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.