1
CONSUMER RESPONSIVENESS TO MOBILE
MARKETING
Kristina Heinonen and Tore Strandvik
Hanken Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki, Finland
kristina.heinonen@hanken.fi and tore.strandvik@hanken.fi
ABSTRACT
From a marketing communication point of view, new digital marketing channels, such as
Internet and mobile phones, are considered to be powerful opportunities to reach consumers
by allowing interactivity and personalisation of the content and context of the message. The
increased number of media has, however, led to a harder competition for consumers’
attention. Given the potential of digital media it is interesting to understand how consumers
are going to relate to mobile marketing efforts. The purpose of the paper was to explore
consumers’ responsiveness to mobile marketing communication. With mobile marketing we
refer to the use of SMS and MMS as marketing media in push campaigns. It is argued in the
paper that consumer responsiveness is a function of personally perceived relevance of the
marketing message as well as on the disturbance/acceptance of the context of receiving the
message. A relevance/disturbance framework can thus measure the effectiveness of mobile
marketing communication. An empirical study was conducted in Finland, where
responsiveness to mobile marketing was benchmarked against e-mail communication.
Findings from this study indicated that responsiveness to mobile marketing communication
varies among consumers. Compared to traditional direct mail and commercial email
communication, the responsiveness to mobile marketing was considerably lower. However,
even if the majority of consumers showed low responsiveness to mobile marketing there were
also consumers who welcome such messages.
Keywords:
Consumer responsiveness, mobile marketing communication, relevance,
disturbance
INTRODUCTION
Technology developments have created new marketing communication channels or media
such as email, SMS (Short Messaging Service) and MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service).
These digital media are considered to potentially improve the possibilities to reach consumers
by allowing personalisation of the content and context of the message (Forrester Report
2001). Simultaneously there is a potential downside to the development of new digital
channels. In a Forrester report companies using SMS expressed fear for invasion of consumer
privacy (80%) and negative consumer reaction (60%) as disadvantages of the media
(Forrester Report 2001, p. 3). A crucial question is thus whether there are obstacles for the
marketer to use mobile media to its potential. Are customers more reluctant to receive
2
marketing information through mobile media than through traditional media or is it the other
way around?
In a comprehensive survey concerning consumers’ experiences of direct marketing channels
in Finland it was found that consumers perceived direct marketing channels differently
compared to each other. (Finnish Direct Marketing Association, 2002) The experiences of
mail order, Internet and email experiences were more positive compared to other direct
market channels such as telemarketing and door-to-door sales. 80 % of the respondents had
positive experiences of mail order, 77% had positive experiences of Internet and email as
marketing channels and the corresponding number for SMS and WAP was 65%. For
telemarketing and door-to-door sales the number of positive consumers was down to 30% and
25% respectively. Concerning satisfaction with information received, there seemed to be
differences between the channels. The study also indicated that consumers have considerable
less experience of SMS messages compared to mail order, Internet and email.
When looking at marketing communication from a consumer perspective the issue of media
effectiveness is challenging. The increased number of media has led to a harder competition
for consumers’ attention. Attention and time has increasingly become scarce resources for the
consumers in the information age. It has been argued that the information age empowers
consumers and creates immediate 24-hour access, which changes consumers’ behaviour
(Seybold 2001). Many consumers have attitudes; aspirations and purchasing patterns that are
different compared to what companies have been used to. Today's consumers are claimed to
be independent, individualistic, involved and informed, (Lewis and Bridger 2000) which
makes it harder than ever to conduct interruption-based communication. In a permission-
marketing context it has been argued that if the consumers have agreed to pay attention it
would be easier to reach them about offerings (Godin 1999).
New media in the digital economy have created potentially powerful tools for direct and
interactive marketing. Traditional marketing communication strategies have been based on
the interruption logic (Godin 1999) where the consumer is forced to momentarily pay
attention. Permission marketing was introduced as a new managerial approach in marketing
communication. It has been argued that firms benefit from getting consumers’ permission to
be contacted (Marinova, Murphy and Massey 2002). Permission from the consumer would
resolve the difficulties to get access to the consumer. Permission is, however, not necessarily
a guarantee that the consumer pays attention, it is only a door opener and gives an indication
of the consumer’s potential interest areas.
In traditional research concerning advertising and media effects the consumer’s perspective
has been largely overlooked. Traditional marketing communication planning has focused on
the marketer’s objectives of reaching relevant consumers (Stewart & Pavlou 2002). An open
question is, however, what reaching means when considering the empowered and active
consumer. A key issue is the responsiveness of the consumer to marketing communication.
Responsiveness depicts the consumer’s willingness to receive and respond to marketing
communication and can be viewed as a function of the content and the context of the
message. Any channel can and should be evaluated according to consumer responsiveness in
order to understand communication effects and effectiveness. Consumer responsiveness is
potentially more effective than permission because it assumes consumer attention rather than
merely permission.
3
Purpose of the paper
The main purpose of the paper is to explore consumers’ responsiveness to mobile marketing
communication compared to email as a marketing media. With mobile marketing we refer to
marketing communication where a consumer can be reached anywhere anytime but
specifically in this study to SMS and MMS. From the marketer’s perspective it would be
crucial to know which consumers are open and responsive to such marketing communication.
From an academic perspective the issue of responsiveness to a media is interesting in itself. It
is assumed that the media influences the effect of the marketing communication in addition to
the marketing message. We do, however, not account for the creative aspect of marketing
communication, which is traditionally considered to have a significant role on the effect of the
communication.
In this study we are applying a traditional communication perspective in the sense that we
only explore responsiveness to marketer initiated (push) communication as a reaction to this
activity. Thus, in this study we do not imply interactivity within a customer relationship or
customer initiated (pull) communication.
Responsiveness to SMS, MMS and email is explored in an empirical study conducted among
a convenience sample of consumers in Finland 2003. The study is based on interviews with
consumers where they respond to different scenarios. An earlier similar study in Finland 2002
(Heinonen and Strandvik 2003) laid the foundation for the design of this study. That study
indicated that the responsiveness framework captures differences between media as well as
indicated that there are different consumer responsiveness segments.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this paper we concentrate on modelling consumer responsiveness as a function of
consumer perceived relevance of the content of the marketing communication and
acceptance/disturbance of the marketing channel. Our responsivenss model can be related to
traditional media performance models as it focuses on the perhaps most challenging aspect,
how marketing communication is attended to and reacted on (Harvey 1997, Informed 2001).
The most influential model for comparing media is probably the ARF (Advertising Research
Foundation) model first published 1961 (Harvey 1997). This model was created as a response
to the need in the advertising industry to compare different advertising media (Harvey 1997).
The model contains six stages or hierarchical levels of advertising effects. The original model
contained the following levels; vehicle distribution, vehicle exposure, advertising exposure,
advertising perception, advertising communication and sales. The first two levels indicate
measures of potential spread of the media among consumers and have been the most used
factors in the marketing communication industry. Advertising exposure refers to the number
of consumers exposed not to the media as such but to the particular commercial or ad. The
fourth level, advertising perception is the first level to include a consumer reaction, i.e. the
number of consumers noticing the advertising. The next level, advertising communication,
would measure how many consumers in fact receive something of the content besides only
noticing the communication. These two levels have been the least studied and understood in
the advertising industry, which has focused on the two first levels and the last, sales that are
easier to measure. As the model is considered to be a hierarchical model there is something of
4
a black box in the knowledge of consumer response. The direct marketer may record a pull or
response rate in sales of, for example, 2 % compared to response rate of 8 % in another
marketing campaign but have no information about the reason for the difference. The problem
is accentuated on one hand when new media have evolved and on the other hand when
customer relationships have come into focus instead of only campaign sales. Harvey (1997)
argues that the advertising communication level needs more attention. In this model
responsiveness would relate to the levels advertising perception and advertising
communication, which have been the least studied aspects.
In a new edition of the model the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) included new
digital media and created eight hierarchical levels of media performance; vehicle distribution,
vehicle exposure, advertising exposure, advertising attentiveness, advertising communication,
advertising persuasion, advertising response and sales response (Informed 2001). The three
first are essentially retained from the original model as well as the last level. In this model our
responsiveness framework links to advertising attentiveness, communication and persuasion.
According to the descriptions of the new model (Informed 2001) advertising attentiveness is
considered to be a measure of the degree to which those exposed to the advertising are
focused on it. Advertising communication refers to information retained by the consumer
after exposure to the message. Advertising persuasion measures shift in attitudes and/or
intentions produced by the communication and advertising response is other consumer
response than purchasing. This would for example, include click-through, lead generation,
mail response and coupon redemption.
Our responsiveness conceptualisation closely relates to the attentiveness level but carries over
to the communication and persuasion levels in the sense that we assume that they are closely
related. As the model is considered to be a hierarchical model where the consumer climbs the
stairs, the reason for low advertising and sales response rates are in the earlier stages of the
model. We also make the assumption that there are differences in responsiveness among
consumers concerning different media as well as concerning different products. The
responsiveness may be higher for some media for some consumers because they are more
familiar with the media and it suits their purposes. In this respect also certain products or
offerings may receive higher responsiveness than other.
In the next section we are developing and discussing the foundation for our theoretical
framework.
Consumer responsiveness
Consumer responsiveness can be considered to be based on a function of content relevance
and channel acceptance/disturbance (Heinonen & Strandvik 2003). Relevance relates to the
content of the communication, what kind of value the consumer receives from the marketing
communication. Channel acceptance/disturbance depicts the context of the communication.
This means that an extended definition of the channel is used and it includes how, when and
where the consumer receives the communication. These aspects are derived from service
quality models (Grönroos 1982) where perceived service quality traditionally has been
modelled as technical (what the consumer receives) and functional quality (in which way the
consumer receives the technical quality). Following the line of Balasubramanian et al. (2002)
5
it would also seem reasonable to expect that time- and location-specific elements that create
the context when and where the service delivery occurs may impact perceived service quality.
What
How
When
Where
Channel
acceptance/
disturbance
Content
relevance
Acceptance
Disturbance
Neutral
NeutralLow
High
Figure 1: Factors influencing the consumer’s responsiveness to marketing communication
The probability of obtaining attention from the consumer should increase with higher content
relevance and channel acceptance. The upper right hand corner in the figure is a situation
where content is perceived relevant and the channel is perceived as accepted because of few
contextual disturbances. This is actually the optimal case to get high responsiveness. In
contrast, the lower left hand corner depicts situations where the channel is highly disturbing
and the content is of low interest. In these cases consumers may be less responsive to
marketing communication.
With a value creation perspective (Heinonen 2003) the upper right hand corner represents
situations of channel acceptance and high relevance where the marketing communication in
itself creates value to the consumer and is a part of the company's total offering. Situations in
the opposite corner representing high disturbance and low relevance depict negative value
creation. This view where the marketing communication either creates of destroys value for
the consumer contrasts the traditional media effect paradigm where the marketer's interests
are in focus. Following Heinonen (2003) it can be argued that value is created on four basic
dimensions: the technical, functional, spatial and temporal dimensions corresponding to what-
value, how-value, where-value and when-value.
Acceptance/disturbance
Studies in advertising have been focused on understanding consumers’ responses to
marketing communication. The concept of intrusiveness has been suggested to influence the
consumer’s perceptions marketing communication. Intrusiveness may be useful to describe
how negative feelings arise from advertisements (Li et al. 2002). It is related to feelings of
irritation, leading to avoidance behaviour. The intrusiveness scale is based on measuring
