In Kolsaker and Drakatos’ article, one’s attachment to one’s phone is correlated to being open to the benefits of mobile advertising. They explain, “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” (277). It’s interesting to see how Kolsaker and Drakatos incorporated the cell phone attachment factor into the idea of responding positively to cell phone advertisements. I wonder how different this concept is from people who subscribe to online stores/magazines like newegg.com, sites that are basically ads. I’m not an expert in advertising, but based on the article, advertising in general makes appeals to peoples’ needs and wants. If loneliness, sense of belonging, and information-management are things that drive people’s dependence on and desire for cell phones and thus the receptiveness to phone ads, then what makes non-cell phone products any different?

I am particularly interested in the third component of emotional attachment in the lit review—the “sense of belonging to a group and being part of a scene” (269). I would like to see a study similar to this that replaces cell phones and focuses on other products that connect people together to form an identity to which they could belong. The television is one such product, although you can watch it by yourself (it’s not made specifically for connecting you to another person). But it can act as a medium for bringing people together. The television brings many Americans together every year as families and friends gather to watch the Super bowl. I’m betting most of these people aren’t avid football fans, but on this day, they are. The event ‘Super bowl’ together with the medium ‘television’ creates a culture where people can belong to something. During this yearly ritual, people make comments on sports figures, root for teams, and eat Vienna sausages. And I wonder, because of this feeling of belonging and connectivity, do they anticipate advertisements during this particular event as a part of the shared “Super bowl” culture. This sort of ad reception is different because people do not see the ads as something that can serve toward the betterment of a device that is connecting them to people. Super bowl spectators don’t look for ads that specifically are for televisions because it’s the television that is connecting these people together. What these ads do is give spectators a reason to connect to each other. They act as the cell phone in this case. So perhaps the Kolsaker and Drakatos study is just as much about participating in a “digital” culture as it is about the emotional connection one has to a digital device.