Given that mobile advertising is still so new, I do not feel that the “right to privacy” versus the “right to advertising” debate as mentioned by Wilken and Sinclair (2009) has been fully fleshed out yet. As mobile advertising capabilities grow increasingly more sophisticated, it seems only natural for companies to want to fully exploit the technology. Yet, this has not necessarily been the case, as pointed out by the authors, due to consumers’ reluctance to adopt the technology. This shift in power from the marketer to the consumer is very evident in much of the marketing literature on Web 2.0 and social networks; marketers can no longer expect that pushing their advertising strategies on the consumer will work, as noted by Kolsaker and Drakatos (2009). Therefore, it is quite interesting to observe this debate from the consumer’s point of view. While fear of spam is an expected source of consumer reluctance, desire to keep mobile phones private is a more interesting concept to consider. If consumers perceive their mobile phones to be an extension of themselves, then their desire to keep their phones private could extend into more general consumer privacy issues. It would be interesting to consider how consumers’ perceptions of online privacy or even privacy in general affect their perceptions of mobile phone privacy.

In the marketing program, we have studied classic work on source communication and persuasion (i.e. Hovland and Chaiken), which, as Paek, Hove, and Jeong (2011) mention, lead to the creation of Petty and Cacioppo’s widely used Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). Thus, it is interesting to consider source communication and persuasion research from the perspective of modern media such as user-generated content websites. Despite the new medium, however, it appears that Paek, Hove, and Jeong’s (2011) results are similar to past work on the ELM: favorable attitudes toward peer-produced messages are more pronounced among low-involved participants, whereas high-involved participants are more favorable to expert-produced messages. It is interesting that the ELM continues to be supported in many contexts, and I find it to be a valuable model to use in persuasion research.

It is unsurprising to me that Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton (2011) found that consumers respond most favorably to entertaining SNA content, followed by informative content. The authors mentioned, however, that if entertaining message styles are inappropriate, informative content is the next best option. I would be interested to see if this speculation holds true under study. Given that consumers’ motivation to use SNSs is often to relieve stress, perhaps products that would do poorly with an entertaining ad message in traditional mediums could “get away with” using such a style in SNAs.

Finally, I particularly enjoyed Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit’s (2011) article on motivations for brand-related social media use because it is an area of research that I am interested in. Their typology organization was useful, given the many sub-motivations within each usage type. I drew a model of the typology because I thought that a visual would make it easier to digest:

COBRA Typology

Regardless of a consumer’s level of brand-related activeness, it seems that entertainment continues to be a common motivation when it comes to social media. This is aligned with Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton’s (2011) finding that consumers respond most favorably to entertaining SNA content.

Bottom line: Use cute cat videos in your ads and you can’t go wrong! :)