IJMM Comparative Study Published

8/7/2019 IJMM Comparative Study Published

1/18


2/18

IJMMSummer2010,Vol.5No.1

61

Reichardt,&Neumann,2005),theUnitedStates(e.g.,

Muk and Babin, 2006; Peters, Amato& Hollenback,

2007; Hanley & Becker, 2008; Jung, Lee, Sung, &

Leckenby,2008,Vatanparast&Butt,2009),andChina

(e.g.,Peng&Spencer,2006;Xu,2006;Wong&Tang,

2008; Shen & Chen, 2008; Zhang & Mao, 2008).

However,onlyafewinvestigatethesubjectinacross

cultural context (e.g. Rohm & Sultan, 2006; Choi,

Hwang, &McMillan, 2008; Haghirian, Madlberger &

Inoue, 2008), and limited academic research has

testedaconceptualmodelofconsumeracceptanceof

mobileadvertisingintheUnitedStatesandChina.

Of particular interest to this studyishowyoung

consumers,withtheirembraceof mobiledevices for

communicationandentertainmentpurposes,respond

tomobile advertising in the comparative context of

Chinaand the United States.Onemajorgoal ofthis

researchistoexaminethedeterminantsofAmerican

andChineseyoung consumersacceptanceofmobile

advertisements, and compare their differences and

similarities. Considering their current enormous

spendingpowerandfuturepurchasingpotentials,itis

valuable to study determinants of American and

Chinese young consumers acceptance of mobile

advertising.Moreover,giventhedifferencesinmarket

structure and environments in the two countries, it

willalsobeinterestingto lookfurtherintothesimilar

negative attitudes toward mobile advertising among

young consumers. To that end, wewill address the

following questions. What drives American and


advertising?Whatbenefitsdotheythinktheycanget

from mobile advertising? What concerns them? Is

consumeracceptanceabarrierforthedevelopmentofthemobile advertisingbusiness in the United States

and China? Finally, what differences and similarities

exist in factors predicting American and Chinese

consumers acceptance of mobile advertising? Can

theybeexplainedbyculture,economicdevelopment

andregulation?

Toanswerthesequestions,weconductedsurveys

intheUnitedStatesandChinatoempiricallytestthe

structural model ofmobile advertisingdevelopedby

Merisavo, Kajalo, Karjaluoto, Virtanen, Salmenkivi,

Raulas and Leppniemi (2007) in which five factors

(utility, context, control, sacrifice and trust) predict

consumer acceptance of mobile advertising. We

assume that in spite of the cultural, economic and

regulatory differences between the two countries,

youngconsumersinChinaandtheUnitedStatestend

to exhibit analogous reactions tomobile advertising,

because, as quick adopters of new mobile devices,

theyhavebecomesimilarinperceptionsandbehavior

regardingnewcommunicationtechnologies.

LITERATUREREVIEW

The Theory of ReasonedAction (TRA) has been

appliedandvalidateddirectlyorindirectlybyprevious

studies about consumer acceptance of mobile

advertising(e.g.Tsang,Ho,&Liang,2004;Baueretal.,

2005;Lee,Tsai,& Jih,2006;Xu,2006;Wong&Tang,

2008;Zhang&Mao,2008).Therefore,Ajzens(1985,

1988) Theory of Planned Behavior (the TPB), which

originatesfromtheTRAandhasabroaderscope,will

be adopted as our theoretical framework to help

explaintheconceptualmodel.

TheTPBpostulatesthatconsumersintentionsto

performbehaviorsofdifferentkindscanbepredicted

with high accuracy from attitudes toward the

behavior,subjectivenorms,andperceivedbehavioral

control. In other words, consumers behavioral

intentions and behaviors are guided by behavioral

beliefs(beliefsaboutthelikelyconsequencesofthebehavior),

normativebeliefs(beliefsaboutthenormativeexpectationsofothers) and control beliefs (beliefs about the presence of

factors thatmay facilitate or impede performance of the

behavior).TheTPBmodelisshownasfollows(Ajzen,1991):


3/18


62

Marketingresearchhasidentifiedanumberoffactors

affectingconsumer acceptanceofmobile advertising

that can be categorized into three areas: industry,

medium and consumer (Hanley & Becker, 2008).

Industryfactorsincludetechnology(devices,networks

and standards), transmission time, complexity, the

increaseduseandadoptionbypractitioners,easeof

use, compatibility, personalization, wireless service

providercontrol, government regulationandindustry

guidelines (Krishnamurthy, 2001; Leppniemi &

Karjaluoto,2005;Wu&Wang,2004;Rohm&Sultan,

2006). Medium factors consist of marketerto

consumer interaction, context interaction (relevance,

time and location), costs, presence of incentives or

monetarybenefits,permissions,advertisingvalue,and

content (Martin & Marshall, 1999; Krishnamurthy,

2001;Steward&Pavlou,2002;Barnes&Scornavacca,

2004;Carroll,Barnes, Scornavacca,& Fletcher,2007;

Bauer et al., 2005; Haghirian & Madlberger, 2005;

Hanley,Becker&Martinsen,2006).Consumerfactors

include the consumers general attitude toward

advertising, brand trust, level of involvement,

innovativeness, response to stimuli, trust and

perceptions of utility, privacy costs, messageprocessing costs, choice, control and risk

(Krishnamurthy,2001;Baueretal.,2005;Carrolletal.,

2007; Hanley & Becker, 2008). Demographic factors

(age, gender, income and education) are also

considered important control variables when

examiningconsumeracceptanceofmobilemarketing

(Rettie & Brum, 2001; Barnes & Scornavacca, 2004;

Dickinger, Haghirian & Murphy, 2004; Tsang et al.,

2004; Bauer et al., 2005; Haghirian & Madlberger,

2005; Leppniemi & Karjaluoto, 2005; Carroll et al.,

2007).

Severalconceptualmodelshavebeenproposedto

explain the roles of those industry, media and

consumer factors in mobile advertising acceptance

(e.g., Barnes & Scornavacca, 2004; Leppniemi &

Karjaluoto,2005;Vatanparast&Asil;2007).Empirical

studies have also been conducted to test different

models of determinants of consumer acceptance of

mobilemarketinginTaiwan(Tsangetal.,2004;Yang,

2007),Germany (Barnes& Scornavacca,2004; Bauer

etal.,2005),Austria(Haghirian&Madlberger,2005),

New Zealand (Carroll et al., 2007), Japan (Okazaki,

2004),SouthKorea(Choietal.,2008),andtheUnited

States (Choi et al., 2008; Muk & Babin, 2006;

Vatanparast&Butt,2009).Mostofthemhaveproven

that the perceived utility of mobile advertising

(hedonistic,utilitarianandsocialvalue)isa significant

predictor of consumer acceptance of mobile

marketing (e.g., Tsang et al., 2004; Okazaki, 2004;

Bauer et al., 2005; Haghirian & Madlberger, 2005;

Yang, 2007; Choi et al., 2008). In addition, several

factorshavebeen identified inat leasttwo different

countriessuchasperceivedrisksorsacrifice(Baueret

al., 2005; Choi et al., 2008; Merisavo et al., 2007;

Tsang et al., 2004;), permission (Barnes &

Scornavacca,2004;Carrolletal.,2007;Merisavoetal.,

2007), and control (Barnes & Scornavacca, 2004;

Carrolletal.,2007;Merisavoetal.,2007).However,so

far, no model of consumer acceptance of mobile

advertisinghasbeenempiricallytestedandsupportedwithconsistentvalidityinthreedifferentcountriesor

more. Chinese scholars have conducted some research

onconsumersacceptanceofmobileadvertising,and

have identified the following important influence

factors: perceived utility (hedonistic, utilitarian and


4/18


63

socialvalue),credibility,permission,perceivedrisksor

sacrifice, personalization or user control, context,

perceiveeaseofuse,andincentives(Chenetal.,2009;

Liu,2008;Peng&Spencer,2006;Shen&Chen,2008;

Wong&Tang,2008;Xu,2006;Zhang&Mao,2008).

Apparently,Chineseconsumersacceptanceofmobile

advertising is also determined by three types of

factors (industry, medium and consumer), similar to

consumers inother countries. However, very few of

those studies employed the structural equation

modelingtechniquetotestaconceptualmodel(e.g.,

Xu,2006;Zhang&Mao,2008).

A limited number of studies have compared

consumer acceptance of mobile advertising in the

United States with that of a foreign nation, for

example,RohmandSultans (2006)study comparing

thecasesintheUnitedStatesandPakistan,andChoi

etal.s (2008)study ofAmerican and Korean college

students. However, no published study has been

known to compare consumer acceptance of mobile

advertising in the United States and China. A

comparative study that examines mobile advertising

acceptance in China and the United States is

important for a variety of reasons. From a theoretic

perspective, itis imperative to test the viabilityofa

conceptualmodelinacrosscountrycontext,andfind

outwhetherwhatworksinFinlandalsoworksinthe

United States and China. Moreover, a comparative

study between the United State and China has

practical values for marketers from which to draw

lessons. To international marketers, it is crucial to

understand whether a Western model of consumer

acceptance of mobile advertising is transferrable to

China, and if not applicable to a different culturalcontext to know what engages Chinese consumers

morethanothersinmobileadvertising.Ontheother

hand,asChinahasbecomethelargestexporterinthe

world(ChinaDaily,2010),Chinesemarketersneedto

gainmore insightintoAmericanconsumersincluding

their acceptance of mobile advertising for future

marketing campaigns in the United States. Finally,

given the cultural, economic and regulatory

differences between the two countries, it will be

interesting to see whether all hypotheses of the

original model will be supported, and in particular

whether young consumers in both countries will

exhibit similarattitudes,perceptions andbehavior in

termsofmobileadvertisingacceptance.

Merisavoetal.s(2007)modelisconsideredone

of the most statistically robust and the most

comprehensive models of consumer acceptance of

mobilemarketing(see Figure1).Theyproposedthat

five types of factors would influence consumers

acceptance of mobile advertising: perceived utility

(perceivedusefulness,relevance,monetaryincentives,

entertainment, and information value), utilization of

contextual information (timely and locationbased

services),perceivedcontrol(permission,optout,and

filter), perceived sacrifice (risks of losing control,

privacy and time, irritation, and intrusion), and trust

(theoperatorsandmarketersusesofpersonaldata,

and protection of privacy law). Their model covers

three kinds of influencersindustry, media and

consumerfactorsandwasempiricallytestedamong

a large sample of Finnish consumers (n=4,062).

However, their model has never been tested in a

ChineseAmerican comparative context. Therefore,

our comparative study can shed some light on its

validityintwodifferentcultures.Basedontheirmodel

and previous literature, we propose the following

hypotheses:

H1a:Americanyoungconsumersperceivedutility

of mobile advertising significantly predicts their

acceptanceofmobileadvertising. H1b: Chineseyoungconsumers perceivedutility


acceptanceofmobileadvertising.

H2a: American young consumers utilization of

contextual information in mobile advertising


5/18


64

significantly predicts their acceptance of mobile

advertising.

H2b: Chinese young consumers utilization of

contextual information in mobile advertising


advertising.

H3a: American young consumers perceived

control of mobile advertising significantly predicts

theiracceptanceofmobileadvertising.

H3b:Chineseyoungconsumersperceivedcontrol


acceptanceofmobileadvertising.

H4a:Americanyoungconsumersperceived

sacrifice in receiving mobile ads negatively but


advertising.

H4b: Chinese young consumers perceived

sacrifice in receiving mobile ads negatively but


advertising.

H5a:Americanyoungconsumerstrustinprivacy

and the laws of mobile advertising significantly

predictstheiracceptanceofmobileadvertising.

H5b: Chinese young consumers trust in privacy

and the laws of mobile advertising significantly

predictstheiracceptanceofmobileadvertising.

Figure1:Merisavoetal.(2007)ModelofMobileAdvertisingAcceptance


6/18


65

METHOD

Anemailcontainingacoverletterandalinktoa

WebsurveyonSurveymonkey.comwassentto1,963

randomly selected college students at a midsized

publicuniversityinthesoutheasternUnitedStatesin

April2009.Anonlinesurveyisanappropriateresearch

methodfrequentlyadoptedby researchersonmobile

advertising (e.g. Bauer et al., 2005; Merisavo et al.,

2007;Hanley&Becker,2008),andemailnoticeshave

beenfoundtobemoreeffectiveinpromotingaWeb

survey than paper notices (Hayslett & Wildemuth,

2004).

To boost the response rate, an incentive was

conspicuously announced in the subject title of the

email that three respondents would be randomly

selected to receive $100 online gift certificates for

Amazon.com. Cash and noncash incentives can

significantly increase the response ratesofmail and

Webbased surveys (Cobanoglu & Cobanoglu, 2003;

Dillman,2000;Shank,Darr,&Werner,1990).Forthis

study,aresponserateof20.7%wasachieved.Then in May and June 2009, our survey was

administered in Chinese to college students at four

publicuniversitiesinBeijing,China.Noincentivewas

provided,andmostrespondentscompletedthesurvey

at the beginning of their classes. A college student

sample is suitable for this study in that adolescents

andyoungconsumershavebeenfrequentlytargeted

by major mobile marketing campaigns in Europe,

America,andtheAsiaPacificregion(Choietal.,2008).TheEnglishonlinesurveyconsistsof36questions

concerning the usage of cell phone services (talking

and text messaging), 22 borrowed items from

Merisavoetal.s(2007)scaleofconsumeracceptanceof mobile advertising (see Appendix I), and

demographic questions. The last question asks

respondents toprovide their emailaddressesif they

would like to win a $100 gift certificate. A second

solicitation email was sent to nonrespondents to

increase the response rate. It took 8 days to collect

407completed,usableEnglishquestionnaireswithno

missingdata.

The English questionnairewas translated by the

first author into Chinese and itwas back translated

into Englishby the thirdauthor totestthe accuracy

and face validity. The race question was eliminated

because Chinese citizens are racially homogeneous.

Finally,537Chinesequestionnaireswerereceivedbut

only422ofthemwereusablewithnomissingdata.Thetwodatasetsweremergedandsubjectedto

statistical analyses including principal axis factoring,

multipleregression andstructural equationmodeling

withSPSSandAMOS.RESULTS

Among the 407 participants in the American

survey,therewere148malerespondents(36.4%)and

259 female (63.6%). The mean age of the U.S.

respondents was 22.66 years with a standard

deviation of6.5,and the age rangewasbetween18

and 54. Among the 422 participants in our Chinese

survey, 127 respondents (30.1%)weremale and295

female(69.9%).Themeanageofourrespondentswas

20.6with a standarddeviationof 1.7,and their ages

rangedfrom18to34. To validate the reliability of Merisavo et al.s

(2007) scales, the Cronbach coefficients () were

calculated as shown in Table 1. A liberal minimum

requirement for scale reliability is 0.60 (Churchill,

1979; Peter, 1979), while some scholars

recommended a stricter minimum requirement of

0.70 (e.g., Nunnally, 1978). So, the performance of

Merisavo et al.s (2007) scales can be considered

acceptableinboththeUnitedStatesandChina.Thestructuralequationmodelingtechniquewith

Amos17.0was used totestMerisavo etal.s(2007)

model, and the hypotheses presented in Table 2

showsthefitindicesforMerisavoetal.s(2007),the

American,andtheChinesemodelsofthefivefactors

undertesting.SimilartoMerisavoetal.(2007),the


7/18


66

Table1:Scalereliability

(AmericanN=407andChineseN=422)

Construct

Cronbach Cronbach American Chinese

Perceivedutilityofmobileadvertising

.71 .84

Useofcontextualinformationinmobileadvertising

.68 .76

Perceivedcontrolofmobileadvertising

.73 .70

Perceivedsacrificeofreceivingmobileadvertising

.70 .78

Trustinprivacyandlawsofmobileadvertising

.73 .74

Consumeracceptanceofmobileadvertising

.82 .80

American and Chinese data yielded a significant chi

square fit index, but the American samples relative

chisquare or normed chisquare (the model chi

squaredividedbythedegreeoffreedom)isonly2.46

whiletheChineseoneis2.9.Iftherelativechisquareisinthe2:1or3:1range,themodelcanbeconsidered

acceptable(Carmines&McIver,1981).

Bycomparison,theindexofRMSEAindicatesthat

theconceptualmodelfitsAmericanandChinesedata

better. However, the GFI of American and Chinese

models is a little below 0.90, the conventional

acceptable level, while many researchers suggest

using .95 as the cutoff (e.g. Schumacker & Lomax,

2004). On the other hand, becauseGFI tends to be

largerassamplesizeincreasesandadjustedGFImay

underestimatefitforsmallsamplesizes(Bollen,1990),

GFI isno longer a preferredmeasureof goodnessof

fit.

The TuckerLewis index of the American and

Chinesemodelsisalsobelow0.90whenNNFI.95as

thecutoffforagoodmodelfitisaccepted(Hu&

Bentler, 1999; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). As TLI

penalizesmodelcomplexity,itsuggeststhatasimpler

model might fit American and Chinese data better.

Thecomparativefitindexes(CFI)oftheAmericanand

Chinese models show that the tested model is an

acceptable fit for both American and Chinese data

sincebyconvention,CFIshouldbeequaltoorgreater

than.90forthemodeltobeaccepted,indicatingthat

90%ofthecovariationinthedatacanbereproduced

by the given model. Overall, the fit indices for the

AmericanandChinesemodelsindicatethatMerisavo

et al.s (2007) model fits the two datasets in a

reasonablysatisfactorymanner.

Figure 2 and Figure 3present the Americanand

Chinese structural models with standardized path

estimates and their critical ratios. Different from

Merisavo et al.s (2007) study, hypothesis 1a was

rejectedaswehavefoundaweaknegativepath(=

.03)fromAmericanyoungconsumersperceivedutility

ofmobile advertising to their acceptance of mobile

advertising.However,hypothesis1bwassupportedas

wehave founda strong positivepath (= .51) from

Chineseyoungconsumersperceivedutilityofmobile

advertisingtotheiracceptanceofmobileadvertising.

SimilartoMerisavoetal.s(2007)study,hypothesis2a

was supported as shown by the strongest positive

path(=.62)leadingfromtheutilizationofcontextual

information to American young consumers

acceptance of mobile advertising. Nonetheless,

hypothesis 2bwasnot supportedconsidering sucha

weak path (= .10) from the Chinese young

consumers perceivedutility ofmobile advertising to


Similar to Merisavo et al.s (2007) study,hypothesis2awassupportedasshownbythe


8/18


67

Table2:FitindicesforMerisavoetal.s(2007),AmericanandChinesemodels

Model 2(df) RMSEA GFI TLI(NNFI) CFI

Merisavoetal.Model 3192.40(142)* 0.080 0.920 0.940 0.950

AmericanModel 496.953(202)* 0.060 0.897 0.886 0.900

ChineseModel 587.433(202)* 0.067 0.885 0.885 0.900RMSEA:rootmeansquareerrorofapproximation,GFI:goodnessoffitindex,TLI:theTuckerLewisindexorNNFI:nonnormed

fitindex,CFI:comparativefitindex.*p=.00

Figure 2: American structural equation model

standardizedpathestimates

Significanceofthepathestimatesareshowninparentheses

(criticalratio).*p=.00

Modelfit:

2

=496.95;df=202;p=.00;RMSEA=.06;GFI=.90;TLI=0.89;CFI=.900.

strongest positive path (= .62) leading from the

utilization of contextual information to American

young consumers acceptance of mobile advertising.

Figure 3: Chinese structural equation model standardizedpathestimates

Significanceofthepathestimatesareshowninparentheses

(criticalratio).*p=.00

Modelfit:2=587.43;df=202;p=.00;RMSEA=0.067;GFI=

0.885;TLI=0.885;CFI=0.900.

Nonetheless, hypothesis 2b was not supported

consideringsuchaweakpath(=.10)fromthe

utilizationofcontextualinformationtoChineseyoung

consumersacceptanceofmobileadvertising.


9/18


68

Neither hypothesis 3a nor 3bwas supported as

noted in Merisavo et al.s (2007) study. American

young consumers perceived control of mobile

advertising does not significantly affect their

acceptance of mobile advertising (= .09), but

Chineseyoungconsumersperceivedcontrolofmobile

advertising negatively and significantly affects their

willingnesstoacceptmobileadvertising(=.20).

Hypothesis4proposesthatAmericanandChinese

young consumers perceived sacrifice negatively but


advertising.Hypotheses4aand4bweresupportedas

wefoundasignificantnegativepath(American=.38

and Chinese = .18) from American and Chinese

young consumers perceived sacrifice to their

acceptanceofmobileadvertising.Similarly,ourfinding

supported hypotheses 5a and 5b, replicating our

predecessors study. Apparently, both American (=

.32) and Chinese (= .36) young consumers trust in

their operators, marketers and privacy law leads to


Toexaminetheexplanatorypowerofthemodel,

we employed multiple regressions to obtain the R2

(squared multiple correlations) of American and


advertising predicted by the five factors.We found

that 44.4%ofits variancewas accountedfor byfive

constructs in the United States while 45.4% of its

variancewasaccountedforbytheminChina.

DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONOur crosscultural study has applied the

conceptual model developed by Finnish scholars

Merisavo et al. (2007) to examine American andChinese young consumers acceptance of mobile

advertising.Themodelachievedacceptablefitinthe

UnitedStatesandChina.Itproves empirically thatcertainmessage (perceived

utility or usefulness of contextual advertising),

medium (regulatory trust) and consumer factors

(perceived risks) are consistently significant

determinants of consumer acceptance of mobile

advertisingintheUnitedStatesandChina,aswellas

Finland,thecountryofMerisavoetal.s(2007)original

study.Perceivedbehavioralcontrolisnotimportantin

any of these countries. The five factors we tested

couldexplainalmosthalfofthevarianceinAmerican


advertising, while the original model accounted for

63% of the variance in Finnish consumers mobile

advertising acceptance. So, our study suggests that

youngconsumersgenerallytendtoexhibitverysimilar

perceptions,attitudesandbehaviorregardingmobile

advertising in spite of cultural, economic and

regulatorydifferences.Our studydid not support perceived utility as a

significant driver of American young consumers

acceptanceofmobile advertising,which differs from

previous studies (e.g. Nysveen, Pedersen, &

Thorbjrnsen,2005;Pura,2005;Merisavoetal.,2007;

Choietal.,2008;Jungetal.,2008).Nevertheless,itis

generally consistent with the finding of Muk and

Babins (2006) U.S. study in that monetary savings,

convenience, smart shopper feelings and collecting

rewards did not predict their student respondents

willingness to accept mobile advertisements. In our

study, U.S. young consumers acceptance of mobile

advertisinghaslittletodowiththebeliefthatmobile

advertising can save money and time, or provide

useful informationandentertainment. Their disbelief

inutilityofmobileadvertisingcanpartlybeattributed

tothefactthatmostof our respondentshavenever

benefitedfrommobileadvertisements.Wefoundina

pilot survey of 105 college students that 76.2% ofrespondents have never received any commercial

messageontheircellphonesonatypicalday.Itisnot

surprising considering that American wireless

subscribershavetopayforanyreceivedmessage,and

mobilespammingisnotprevalent.


10/18


69

Conversely, we have discovered that perceived

utility is themost importantdriverofChinese young

consumersacceptanceofmobileadvertising,whichis

consistent not only with Chinese scholars findings

(e.g.Xu, 2006; Liu, 2008;Wong&Tang,2008;Shen,

2008;Zhang&Mao,2008;Chenetal.,2009)butalso

with previous studies in Western countries (e.g.

Nysveen,Pedersen,&Thorbjrnsen,2005;Pura,2005;

Merisavo et al., 2007; Choi et al., 2008; Jung et al.,

2008).Inotherwords,mostChineseyoungconsumers

consider perceived usefulness (entertainment,

informativeness and social usefulness) as the

overarching reason for accepting mobile

advertisements on their cell phones. Chinese young

consumers are more likely to accept mobile

advertisements when they believe that they can

benefit from them by getting entertainment and

useful information and if they perceive mobile

advertisements as saving money and time. It has

partiallysupportedAjzensTheoryofPlannedBehavior

inwhich strongbeliefs inpositiveconsequencesofa

behaviordriveonesintentiontoperformit.

We should not quickly dismiss the perceived

usefulness of mobile advertising as an important

factor affecting American young consumers

acceptance of mobile marketing as they, similar to

Finnish consumers, are willing to accept mobile

advertisementsiftheyarelocationbased,timelyand

customized. The socalled utilization of contextual

informationasastrongdriverofconsumeracceptance

ofmobile advertising replicates Baueret al.s (2005)

findingthatconsumersperceivedutilityoftimelyand

customized mobile advertisements is positively

correlatedwiththeirwillingnesstoreceivecellphoneadvertisements.

Though our data failsto support a positivepath

from the utilization of contextual information to


advertising, Chinese young consumers are willing to

accept mobile advertisements which are location

based, timely and customized. Amultiple regression

analysis demonstrated that the utilization of

contextual information is a significant predictor ( =

0.15,t=3.13,p= .002).Evidently,liketheirAmerican

counterparts, Chinese young consumersbelieve that

they can greatly benefit from localized, timely and

personalized mobile advertisements. This is also

consistent with previous Chinese studies in which

personalization (Xu,2006), timeliness (Liu,2008) and

communication environment (when and where to

receivemobileadvertisements)(Chenetal.,2009)are

importantfactorsinconsumerswillingnesstoaccept

mobileadvertisements.Our study fails to support perceived control of

mobile advertising as a positive predictor of

acceptance of cell phone advertisements given the

American sample. Although it seems contradictory

withpreviousstudies(e.g.,Muk&Babin,2006;Carroll

et al., 2007), it is consistent with Merisavo et al.s

(2007)findinginFinland.Interestingly,afteramultiple

regression analysis of the five factors, perceived

controlemergedas asignificantnegativepredictor(

= .123, p = .003) of American young consumers

acceptanceofmobileadvertising.Itsuggests thatthe

more American young consumers would like to

control, opt out or filter mobile advertisements, the

less likely they will welcome and approve mobile

advertising. Permission marketing has become a

widelyacceptedformofinteractiveadvertisinginthe

UnitedStates thanks tostrict regulationby theCAN

SPAMActof2003,FTCrules,andotherselfregulatory

principles such as the 2009 U.S. Consumer Best

Practices Guidelines of the Mobile Marketing

Association. In spite of that, American youngconsumersarestillconcernedaboutlosingcontrolas

soonastheyagreetoreceivemobileadvertisements.

So,smartU.S.mobilemarketersshouldalwaysaskfor

consumers consent, and offer easy optout and

filteringchoicesbeforetheysendmobilepromotions.

In addition, our finding also implies that permission


11/18


70

marketing and consumer control are not enough to

overcome American young consumers general

negativeattitudestowardmobileadvertisingandtheir

aversion to receiving advertisements on their cell

phones. We found that 47.6% of our American

respondents hold unfavorable views of mobile

advertising while only 13.5% of them expressed a

willingnessto receivemobileadvertisementsand just

7.1% of them showed an interest in readingmobile

advertisements they would receive in the future.

Therefore,pullmarketingmaybethebestapproachin

the United States, which explains why mobile

applicationsaregainingmoreandmoretraction.ItisnotsurprisingthatChineseyoungconsumers

perceivedcontrolofmobileadvertisingwasfoundto

be a significant negative predictor of their mobile

advertising acceptance. Although it is contradictory

with some previous Western studies (e.g., Muk &

Babin, 2006; Carroll et al., 2007), the finding seems

somewhat consistent with Merisavo et al.s (2007)

findinginFinland.ItindicatesthatthemoreChinese

youngconsumersthinktheyshouldbeabletocontrol

and filtermobile advertisementsand tooptout, the

lesslikely theywould embracemobile advertising. A

possible explanation is that, unlike their American

counterparts, Chinese young consumers are feeling

powerlessandviolatedwhentheyarebombardedby

unsolicitedmobile messages every day. As a result,

most Chinese young consumers (55.7%) hold a

negative attitude toward mobile advertising; only

13.1%ofthemhaveexpressedawillingnesstoreceive

mobileadvertisementsandmerely9.4%ofthemhave

agreedthattheywouldreadallmobileadvertisements

theyreceiveinthefuture.Inasense,thisfindinghassupported Ajzens Theory of Planned Behavior in

which perceived behavioral control is an important

predictorof consumers intentionto performcertain

behavior. This has significant implications for the

Chinesemobileadvertisingindustryandmcommerce.

Chinese mobile marketers failure to practice

permissionmarketing has engendered a diminishing

support formobileadvertising among Chineseyoung

consumers. Chinese regulators are also to blame as

Chinesemobile marketers are not yet requiredbya

specific law or regulation to ask for consent before

they send commercial messages to wireless

subscribers. In their best interest, Chinese mobile

marketers need to grant Chinese consumers the

control of mobile advertising. Otherwise, healthy

developmentofChinasmobileadvertisingisatstake.

Naturally, permission and pushing marketing

strategies are strongly recommended to mobile

marketersinChina.Our study has also discovered that American

youngconsumersperceivedsacrificecanbeaserious

barriertotheiracceptanceofmobileadvertising.They

hesitate to embrace mobile advertising for fear of

losing control, privacy and time, and they are also

afraid of getting bombarded with annoying or

irritatingmobileadvertisements.Nevertheless,young

consumers in the U.S. would welcome mobile

advertising if they trust that their operators and

mobilemarketerswill usetheir personal information

properly,andregulatorscanprotecttheirdataprivacy.Similarly, Chinese young consumers harbor the

samefears andworries aboutlosing control, privacy

andtime.Theyalsodisliketobebotheredbyintrusive

mobile advertisements. Like their American peers,

they would like to try this new form of interactive

marketing if they have reasons to entrust their

personal information and privacy to wireless

operators, mobile marketers and regulators. It is

further evidence that permission marketing is a

correct choice for mobile marketers in bothestablished and emerging markets. Our study also

proves that trust is a universal facilitating factor

predicting young consumers acceptance of mobile

advertising.Itisa reminderforAmericanandChinese

mobile marketers that they should strive to earn

consumertrustbyrespectingtheirprivacy,needsand


12/18


71

wants. It can also serve as a call for American and

Chinese regulators to set clear rules for mobile

marketing toprotect consumers rights and to grow

theburgeoningmobilemarketingindustry.Although the model in question has achieved

acceptable fit indices, caution should be used in

transplanting Merisavo et al.s (2007) model to the

UnitedStates.Themodelsrespecification isjustified

by the failure to find a strong positive path from

perceived utility to consumer acceptance of mobile

advertising. In other words, a new and more

comprehensivemodelofU.S.consumeracceptanceof

mobile advertisingneeds to bedeveloped based on

MukandBabins(2006)studyandours.Similarly,we cannotdirectly transplantMerisavo

etal.s(2007)modeltoChinaeventhoughthemodel

fitforourChinesedataisalsoreasonablysatisfactory.

Therevisionoftheoriginalmodeliswarrantedbythe

failure tofinda positivepath from the utilizationof

contextual information to acceptance of mobile

advertising and by finding a negative path from

perceivedcontrol to consumeracceptanceof mobile

advertising. More factors such as subjective norms

andsocialusefulnessshouldbeincludedwhenanew

model of Chinese consumers acceptance of mobile

advertising is developed basedon Zhang and Maos

(2008)studyandours.

MANAGERIALIMPLICATIONS

Our study has important implications for

American, Chinese and international mobile

marketers. First, we have revealed that consumer

acceptanceofmobileadvertisingisbecomingabarrier

forfastdevelopmentofthemobilemarketingindustryin China and will become a problem for American

mobile marketers if they give up permission

marketing. Becausemobile spamming is prevalent in

China, even technosavvy Chinese young consumers

hold generally negative attitudes toward mobile

advertising. In theUnitedStates,eventhoughyoung

consumers seldom receive unsolicited mobile

advertisements,theyareusuallyunwillingtooptinto

receive advertisements on their mobile devices. In

other words, differences in culture, economic

development and regulationdonothaveobservable

impactonyoungconsumersgeneralattitudestoward

mobileadvertising.

Second,ourstudy suggeststhat Americanyoung

consumers do not really believe that mobile

advertising can help them save money and time, or

that mobile advertisements can be entertaining and

informative. However, they would like to receive

locationbased, timely and personalized mobile

advertisements in the future. Chinese young

consumerswouldnotmindreceivingentertainingand

informativemobileadvertisementsthatcansavethem

money and time. They also think highly of location

based,timelyandcustomizedmobileadvertisements.

These findings imply that Chinese young consumers

havemoreexperiencewithmobileadvertisingasthey

areexposedtounsolicitedmobileadvertisementsona

daily basis, while American young consumers have

little or no experience with entertaining and useful

mobile advertisements. Mobile marketers in China

need to develop more interesting, informative,

incentivesbased advertising campaigns while U.S.

mobile marketers should pay more attention to

consumers personal needs and wants to customize

theirpromotionalmessages.

Third,Americanyoungconsumersvaluetherights

to control, opt out and filter mobile advertisements

despite that consumer consent and optout are

required of mobile marketers by U.S. laws. Chinese

young consumers also consider these optionsimportant for their acceptanceofmobile advertising

eventhoughtheirpermissionisnotaskedandtheopt

out is not legally required of mobile marketers in

China. Better government regulation and self

regulationintheUnitedStateshaveindeedeliminated

young consumers concern of losing control.


13/18


72

Obviously,permissionandpullmarketingarethebest

practices for mobile advertising industry in both

developedanddevelopingeconomies.

Fourth,intheUnitedStatesandChina,perceived

risksof losingcontrol,timeandprivacy,irritationand

intrusiveness prove to be deterrents of young

consumersacceptanceofmobileadvertising.Because

perceivedrisksandirritation havebeen identified by

many previous studies as significant predictors in

differentcultures(e.g.,Baueretal.,2005;Merisavoet

al.,2007;Wong&Tang,2008),theycanbeconsidered

universal negative factors affecting consumers

acceptance of mobile advertising. Mobile marketers

shouldavoidobtrusivestrategies,andshouldinstead

adoptunobtrusivemobilemarketingpracticessuchas

mobileapplicationstopersuadethemandnurturethe

market.

Fifth, trust should be considered as a universal

factorfacilitatingconsumersuseofmobilemarketing

servicesbasedonourandpredecessorsstudies(e.g.,

Okazaki,Katsukura,&Nishiyama,2007;Vatanparast&

Asil, 2007; Vatanparast & Butt, 2009). If consumers

couldtrustmobilemarketers,wirelessoperatorsand

governmentregulation,itwillbeeasiertogetthemto

participateinentertainingorusefulmobileadvertising

campaigns.

Andfinally,ourstudysuggeststhatdifferencesin

culture,economicdevelopmentandregulationdonot

have significant effects on technosavvy young

consumers acceptance of mobile advertising. In a

sense,whatworksinadevelopedcountrycanworkin

a developing economy and vice versa. When

developing marketing strategies in a multicultural

context, practitioners can focuson common themesand design a platform that works across multiple

countries.

LIMITATIONSANDFUTURERESEARCH

The external validity of our findings should be

strengthenedbyfutureresearch,asourAmericandata

were collected from a random sample of college

studentsatamidsizedSoutheasternpublicuniversity

while our Chinese data came from a convenience

sampleofcollegestudentsat four public universities

inBeijing.Inaddition,ourAmericanrespondentsare

predominantlywhite, and thusdo not represent the

U.S.collegestudentpopulationadequately.Therural

location of this university also calls for further

researchinurbanormetropolitanareas.Similarly,our

ChineserespondentsfromfourBeijinguniversitiesare

not perfectly exemplar of Chinas college students.

Evenif genderdifferencedidnot influenceAmerican


advertising,ourresearch findingsare skewedslightly

asthemajorityofourAmerican(63.6%)andChinese

respondents(69.9%)arefemale.

Our study examined only five factors that

accounted for 44.4% and 45.4% of the variance in

mobile advertising acceptance for American and

Chineseyoungconsumers,respectively.Itimpliesthat

there areother importantdriversat play.For future

crosscultural studies, factors affecting consumer

acceptances of mobile advertising in other contexts

suchasperceptionofsocialnormsorsocialinfluence,

incentives,messagecredibility, anddevice (interface,

interactivity,andintelligent)shouldbeinvestigated.

Hongwei(Chris)Yang*

AssistantProfessor

DepartmentofCommunication

AppalachianStateUniversity

UnitedStates

[email protected]

LiuningZhou

ResearchAssociateCenterfortheDigitalFuture

AnnenbergSchoolforCommunication&Journalism

UniversityofSouthernCalifornia

UnitedStates

[email protected]


14/18


73

HuiLiu

AssistantProfessor

DepartmentofCommunication

BeijingInternationalStudiesUniversity

China

[email protected]

*Correspondingauthor

References:

Ajzen,I.(1985).Fromintentionstoactions:Atheoryof

planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),

Actioncontrol: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11

39).Heidelberg:Springer.

Ajzen,I.(1988).Fromintentionstoactions.InI.Ajzen,

(Ed.), Attitudes, personality, and behavior (pp. 112

145),Homewood,IL:Dorsey.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes,50,179211.

Analysys International. (2009). Press Release: China

MobileAdvertisingMarketWillReach1.277billionin

2007. Retrieved January 2010 from

www.analysys.com.cn

Barnes, S.J., & Scornavacca, E. (2004). Mobile

marketing: the role of permission and acceptance.

InternationalJournalofMobileCommunications,2(2),

128139.

Bauer,H.H.,StuartJ.B.,Reichardt,T.,&Neumann,M.

M. (2005). Driving Consumer Acceptance of Mobile

Marketing: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical

Study.JournalofElectronicCommerceResearch,6(3),

181191.

Bollen,K.A.(1990).Overallfitincovariancestructure

models: Two types of sample size effects.

PsychologicalBulletin,107(2),256259.

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing

models with unobserved variables: Analysis of

covariance structures. In George W. Bohmstedt and

Edward F. Borgatta (eds.), Social Measurement (pp.

65115).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Carroll,A.,Barnes,S.J.,Scornavacca,E.,&Fletcher,K.

(2007). ConsumerPerceptions andAttitudestowards

SMSAdvertising:RecentEvidencefromNewZealand.

InternationalJournalofAdvertising,26(1),7998.

Chen,R.,Liu,Z.,&HuangH.(2009).ResearchonEffect

Factors of Attitude toward SMS Advertising. Paper

presented at the 2009 American Academy of

AdvertisingAsianPacificConference,Beijing,China

ChinaDaily (2001). Chinabecomes Biggest Exporter,

Edging Out Germany. Retrieved March 2010 from:

www.chinadaily.cn/China/2010

01/11/Content_9295021.htm

Choi,Y.K.,Hwang,J.,&McMillan,S.J.(2008).Gearing

Up for Mobile Advertising: A CrossCultural

Examination of Key Factors That Drive Mobile

Messages Home to Consumers. Psychology &

Marketing,25(8),756768.

Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing

BetterMeasures ofMarketingConstructs. Journal of

MarketingResearch,16(1),6473.

Cobanoglu,C., &Cobanoglu,N. (2003).The effectof

incentives in web surveys: application and ethical

considerations. International Journal of Market

Research,45(4),475488.

CTIA. (2009). SemiAnnual Wireless Industry Survey

(Midyear2009TopLineSurveyResults).International

AssociationforWirelessTelecommunicationsIndustry.

Retrieved January 2010 from

http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Midyear_2009_

Graphics.pdf

Dickinger, A., Haghirian, P., Murphy, J., & Scharl, S.

(2004).AnInvestigationandConceptualModelofSMS

Marketing. Paper presented at the the 37th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, Big

Island,HI,USA.

Dillman,D.A. (2000).Mail and Internetsurveys:The

tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York : John

WileyandSons.

Elkin, N. (2009). The eMarketer Report: Mobile

Advertising and Marketing: Change Is in the Air.

Retrieved January, 2010 from

www.emarketer.com/Reports/All/Emarketer_2000591

.aspx

Ellison,S.(2008).WhitePaper:CommonShortCodes:

TheTimeIsNowforMobileMarketingandOutreach.

Retrieved October, 2009 fromhttp://www.usshortcodes.com/csc_whitepapers.cgi

Haghirian, P. and Madlberger, M. (2005). Consumer

attitude toward advertising via mobile devices An

empirical investigation among Austrian users. Paper

Presented at the 13th European Conference on

InformationSystems,Regensburg,Germany.


15/18


74

Haghirian, P., Madlberger, M., & Inoue, A. (2008).

Mobile Advertising in Different Stages of

Development: A CrossCountry Comparison of

Consumer Attitudes. Paper presented at the 41st

Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences,

BigIsland,Hawaii,USA.

Hanley,M.,&Becker,M.(2008).CellPhoneUsageand

Advertising Acceptance Among College Students: A

Fouryear Analysis. International Journal of Mobile

Marketing,3(1),6780.

Hanley,M.,Becker,M.,&Martinsen,J.(2006).Factors

influencing mobile advertising acceptance: Will

incentivesmotivatecollegestudentstoacceptmobile

advertisements? International Journal of Mobile


Hayslett,M.M.,&Wildemuth,B.M.(2004).Pixelsor

pencils? The relative effectiveness of Webbased

versus paper surveys. Library & Information ScienceResearch,26(1),7393.

Hu, L., & Bentler,P.M.(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit

indexesincovariancestructureanalysis:Conventional

criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling,6(1),155.

Jun,J.W.,&Lee,S.(2007).Mobilemediauseandits

impact on consumer attitudes toward mobile

advertising.InternationalJournalofMobileMarketing,

2(1),5058.

Jung, J.H., Lee, W.N., Sung, Y., & Leckenby, J. D.

(2008). Consumer's Attitude toward MobileAdvertisingandBehavioralIntention.Paperpresented

at theAmericanAcademyofAdvertisingConference,

SanMateo,California.

Krishnamurthy,S.(2001).AComprehensiveAnalysisof

PermissionMarketing.JournalofComputerMediated

Communication,6(2),00.

Lee,S.F.,Tsai,Y.C.,&Jih,W.J.(2006).AnEmpirical

Examination of Customer Perceptions of Mobile

Advertising. Information Resources Management

Journal,19(4),3955.

Leppniemi, M., & Karjaluoto, H. (2005). FactorsInfluencingConsumersWillingness toAcceptMobile

Advertising:AConceptualModel.InternationalJournal

ofMobileCommunications,3(3),197213.

Liu, S. (2008). An Exploratory Study of Factors

Influencing ConsumersAcceptanceofMobile Digital

Advertising. Journal of Wuhan University of Science

andEngineering,21(9),112116.

Marriott, L. (2007). Growing Consumer Interest in

Mobile Marketing. Retrieved January, 2010 from

www.clickz.com/3624471

Martin, B., &Marshall, R. (1999). The interactionof

message framingand feltinvolvementin thecontext

of cell phone commercials. European Journal of

Marketing,33(1/2),206249.

Merisavo,M.,Kajalo,S.,Karjaluoto,H.,Virtanen,V.,

Salmenkivi,S.,Raulas,M.,&Leppniemi,M.(2007).

AnEmpiricalStudyoftheDriversofConsumer

AcceptanceofMobileAdvertising.Journalof

InteractiveAdvertising,7(2),117.

MIIT(MinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnology

ofChina).(2010).TheStatisticalReportofChinas

TelecommunicationsIndustryin2009.Retrieved

March,2010from

www.miit.gov.cn/n11293472/n11293832/n11294132/

n12858447/13011909.html

MobileMarketingAssociation(MMA).(2007a).Study

ShowsYouthMarketAmongtheHighesttoParticipate

inMobileMarketingCampaigns.RetrievedJanuary,

2010fromhttp://mmaglobal.com/news/study

concludesconsumersmoreopenparticipating

mobilemarketingcampaig

MobileMarketingAssociation(MMA).(2007b).Mobile

MarketingAssociationAnnouncesMobileAttitudeand

UsageStudyKeyFindings.RetrievedJanuary,2010

fromhttp://mmaglobal.com/news/mobilemarketing

associationannouncesmobileattitudeandusage

studykeyfindings

MobileMarketingAssociation(MMA).(2008).MMA

StudyShowsAmericanConsumersContinuetoAdopt

NewPhoneFeatures&AreIncreasinglyInterestedin

MobileMarketing.RetrievedJanuary,2010from

http://mmaglobal.com/news/mmastudyshows

americanconsumerscontinueadoptnewphone

featuresareincreasinglyintereste

Muk,A.,&Babin,B.J.(2006).U.S.Consumers

AdoptionNonadoptionofMobileSMSAdvertising.

InternationalJournalofMobileMarketing,1(1),2129.

Nunnally,J.C.(1978).Psychometrictheory.NewYork:McGrawHill.

Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Thorbjrnsen, H.

(2005).IntentionstouseMobileServices:Antecedents

and CrossService Comparisons. Journal of the

AcademyofMarketingScience,33(3),330346.


16/18


75

Okazaki, S. (2004). How do Japanese consumers

perceive wireless ads? A multivariate analysis.

InternationalJournalofAdvertising,23(4),429454.

Okazaki, S., Katsukura, A., & Nishiyama, M. (2007).

HowMobile AdvertisingWorks: The Role ofTrust in

ImprovingAttitudesandRecall.JournalofAdvertising

Research,47(2),165178.

O'Shea,D.(2007,March26).Newstudyfuelsmobile

adfrenzy.Telephony,248(5),2020.

Peng,B.,&Spencer,I.(2006).MobileMarketingThe

Chinese Perspective. International Journal of Mobile


Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability: A Review of

Psychometric Basics andRecentMarketingPractices.

JournalofMarketingResearch,16(1),617.

Peters,C.,Amato,C.H.,&Hollenbeck,C.R.(2007).An

ExploratoryInvestigationofConsumersPerceptionofWireless Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 36 (4),

129145.

Pura,M.(2005).LinkingPerceivedValueandLoyaltyin

Locationbased Mobile Services. Managing Service

Quality,15(6),509538.

Rettie,R.&Brum,M.(2001).Mcommerce:TheRole

ofSMStextmessages.Paperpresentedatthefourth

biennial International Conference on

TelecommunicationsandInformationMarkets(COTIM

2001),Karlsruhe,Germany.

Rohm,A.J.&Sultan,F.(2006).AnExploratoryCrossMarket Study of Mobile Marketing Acceptance.

InternationalJournalofMobileMarketing,1(1),412.

Schumacker,R.E.,&Lomax,R.G.(2004).Abeginner's

guidetostructuralequationmodeling,Secondedition.

Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Shank, M. D., Darr, B. D., & Werner, T. C. (1990).

Increasing mail survey response rates: investigating

the perceived value of cash versus noncash

incentives.AppliedMarketingResearch,30(3),2832.

Sharma, C. (2008). Mobile advertising: supercharge

yourbrandintheexplodingwirelessmarket.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.

Shen, X., & Chen, H. (2008). An Empirical Study of

WhatDrivesConsumerstoUseMobileAdvertisingin

China. Paper presented at the 3rd International

Conference on Grid and Pervasive Computing,

Kunming,China.

Tsang, M. M., Ho, S.C., & Liang, T.P. (2004).

Consumer Attitudes toward Mobile Advertising: An

Empirical Study, International Journal of Electronic

Commerce,8(3),6578.

Vatanparast, R., & Asil,M.(2007). FactorsAffecting

theUseofMobileAdvertising.InternationalJournalof

MobileMarketing,2(2),2134.

Vatanparast,R.,&Butt,A.H.(2009).FactorsAffecting

UseofMobileAdvertising:AQuantitativeStudy.Paper

presented at the the 42nd Hawaii International

ConferenceonSystemSciences,Waikoloa,BigIsland,

Hawaii,USA.

Wong,M. M.T.,& Tang,E.P. Y.(2008). Consumers

Attitudes towards Mobile Advertising: The Role of

Permission. Review of Business Research, 8(3), 181

187.

Wu, J.H., &Wang,S.C. (2005).What drivesmobile

commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised

technology acceptance model. Information &

Management,42(5),719729.

Yang, K. C.C. (2007). Exploring Factors Affecting

Consumer Intention to Use Mobile Advertising in

Taiwan.JournalofInternationalConsumerMarketing,

20(1),3349.

Zhang, J., & Mao, E. (2008). Understanding the

acceptance ofmobile SMS advertising among young

Chinese consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 25(8),

787805.


17/18


76

AppendixI:Surveyitemsusedtomeasureconstructs(Merisavoetal.,2007).

Perceived

utilityof

mobile

advertising

1.Ithinkthatsavingmoneyisimportantinmobileadvertising.(X1)

2.Ithinkthatsavingtimeisimportantinmobileadvertising.(X2)

3.Ithinkthatusefulinformationisimportantinmobileadvertising.(X3)

4.Ithinkthatentertainingexperienceisimportantinmobileadvertising.(X4)

Utilizationof

contextual

information

inmobile

advertising

1.Iwouldviewmobileadvertisingrelatedtomebeinginaspecificlocation

(e.g.,stores,parking)asuseful.(X5)

2.Iwouldviewmobileadvertisingrelatedtoaspecifictimeordate(e.g.anniversary,changesin

stockprices)asuseful.(X6)

3.I wouldbe preparedto spendtimeprovidingmypersonal details (auser profile)tomake

mobileadvertisingtobettermatchmyneeds.(X7)

Perceived

controlof

mobile

advertising

1.IwouldonlybepreparedtoreceivemobileadvertisingifIhadprovidedmypermission.(X8)

2.ItisimportantformethatIcancontrolthepermissiontoreceivemobileadvertising.(X9)

3.ItisimportantformethatIcanrefusetoreceivemobileadvertising.(X10)

4.ItisimportantformethatIcanfiltermobilemarketingadvertisingtomatchmyneeds.(X11)

Perceived

sacrificeof

receiving

mobile

advertising

1.Thebiggestproblemrelatedtoreceivingmobileadvertisingislossofcontrol.(X12)

2.Thebiggestproblemrelatedtoreceivingmobileadvertisingislossofprivacy(X13)

3.Thebiggestproblemrelated toreceivingmobileadvertising is thetime involved indealing

withit.(X14)

4.The biggest problem related toreceivingmobile advertisingis that I feel itis annoyingor

irritating.(X15)

5.The biggest problem related to receiving mobile advertising is that itblurs the distinction

betweenhome,

work,andleisure.(X16)

Trustin

privacyand

lawsofmobile

advertising

1.IbelievethatmymobileoperatorusesmydataonlyforapurposethatIhaveapproved.(X17)

2.IbelievethatamarketerwouldusemydataonlyforapurposethatI

haveapproved.(X18)

3.Ibelievethattheconsumerisprotectedbylawsrelatedtodataprivacy.(X19)

Acceptance

ofmobile

advertising

1.Ifeelpositivelyaboutmobileadvertising.(Y1)

2.Iamwillingtoreceivemobileadvertisingmessagesinthefuture.(Y2)

3.IwouldreadallthemobileadvertisingmessagesIreceiveinthefuture.(Y3)

*Theresponseoptionsrangedfrom1,stronglydisagreeto5,stronglyagree.


18/18

Copyright of International Journal of Mobile Marketing is the property of Mobile Marketing Association and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

IJMM Comparative Study Published