising. It is apparent from these results that our users do not envisage much dialogue

with mobile advertisers; rather their expectations are that messages will be one-way and

packed with product information.

Having established the level and drivers of emotional attachment to mobile devices

and perceived potential benefits of mobile advertising we then tested H2 by sub-dividing

the sample into three groups: Cyborgs, Prosthetics and Connected but Unattached. Initial

scanning of the descriptive statistics suggested that differences might exist between those

with strong and weak emotional attachment to their mobile devices (there were no

significant differences between the Prosthetics and either of the other groups in relation to

any item). ANOVA testing initially revealed differences between the three groups; this

was then followed by a series of independent t-tests, which revealed differences between

the Cyborgs and Connected but Unattached groups in relation to each of the perceived

benefits, with the exception of ‘facilitates interactive communication’ (as intimated, users

do not expect interaction).

Differences were found between Cyborgs and Connected but Unattached users in

relation to the following: increasing product awareness, t (148) 3.227, p , .05; increasing

product knowledge, t (149) 3.657, p , .05; and improving relationships between

companies and consumers, t (150) 2.762, p , .05. We also identified differences between

these two groups of users regarding their attitude towards mobile advertising (whether

they see it as a positive development overall), t (151) 3.073, p , .05, and their perception

of mobile adverts as the dawn of a new age of advertising, t (148) 367, p , .05. On this

basis H2 is supported; users who have strong emotional attachment to their mobile devices

do perceive greater potential benefits than those with weak emotional attachment.


device and receptiveness to mobile adverts.

We then sought to measure users’ level of receptiveness to mobile advertising. Descriptives

indicate a relatively low level of receptiveness (mean 2.28, SD 1.079). To explore what

factors influence receptiveness the instrument included items about proactively buying

Table 3. Perceived benefits of mobile advertising.

PA PK IC B2C PD

Improve product awareness 1 .805 .336 .478 .567Improve product knowledge 1 .349 .463 .594Interactive communication 1 .345 .383Improve B2C relations 1 .511Positive development overall 1

All correlations are significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).Note: PA ¼ Product Awareness, PK ¼ Product Knowledge, IC ¼ Interactive Communication, B2C ¼ ImproveBusiness to Consumer Relations, PD ¼ Positive Development.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

a device that can receive mobile adverts, using m-adverts for information acquisition,

looking for special offers, facilitating product recall, being interrupted by mobile adverts

and feeling that one’s personal space is being invaded.

Table 4 shows relationships between items. For interest and expediency only those

relationships where the correlation coefficient r . .30 are included in the table (weaker

relationships are not shown).

Table 4 indicates that receptiveness to mobile adverts is related most strongly to

specifically buying a phone that can receive them, followed by receiving adverts to

improve product awareness, knowledge and recall, and replying to special promotions.

All other correlations were weaker than r ¼ .30 and have been excluded from further

analysis.

H3 was tested by sub-dividing the sample into three groups according to strength of

emotional attachment. Initial scanning of the descriptive statistics suggested that

differences might exist between those with strong and weak emotional attachment to their

mobile devices. ANOVA testing initially revealed differences in relation to four items; this

was followed by a series of independent t-tests, which revealed differences between the

Cyborgs and Connected but Unattached groups in relation to: product recall, t (147) 2.994,

p , .05; wish to take advantage of mobile adverts, t (148) 4.327, p , .05; and would buy

a phone specifically that could receive mobile adverts, t (151) 3.504, p , .05. Further,

ANOVA testing revealed differences between all three groups in relation to willingness to

receiving mobile adverts for the purposes of special offers, F (228) 4.314, p , .05.

Having identified differences between the three categories of mobile users in relation to

four of the items, H3 is supported tentatively. There is a general lack of enthusiasm

overall, but users in the Cyborg group do seem more receptive to mobile adverts than

other users.

Discussion

The research reported in this paper suggests that mobile devices have become embedded in

the daily routines of modern-day consumers. All users in our study own at least one, over

one-third of which incorporate 3G technology. The enthusiasm for mobile technologies

and the social embedding exposed in our research make mobile technologies potentially

extremely valuable to advertisers.

The descriptive statistics indicate that users in our research value two aspects of mobile

technology: the ability to stay in touch with family and friends and the way that mobile

devices users organise and function in their daily life. The importance of keeping in touch

Table 4. Receptiveness to mobile advertising (MA).

TA BP PA PK PR SP IPS

Like to take advantage of MA 1 .702 .516 .510 .539 .337 2 .356Would buy phone to receive MA 1 .529 .524 .619 .319 2 .408Would use to improve awareness 1 .805 .503 .397 2 .301Would use to improve knowledge 1 .549 .435 2 .357Would use for product recall 1 .404 2 .468Would use for special promotions 1 –Invasion of personal space 1

All correlations are significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).Note: TA ¼ Take Advantage, BP ¼ Buy Phone, PA ¼ Product Awareness, PK ¼ Product Knowledge,PR ¼ Product Recall, SP ¼ Special Promotions, IPS ¼ Invasion of Personal Space.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

is unsurprising; earlier work by Vincent (2005, 2006) also identified this as crucial to

users’ perceptions of the value of mobile devices. Interestingly, when measured against

other drivers of emotional attachment, keeping in touch is surpassed by two other factors: a

sense of a personal relationship with the device and the device as an inherent component of

daily living. Earlier research (Vincent and Harper 2003) suggests that users are depending

increasingly on mobile devices, and our study supports this finding. Information storage

(in both short and multi-media format), personal organiser functionality, diary, auto-

reminder and web-surfing facilities are typical of the extended functionality of the latest

devices. It may be that as capacity and functionality increases, users’ reliance upon their

mobile devices will continue to grow. As the market matures and technology becomes

more sophisticated, basic communication functionality simply becomes a ‘must have’

facility; users value the ability to keep in touch easily with family and friends, but this

attribute makes a relatively minor contribution to emotional attachment.

Current findings indicate that emotional attachment does play a role in user

perceptions of mobile advertising and receptiveness to mobile adverts. This needs to be

contextualised however, with an acknowledgement that overall there is only a moderate

appreciation of benefits and rather lukewarm receptiveness. This echoes earlier studies

that suggest that users are less enthusiastic than advertisers (Tsang, Ho, and Liang 2004;

Parry 2007). It would be erroneous to conclude that users with strong emotional

attachment to their mobile devices are enthusiastic about mobile advertising; rather, the

findings indicate that there is a relatively warmer response. A possible explanation for the

general lack of enthusiasm may be the relatively short attention span of mobile users;

messages have to be clear to be effective. Further, some technical functionality and

connectivity problems have yet to be resolved and if receivers of mobile adverts have to

download content, until they are certain that adverts offer overt value and cost nothing to

receive they may well be largely disinterested. Another explanation may be that because of

the emotional attachment to mobile devices identified in this study, users may resent

invasion of their ‘personal space’. Even where the communication is permission-based,

one may envisage that users wish to retain a sense of personal control, such that push

strategies are unlikely to succeed over the longer term. Unless sufficient attention is given

to the form, content and timing of mobile adverts, users are likely to remain rather half-

hearted about mobile adverts, regarding them as an irritant rather than a decision-aid.

Nonetheless, despite user misgivings, there is some evidence in our research that those

with stronger emotional attachment are more likely than others to be receptive to mobile

adverts. Advertisers therefore need to understand what these users would be interested in

and willing to receive. Information to raise product awareness and product knowledge

seem to be high on the Cyborg’s priority list, offering opportunities for information

dissemination and interactive communication with consumers. It is interesting that,

despite enthusiasm among network operators and advertisers for increased use of mobile

advertising, thus far little has been done to exploit the functionality of the new medium to

profile users, offer personalised messages, implement user recognition or Customer

Relationship Management (CRM). Message content is of prime importance in this regard

and although we have not specifically examined this in our research, our findings imply

support of Merisavo et al.’s (2007) observation about the importance of relevant content.

Conclusion

The starting point of this study was to explore the role of emotional attachment to

mobile devices in consumer responses to mobile advertising. Whereas earlier literature


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

identified the role of relevance, opt-in and incentives in consumer acceptance, we focus

specifically on the conduit of the communication, the mobile device. It is commonly

accepted that users have an attachment to their mobile devices that transcends simple

communication, and as functionality improves mobile devices are becoming

increasingly core to everyday modern living. Our interest lies specifically in

ascertaining whether this emotional attachment might in some way influence users’

perceptions of and receptiveness to mobile advertising. The findings of this exploratory

study suggest that it does.

Users in this research are generally unenthusiastic about mobile adverts; almost all

have received adverts on their mobile devices. We find that mobile devices are socially

embedded such that users generally rely on them not only for communication, but for self-

organisation and entertainment. As such, they are valued for their own sake, not just as a

vehicle for communication. Advertisers need to acknowledge and respect this, ensuring

that users are not bombarded with messages. Since user dependence is high, it is

inappropriate to over-exploit the medium with commercial messages (analogous to

accosting shoppers as they browse the High Street). Advertisers will have to become more

sophisticated in user profiling and in the reach and frequency of their messaging. This

study identifies that user attachment to their mobile device is related to recognising

benefits of, and receptiveness to, mobile advertising. Those who exploit modern,

networked technologies for advertising need to move beyond the traditional one-step

models of communications to recognise the increasingly important role played by those

receiving (and forwarding) messages. Currently, as the users in our study suggest, many

mobile adverts are one-way, unsolicited and, therefore, irritating. Multi-stage

communication theories (that have been around for some time) provide a framework for

communication design in the modern, networked age. Advertisers are challenged to

redesign their advertising strategies to take account of, and exploit, the dynamics of multi-

way, multi-stage, dialogic exchanges. It is simply inadequate to revert to traditional, linear

models; the wireless web provides opportunities for new, partnership-based relations.

Interactional and relational approaches are required that optimise the networked

characteristics of mobile technologies. Advertisers need to harness viral marketing,

opinion leaders, word-of-mouth recommendations and exploit to the full the potential of

the mobile context to add humour, pleasure and entertainment to marketing messages.

Our research suggests that those who are emotionally attached to their mobile device

will react positively to such initiatives, provided they feel they are contributing rather than

merely receiving communications intended to trigger a buying response. They wish to

receive information about products and services and to become more involved with the

companies with whom they deal. Marketers have long promised better engagement with

consumers, but few companies actually deliver. The Cyborgs in our study are willing to

receive mobile adverts, but this will not last long if they are simply bombarded with

messages about discounts and special promotions. The current supplier-led approach in

which the needs and wants of the consumers are largely ignored simply will become

unsustainable in the long term.

The implications of our study for advertisers are clear. The mobile phone market is

mature and users generally feel moderately attached to their handsets. Social embedding

means that the mobile device is potentially of some value (to companies) for location-

based product promotion. On the whole users can see that mobile adverts might be of some

minor benefit, but remain generally unconvinced of their overall value. Cyborgs are the

most receptive, indicating that advertisers should target this group in the first instance. If

the Prosthetics and Connected but Unattached groups of users are to become involved,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

then they will need a very clear value proposition that suits their needs such that they

discern clear benefits in opting in. Overall our research demonstrates a high level of

dependence on mobile devices, so companies may be able to improve receptiveness to

mobile adverts by in some way reflecting the social embeddedness of mobile advertising in

their messages, highlighting its benefits in raising product knowledge for busy people who

use their device for the daily management of their life.

Benefits and value must be communicated in consumers’ terms using a differentiated

strategy. Our findings indicate differences in emotional attachment. Differentiated, well-

targeted strategies are essential. Unambiguous, customised messages that highlight the

benefits that are important to different user groups are essential. Opt-in and message

relevance are absolutely crucial. In all cases, given the nature of the medium,

communications must be focused, ‘catchy’ and pointed; users on the move spend only

seconds looking at messages so the challenge for the industry is to marry useful

information with short, simple communications that are meaningful to the receiver. If the

study reported in this paper is indicative of general responses, it is imperative that

advertisers must become more customer-centric. They need to understand consumer

needs, the benefits sought from mobile adverts, irritants and how technology can be

exploited to develop constructive, interactive communications that enhance relationships

between companies and consumers.

We acknowledge that our study has a number of limitations. The survey group appears

to contain a high proportion of technophiles, so the findings may not be generalisable to

users of mobile devices at large. In addition, we have not sought to distinguish between

different types of mobile adverts such that our respondents might be using different frames

of reference. In the absence of a sampling frame our sampling methodology was not

completely random, possibly impacting upon the representativeness of the sample group

and generalisability of the findings. That stated, this exploratory study exposes the role of

emotional attachment in user perceptions of and receptiveness to mobile advertising and,

as such, adds to the small, but growing body of knowledge in this field. We call for further

research into consumers’ attitudes towards mobile adverts, looking specifically at how

advertisers might exploit our growing knowledge about users’ emotional attachment to

improve mobile advertising to the mutual benefit of companies and consumers. We call

also for company-led research into how emerging wireless technologies might be

exploited to block spam and reduce the irritation caused by unsolicited adverts on mobile

devices. This is important in an immature market where word of mouth can damage new

initiatives before they become well established. Companies need to become much more

user-centric and cognisant of consumers’ affective responses to their advertising messages

in the dynamic, wireless arena.

Notes on contributors

Ailsa Kolsaker holds a BSc (1983), MBA (1996) and PhD (2007) in Business, Planning andMarketing disciplines. Currently she is appointed as Lecturer in Marketing, Technology-EnabledMarketing and Electronic Business at the postgraduate School of Management, University of Surrey.Her research interests focus on the application of emergent wireless technologies to marketingoperations and optimising the exploitation of information and communication technologies (ICT) inmarketing contexts.

Nikolaos Drakatos holds an MSc (1997) in Marketing Management. He is an associate researcher atthe postgraduate School of Management, University of Surrey. Currently he is involved in mobilemarketing, focusing on how to combine marketing strategies and wireless technologies to deliverdynamic, real-time content across a variety of multi-media channels.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

References

Barnes, S., and E. Scornavacca. 2008. Uncovering patterns in mobile advertising opt-in behaviour:A decision hierarchy approach. International Journal of Mobile Communications 6, no.4: 405–16.

Barwise, P., and C. Strong. 2002. Permission-based mobile advertising. Journal of InteractiveMarketing 16, no. 1: 14–24.

Brand Republic. 2006. Over 50% of young people use mobile to interact with brands, 4 May. http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/digital/article/557547/over-50-young-people-use-mobile-interact-brands.

Carroll, A., S. Barnes, E. Scornavacca, and K. Fletcher. 2007. Consumer perceptions and attitudestowards SMS advertising: Recent evidence from New Zealand. International Journal ofAdvertising 26, no. 1: 79–98.

Cuneo, A. 2007. HP’s media chief: Why mobile ads don’t cut it. Advertising Age 78, no. 32.Dickinger, A., P. Haghirian, J. Murphy, and A. Schral. 2004. An investigation and conceptual model

of SMS marketing. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on SystemSciences, Big Island, Hawaii, January.

Ellwood-Clayton, B. 2003. Virtual strangers: Young love and texting in the Filipino archipelago ofcyberspace. In Mobile democracy: Essays on society, self and politics, ed. K. Nyıri, 225–35.Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Fox, K. 2001. Evolution, alienation and gossip: The role of mobile telecommunications in the 21stcentury. Social Issues Research Centre. http://www.sirc.org/publik/gossip.shtml.

Grant, I., and S. O’Donohoe. 2007. Why young consumers are not open to mobile marketingcommunication. International Journal of Advertising 26, no. 2: 223–46.

Haghirian, P., and A. Inoue. 2007. An advanced model of consumer attitudes toward advertising onthe mobile internet. International Journal of Mobile Communications 5, no. 1: 48–67.

Harlow, H.F., and M.K. Harlow. 1962. Social deprivation in monkeys. Sci. Am. 207: 136–46.Harlow, H.F., and R.R. Zimmerman. 1959. Affectional responses in the infant monkey. Science 130:

421–32.Henley Management College. 2003. People discover the joy of text. Summit (no. 8), http://www.

henleymc.ac.uk/henleymc03.nsf/files/SummitIssue8.pdf/$FILE/SummitIssue8.pdf (accessedAugust 18, 2008).

Hulme, M. 2003. Me, my phone and I. Michael Hulme. http://www.michaelhulme.co.uk/papers.html.

Judge, E. 2008. Free calls with adverts attract young mobile users. Times Online, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3300923.ece (accessed February4, 2008).

Lasen, A. 2004. Affective technologies – emotions and mobile phones. Receiver Magazine –Connecting to the Future. http://www.vodafone.com/flash/receiver/11/articles/pdf/11_03.pdf(accessed August 18, 2008).

Lasen, A. 2005. History repeating? A comparison of the launch and uses of fixed and mobile phones.In Mobile world: Past, present and future, ed. L. Hamill and A. Lasen, 29–60. Springer.

Leppaniemi, M., and H. Karjaluoto. 2005. Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to acceptmobile advertising: A conceptual model. International Journal of Mobile Communications 3,no. 3: 197–213.

McCormick, A. 2008. Survey shows UK consumers cool on mobile advertising. Media Week, www.brandrepublic.com/MediaWeek/News/778215/Survey-shows-UK-consumers-cool-mobile-advertising (accessed August 16, 2008).

Merisavo, M., S. Kajalo, H. Karjaluoto, V. Virtanen, S. Salmenkivi, M. Raulas, and M. Leppaniemi.2007. An empirical study of the drivers of consumer acceptance of mobile advertising. Journalof Interactive Advertising 7, no. 2: 1–18.

Mintel Oxygen Report. 2007. Telecoms retailing, UK (May). http://oxygenacademic.mintel.com/sinatra/oxygen_academic//display/&id¼220262 (accessed August 16, 2008).

Parry, C. 2007. Redemption is in your hands. Marketing Week 30, no. 33: 33.Ranchhod, A. 2007. Developing mobile marketing strategies. International Journal of Mobile

Marketing 2, no. 1: 76–83.Salo, J., and J. Tahtinen. 2005. Retailer use of permission-based advertising. In Advances in

electronic marketing, ed. I. Clark and T.B. Flaherty, 139–155. New York: Hershey.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Strategy Analytics. 2007. Mobile advertising update: Outlook bright as inventory expands (May).http://www.strategyanalytics.net/default.aspx?mod¼ReportAbstractViewer&a0¼3421(accessed August 16, 2008).

Taaffe, J. 2007. Getting the message across. Total Telecom Magazine, June: 8.Tsang, M.-L., S.C. Ho, and T.P Liang. 2004. Consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising: An

empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8, no. 3: 65–79.Vincent, J. 2005. Emotional attachment to mobile phones. In Thumb culture. The meaning of mobile

phones in society, ed. P. Glotz, S. Bertschi, and C. Locke, pp. 95–104. Transcript, Bielefeld.———. 2006. Emotional attachment and mobile phones. In Thumb culture: The meaning of mobile

phones for society, ed. S. Bertschi and P. Glotz, 117–22. Transcript Verlag/Transaction US.Vincent, J., L. Haddon, and L. Hamill. 2005. The influence of mobile phone users on the design of

3G products and services. Journal of the Communications Network 4, no. 4: 69–73.Vincent, J., and R. Harper. 2003. The social shaping of UMTS: Preparing the 3G customer. UMTS

Forum Report Number 26. http://www.umts-forum.org/content/view/1522/110 (accessedAugust 18, 2008).

Wehmeyer, K. 2007. Assessing users’ attachment to their mobile devices. Proceedings of the SixthInternational Conference on the Management of Mobile Business, IEEE Computer Society,Toronto, Ontario, Canada. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4278534/4278535/04278560.pdf?isnumber¼ 4278535&prod¼CNF&arnumber¼4278560&arSt¼16&ared¼16&arAuthor¼Wehmeyer%2CþKai (accessed August 16, 2008).

Whitney, D. 2007. CBS pours bucks in mobile ad deals. TVWeek (August), http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/08/cbs_pours_bucks_into_mobile_ad.php (accessed August 17, 2008).

Wilska, T.-A. 2003. Mobile phone use as part of young people’s consumption. Journal of ConsumerPolicy 26, no. 4: 441–63.

Wireless Week. 2008. Working out the kinks. March 15: 20–1.Yuan, S.T., and Y.W. Tsao. 2003. A recommendation mechanism for contextualised mobile

advertising. Expert Systems with Applications 24: 399–414.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Mobile advertising: The influence of emotional attachment to mobile devices on consumer receptiveness