The Wilken and Sinclair article describes one of the challenges faced by advertisers in adapting to new media and changing communication technology. For advertisers, the “space” of advertisement went largely unchanged for decades. As traditional forms of advertising in traditional spaces decreased in effectiveness while increasing in cost, the rapidly growing mobile market seems like a dream opportunity. With it, a company could reach hundreds of millions of people for less cost than one 30 second commercial on one network, or one print ad in one magazine. While I agree with many of points that Wilken and Sinclair make for the failure of mobile advertising to reach its full potential, I would also suggest two other considerations. First, despite everything else it can do, the mobile phone is still a phone. Telephone based advertising or sales have never been well received. The fact that almost every state and the federal government have “Do Not Call” lists, should clue advertisers into that reality. Some of this may stem from the invasion of privacy that Wilken and Sinclair mention (p. 432). However, I also think resistance comes from the required interaction that advertising on mobile devises requires. In keeping with their notion of ecology, advertisements on mobile devises require effort and resources to be expended by the target. Answering the phone or opening a text message requires an investment of time (however small) and resources in terms of memory or application speed. I think people resent having to do something to deal with something they didn’t want and may not be relevant to them, and which uses something they pay for. Traditional tv and radio ads are passive. You don’t have to open them, save them, or delete them. Just ignore them and they go away. Those forms of advertising also come when they are expected, so they don’t interrupt other activities. Finally, people accept that ads are the “cost” for free programing. People resent ad on their phone because they are paying for the platform. I think people would be equally resistant to ad interrupting programs on premium channels like HBO. I think failure to attend to this underlying premise limits the utility of the Kolsaker and Drakatos study.
I was not at all surprised by the relatively inconclusive findings of the Paek et al study. Even a cursory review of peer vs. expert influence on persuasion reveals an inability to make definitive claims about the difference in their effectiveness. Furthermore, the general ineffectiveness of PSA across all forms of media has been a persistent problem for decades. This is acutely felt in the Health Communication area. Testing an historically inconsistent and inconclusive variable on an historically ineffective message just seems like a bad research project, regardless of the media.
Now I’m in a grumpy mood.
I too was a little surprised that the two cell phone articles didn’t really mention that people *pay* for cell phone service, and they usually *pay* for text messaging services too. We have long since gotten used to the idea of ad-supported free media (TV, radio, etc. – though in the early years of radio the use of ads was highly controversial), but it seems like with SMS ads, the advertiser is basically asking me to pay for receiving ads. Um, no thank you. Of course, statistical outlier that I am, I go to great lengths to avoid ads everywhere, because I would rather pay directly for content. But I still assume I have to pay – either in cash directly or by seeing ads.
Neither article really address smartphones, either, which is a very different animal with respect to ads, because of the amout of ad-supported apps and games that are now available.
When you only consider a cellphone as a phone without wall mounted cord, mobile ad can be intrusive. But the way I see, a cellphone is becoming a way more than a communication device. While increasingly more features are possible with smartphone, I guess that we will never know for sure how effectively ads can be delivered to customers via mobile devices.
The article was full of rich, valuable content. Thanks to the Dumps C-THR88-2405 questions, I achieved a promotion and salary increase. Now, it’s free for everyone. Wishing you all success in your careers!
I’m in total awe of your article, thank you for letting us read it! Free CPHQ latest test review resources are now available—good luck!
I love how inspiring this article is, thanks for sharing! Thanks to the MB-220 valid exam camp free, I received a promotion and raise. It’s now free to everyone. Wishing you all a rapid climb in your career!
Loved it immediately, clicking that like. It’s time for the H13-821_V3.0-ENU pass exam exam! Wish me good fortune!
Many viewpoints in the article have been very inspiring, and I’ve benefited greatly. Best wishes for your exams! Here’s the free Test PSE-SoftwareFirewall question material.
Thank you for sharing such an insightful and uplifting article! About to start the UiPath-ADPv1 valid test online exam! Hope I pass with flying colors!
Liking this content without any hesitation. The AD0-E906 Training for exam material is valuable, and you can access it free of cost.
Your article took my breath away, thank you for sharing! Free New guide PCNSA files resources—your key to unlocking a brighter career and better pay!
当社It-PassportsのC-BW4H-2404学習教材は常に高い合格率を維持していることがわかっています。教材の質の高さによるものであることは間違いありません。合格率は、C-BW4H-2404トレーニングファイルを証明する最も重要な標準であるというのは常識の問題です。教材の高い合格率は、当社の製品がすべての人々がC-BW4H-2404試験に合格し、関連する認定を取得するために非常に効果的かつ有用であることを意味します。そのため、当社からC-BW4H-2404試験問題を購入すると、短時間で認定資格を取得できます。