Not so long ago, mobile phone was a strictly luxury or business item. However, not long after, the portable nature of mobile phone practically freed us from wall-mounted phone and it quickly became a necessity.

Given rapidly growing mobile device user basis, the idea of mobile marketing was born. Delivering advertisement to the device that people practically sleep with was a radical idea. Nevertheless, a massive user base has not been transformed into potentially profitable market segment because frequently exercised push-base strategy is nearly analogous to spam for consumers. The optimum balance between companies’ right to advertise and consumers’ right to privacy is a delicate thing to gain for any successful mobile advertising, and such balance has not achieved yet, according to Wilken and Sinclair (2009).

Nevertheless, we at least need to note that the introduction of smartphone is surely expanding the role of mobile devices. Mobile phone functions as a coordination device for personal and professional lives. It is a management tool for personal and emotional lives by playing a storage space for visual contents and highly personal information. In addition, it offers a bridge between oneself and the modern world where countless apps and conversations are virtually introduced. Lastly, it is a symbol of personalization. Users customize various aspects of their device setting, and as time goes by, the device is often full of the byproducts of our interests, preferences, and entertainments. Given such expanding role of mobile devices, the article by Kolsaker and Drakatos (2009) suggested mobile devices’ implication on advertisements.

In fact, the study supported that mobile users valued the ability to stay in touch with family and friends and the way that mobile devices users organize and function in their daily life. However, their responses toward mobile advertisement were relatively warmer at the best because users may perceive incoming mobile advertisement as invasions of their personal space. The article also suggested that push strategies of mobile advertising less likely succeeds over the long term even with the option of permission-based current practices. We can imply the significance of relevant content and more effective, but undisruptive way to deliver focused, catchy, pointed, and consumer-centric messages.

In addition, the idea of using social media for advertisement is emerging because of its nature of peer generated contents and its potential ability to deliver highly relevant information to individual users. The article by Taylor et al (2011) suggested that in social media setting, entertainment or information and social value oriented contents will likely generate consumers’ positive attitude toward the advertisements.

The article by Paek et al (2011) discussed the persuasive impact of peer or expert contents, which are core contents of social media. The article suggested that the productions by perceivably similar peers were more effective in the attitude enhancement and the effect of a perceivably similar peer production was appear to be more pronounced under low-involvement condition. Such findings have significant implication in terms of social media advertisement. While advertisement is inherently associated with low-involvement, recipients of the social media advertisement will likely be more susceptible to the ad because it is often recommended by other users who are similar with them.

The article by Muntinga et al (2011) also suggested the impact of social media in terms of brand management. Varying by degree of participations, consumers are actively engaging in conversation about products, services, and brands in social media setting. One may easily disregard the value of consumer conversations in social media venues, but we must not forget that brand image, which is the most valuable and intangible asset that any firm can wishfully want to own, is built upon consumers’ perceived images and knowledge. While brand image used to be built upon mass advertisement and conversations with family and peers, given the trend of rising consumer use of social media and the amount of conversations exchanges within the venues, the social media is determined to play a vital role for the formulation of successful brand image.

Typically I have always been against  the “push” style of advertising, mentioned by Wilken and Sinclair in the “Waiting for the Kiss of Life” piece.  This type of advertising, defined as “a subscription-based campaign where recipients are sent mass messages over an ongoing period” (Wilkes/Sinclair 431) seems very intrusive, and somewhat bothersome. , in the “COBRAs” piece, a direct correlation between the products that we discuss, inquire (YouTube), or “like” (Facebook) and the advertising that we see on social media and other online sources is presented. I guess this means that to a certain degree, we are responsible for our own intrusive advertising. *sigh* I guess it only makes sense that if I “like” Pizza Hut on Facebook, I will now see the special of the week, or other advertisements seeking to gain my patronage. I guess this could be considered fair. That is the risk that comes along with engaging in social networking, and sharing my personal likes and dislikes. But to tell me that I may receive on-the-spot advertising based on making public appearances? Does this mean that I’ll receive advertising for alcohol when I walk into a liquor store? Will I receive a text message or e-mail for a chat line if I walk into an adult store? I am not sure how I feel about this type of advertising, although technology certainly has the capacity to make it a reality.

I was somewhat intrigued by the writing about the use of YouTube for public service announcements. I honestly have not seen very many public service announcements on YouTube, so that is something that I will have to look further into. However, I have seen  many personal channels. Although I do not technically “follow” any YouTube producers, there are several channels on YouTube that I do keep up with. While the majority of them are either persons who post footage of live performances (mainly band) or athletic highlights, I do watch quite a few YouTube producers who use their channels as more of a “visual blog”. I’ve been highly entertained by the social commentary of some of these producers. While some use their channel as mainly a way to vent or discuss issues, many of them do hope to gain popularity, and ultimately gain a cult-following of fans that ultimately may lead to business ventures.

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.

A common theme among some of this weeks articles was that technology has opened the doors for many new types of advertisements. As discussed in (Taylor et al., 2011), Social Networking Sites provide ample opportunities for advertisers, and Wilken and Sinclair (2009) discussed how mobile technology also represents an arena of seemingly untapped advertising opportunities. Although companies would be able to reach many people at one time with these technologies, there appears to be a problem. The problem is that advertisers and other stakeholders do not want to scare off users by over advertising, or crossing some boundary and violating the privacy of the users. Personally, I don’t really care too much about the ads on Facebook. For the most part, I just tune them out. However, I am against receiving advertisements on my mobile device. I guess that I have had some ads sent to my phone before, but as Wilken and Sinclair (2009) put it, mobile media advertising is still “waiting for the kiss of life.” If mobile advertising never receives this awakening, that would be okay with me!

Kolsaker and Drakatos (2009) had an interesting take on studying mobile advertising. They looked at “the influence of emotional attachment to mobile devices on consumer receptiveness” to mobile advertising (Kolsaker and Drakatos, 2009). Their findings indicate that individuals who hold a greater emotional attachment to their mobile devices are more likely to be receptive to mobile ads, but that in general, this form of advertisement irritates individuals. This article also introduced me to an interesting study by Henley (2003) that categorized mobile device users into three groups. Users can be classified 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 organizing; and ‘Cyborgs’ who cannot imagine life without their mobile device (Kolsaker and Drakatos, 2009).”

The Muntinga et al. (2011) article interviewed individuals in an attempt to uncover the antecedents of consumer online brand-related activities (COBRAs). Just like the (Taylor et al., 2011) article, Muntinga et al. utilized the uses and gratifications approach to study the topic at hand. Within this approach, I am most interested in the personal identity motivation. It was interesting to see how this motivation may specifically lead individuals to contribute or make their own brand-related content. This is a great insight for marketers since as discussed in the Paek et al. (2011) article, user generated content can impact attitudes. The Paek et al (2011) article looked at public service announcements (PSA) and the impact of producer type on attitudes, issue importance, and behavioral intention. Their discussion of ELM was also important in this context. According to ELM, individuals low in involvement are more likely to attend to source characteristics, while individuals high in involvement are more likely to attend to message claims. The ELM makes it clear that a marketer must know his or her audience before attempting to communicate a persuasive message.

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).

Kolsaker, A., & Drakatos, N. (2009). Mobile advertising: The influence of emotional attachment to mobile devices on consumer receptiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15, 267-280.

Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13-46.

Paek, H.-J., Hove, T., Jeong, H. J., & Kim, M. (2011). Peer or expert? The persuasive impact of YouTube public service announcement producers. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 161- 188.

Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: Do ads work on social networks? Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 258-275.

Wilken, R., & Sinclair, J. (2009). ‘Waiting for the kiss of life’: Mobile media and advertising. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 15, 427-445.

I thought this was really interesting and very appropriate for a discussion of advertising in new media.  The Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab page has a lot of good stuff and worth spending time looking around.

Captology is the study of computers as persuasive technologies. This includes the design, research, and analysis of interactive computing products (computers, mobile phones, websites, wireless technologies, mobile applications, video games, etc.) created for the purpose of changing people’s attitudes or behaviors.

There are several videos on the site.  One video specifically addresses advertising on Facebook.

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.

This week’s readings felt like a statistical roller coaster ride that efforted to map the mind of Internet users by considering receptivity of mobile phone advertising, Youtube PSAs and social network site (SNS) advertising (SNA). There were also a bunch of acronyms. As a video guy, the “Peer or Expert?…” article by Paek, Hove, Jeong and Kim was of particular interest to me in its exploration of consumer perceptions of PSA video producers. The article displays that there is a  correlation between perceived similarities in those who produce a video and those who view that video with receptivity to the message with that video. This, of course, is a question of persuasion through identification, both of which are ideas linked directly with rhetoric and its reception. Kenneth Burke strikes again. One of the big questions of the article pertains to how, with this knowledge of positive peer response, corporations will be able to resist the urge to mimic and simulate the appearance of peer creation.

The field of ethical landmines becomes more saturated when one considers the impending proliferation of mobile phone advertising, a problem symbolized by Wilken and Sinclair in their article “Waiting for the Kiss of Life,” as a “Sleeping Beauty” awaiting the kiss of her prince. These guys can’t hide their whimsical natures when they reference the problem of whether to send advertisements to users or to lure users toward advertisements as a “Dr. Dolittle Dilemma” of “push” versus “pull.” Add to the many pitfalls outlined by Wilken and Sinclair the questions raised by Kolsaker and Drakatos in their essay “Mobile Advertising: The Influence of Emotional Attachment to Mobile Devices on Consumer Receptiveness.” In the article, the authors attempt to hypothesize on how advertising might be received considering how mobile phone users associate a connective/emotional link between their phones and their families and friends. The kind of cautious approach these two sets of authors support is wise when considering the encroachment on perceived privacy in a population that is increasing “cyborg” in its phone usage. But perhaps it is this “cyborg” nature that makes advertising a natural addition to the increasingly digitized state of mind.

The final two articles, “Friends, Fans, and Followers…” by Taylor, Lewin and Strutton, and “Introducing Cobras…” (great title) by Muntiga, Moorman and Smit, attempt to highlight and scientifically classify the consumption and creation habits of users who populate social network sites. Reading these two articles was like walking through an experiment guided by the presiding scientists. They were very detailed and precise when it came to methodology. From considering motivations of being on social network sites, to a gender-based breakdown of habits while interacting within such websites, the articles, or should I say reports, were thorough, giving names to actions that hitherto might be considered nebulous habits. I can now classify myself as a “lurker” instead of a “socialiser” when it comes to my chosen interactions in the field of SNS.