A scale of hindrance in mobile in-app advertising

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015

A scale of hindrance in mobile in-app advertising Shanzeh Nadeema, Lilia Carolina Rodríguezb and Rodrigo Pérez-Vegaa a

b

School of Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Dubai Campus, UAE. Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Querétaro, México.

Abstract This paper develops and tests a scale for hindrance in the context of in-app mobile advertising. With the changes in mobile advertising capabilities, research on attitudes towards mobile advertising has mainly focused on SMS advertising. However, the formats in mobile advertising have increased since the introduction of smartphones and mobile internet capabilities. We propose that within in-app mobile advertising, current models on attitudes towards this type of advertising do not reflect the use and perception of users of these platforms. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, we explore the role that hindrance within mobile advertising plays towards the attitudes of consumers. We then develop and test quantitatively a scale that measures the construct hindrance and its four dimensions (stoppage, distraction, delay and interruption). Keywords: hindrance, mobile advertising, in-app advertising, mobile applications, scale development. Introduction The evolution in mobile phone technology and the emergence of smartphones in the last decade has revolutionized the role of mobile phones in the lives of consumers globally. Today, one in five people around the world own a smartphone (Heggestuen, 2013). For consumers, smartphones play the role of the most personal equipment a person would hold, and spend 85% of the time using mobile applications (Perez, 2015). In addition, the importance of smartphones to consumers allow businesses to reach them anytime, anywhere (Hameed et al., 2010). Thus, the mobile medium, especially with the emergence and continued development of smartphone technology continues to serve as a crucial platform for communication, for both consumers and businesses

For marketers, a popular marketing objective is to reach and engage consumers at each level effectively and efficiently, from awareness to advocacy (Shetty, 2015). The mobile medium holds the potential to allow marketers to achieve this. The increasing advancements in the technological features through enhanced multimedia, larger screens and the increasing 1

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 efficiency of mobile network coverage, means marketers and advertisers can target consumers anytime, anywhere, and a more personalized and interactive manner (Khan, 2013).

With time, marketers are increasingly realizing the growing importance of mobile medium (Leppäniemi and Karjaluoto, 2008). The increase of worldwide consumer adoption of mobile phones and smartphones is fueling the increase mobile ad spending. It is expected that by 2016 the global mobile advertising market will reach new levels, accounting for more than 50% of the digital advertising expenditure (Media Buying, 2015). The rise in the global adoption and use of mobile devices is thus slowly shifting the concentration of advertising from desktop reach to the mobile medium to make use of the always-on consumers (Media Buying, 2015).

While consumer adoption of smartphones and the increasing global mobile advertising spending are evident, there is limited literature on mobile advertising as this concept is still relatively new (Tsang et al., 2004). Furthermore, the majority of the literature stems from the pre-smartphone era in which the main form of advertising through the mobile channel was through SMS messaging (Watson et al., 2013). However, Persaud and Azhar (2012) emphasize the increased capabilities of smartphones have presented marketers with a much larger set of possibilities to communicate with the consumers that researchers should investigate. This paper aims to contribute to the marketing and to mobile advertising literature by providing insights on the consumer views of in-app advertising, a new form of mobile advertising stemming from smartphone technology.

As with any other medium, the understanding of consumer perceptions, attitudes, intentions and behaviors is a crucial prerequisite in order to effectively advertise via the mobile medium (Noor et al., 2013). In addition, as the majority of the literature stems from the pre-smartphone era, attitudinal studies have drawn conclusions based on studies where mobile advertising was equated with the concept of SMS advertising. Researchers such as Varnali and Toker (2010) and Persaud and Azhar (2012) have all suggested that the emergence of smartphones and the increase use of mobile applications bring new opportunities for marketers around the globe to implement more innovative and effective mobile marketing strategies for consumer markets around the globe. Thus, with the introduction of smartphones, it is imperative to understand the attitudes of consumers towards these new forms of mobile advertising such as in-app advertising for consumer markets.

2

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Mobile advertising in the MENA region Mobile advertising is at an experimental phase in MENA region where marketers in the region are simply just “trying it out” and hold the attitude that the mobile “doesn’t work yet” (Shetty, 2015). The smartphone penetration rate in MENA is among the highest in the world while, the expenditure allocated towards mobile advertising is among the lowest in the world. The evolution of mobile advertising with the introduction of the digital ad formats such as video, banners and popups makes it a powerful media channel. Thus it is counterintuitive that such a promising channel is not used to its full potential (Shetty, 2015). Among the MENA region, the UAE is a consumer market that stands out today as one of the countries with the highest smartphone penetrations around the globe, with a smartphone penetration as high as 77% (Nielsen, 2014).

The consumer trends in the UAE market are highly positive and show potential. The highest increase in the adoption of smartphones is seen for ages between 16-34. Smart phone users are increasingly using the mobile devices and applications for day to day activities in the region. The high importance of smartphones and their associate applications, especially for young consumers presents a large number of opportunities for marketers targeting the UAE consumer market. Despite the UAE being viewed as an attractive consumer market for new forms of mobile advertising such as in-app advertising, the main source of mobile ad recall is still is SMS based advertising for consumers (Nielsen, 2014). While various studies have focused on consumer attitudes mobile advertising, Tsang et al.’s study (2004) stands out as the first attitudinal study in relation to mobile advertising which assesses the impact of various factors that influence attitude as well as the relationship between attitude, intention and behavior for SMS advertising. While this theoretical framework and the consequent empirical study have provided useful theoretical and managerial contributions to mobile advertising literature by providing an understanding of the factors that govern consumer attitudes and could lead to positive intentions and behavior, mobile advertising remains a fastmoving and understudied field as very few researchers have attempted to make contributions to this theoretical framework (Raines, 2013). In order to gain a better insight of consumer attitudes in this area of literature, this study aims to make a theoretical contribution to Tsang et al’s (2004) framework by proposing the addition of a new factor influencing attitudes towards mobile advertising in mobile applications. 3


This paper provides evidence that support an addition to the original Tsang et al. (2004) framework in the context of mobile applications. We explored how the hindrance caused by an advertisement affects attitudes towards mobile advertising in this context using qualitative methods. From the results of our qualitative study, four main dimensions for hindrance were identified and a scale was developed and tested in order to provide a validated measurement mechanism for further empirical testing under Tsang et al’s (2004) framework.

Literature Review Mobile Advertising Mobile advertising refers to any paid content, communicated through the mobile medium that is made with the intent to influence attitudes, intentions and behavior (Leppäniemi and Karjaluoto, 2008). Mobile advertising differs from the traditional forms of advertising as it allows marketers to advertise their product in a personalized and interactive manner (Yuan and Tsao, 2003). This medium has an increasing potential in the field of advertising with the growing penetration rate of mobile phone (Chang and Villegas, 2008). There are several advantages of mobile advertising such as the ubiquity, personalization, two-way communication and localization that mobile devices offer, allowing advertisers to extend the time and space limitation that has been found in other traditional mass media (Muk, 2007).

In earlier marketing literature, the term mobile advertising was used interchangeably with SMS advertising as most of the literature on mobile advertising focused on SMS advertising (Scharl et al., 2005). However, Dou and Li (2008) claim that with the advancements in mobile phone technology and with emergence on smartphones with its many applications, marketers are moving away from the dominance of SMS marketing and will utilize many other channels for communication using both the push and pull strategy. However with the emergence of new technologies such as smartphones and tablets, a wider range a pull-based and push-based services are made available for advertisers (Persaud and Azhar, 2012). Consequently, new types of mobile advertising placements are now available for companies and current capabilities are illustrated in Table 1.

4


Table 1- Advertising types and mobile advertising placement Advertising types Mobile advertising placement Smartphones and tablets In-app advertising in smartphones and tables Mobile devices without full browsers Mobile devices without Internet access

SMS

Callonly

Text

Image

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

App promoti on

Image app

•

•

Video app •

•

• Adapted from: (Google, 2015)

Attitudes in Advertising Attitudes towards advertising are conceptualized as learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner towards advertising in general (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). In marketing literature, attitudes are considered a strong measure of advertising effectiveness with implications for the understanding of consumer behavior. For this reason, both academic and managerial importance is given to understand the antecedents for attitude formation in different advertising contexts.

Earlier studies in attitudes towards advertising illustrate positive public attitudes towards advertising (Mehta and Purvis, 1995; O’Donohoe, 1995). In contrast, recent empirical literature on attitudes as well behavior towards advertising in general suggest that over the years attitudes towards advertising in general are increasingly becoming unfavorable (Brackett and Carr, 2001; Cheung et al., 2008; Ducoffe, 1996) However, a large amount of academic literature on consumer attitudes towards traditional advertising media exists (Cyril De Run et al., 2010; Fennis and Stroebe, 2010; Gordon and De Lima-Turner, 1997; Paliwoda et al., 2007), with limited research of new media, specifically mobile phones (Cheung et al., 2008) Thus, by focusing on attitudes towards mobile advertising, this research aims to add valuable contributions to advertising literature overall.

Consumer attitudes in Mobile advertising Understanding the attitudes of consumers towards mobile advertising is a key element to make this type of advertising more relevant to them (Bauer et al., 2005). Literature on consumer 5

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 attitudes towards mobile advertising has resulted in mixed findings and there is limited literature that covers the new types of advertising that are available with the adoption of new types of mobile devices (e.g. smartphones and tablets). In this matter, studies covering new forms of mobile advertising placements such as in-app advertising or advertising in smartphones remain an understudied field (Table 2). Table 2- Focus of studies on mobile advertising based on placement and type Year

Authors

Mobile advertising placement

Type of mobile advertising

2002

Barwise and Strong

Mobile devices

SMS

2003

Yuan and Tsao

Mobile devices

SMS

2004

Tsang et al.

Mobile devices

SMS

2006

Jingjun Xu

Mobile devices

SMS

2007

Yang, 2007

Mobile devices

SMS

2012

Sung and Cho

Image advertising

2012

Varnali et al.

Mobile devices without full browsers Mobile devices

2013

Bhave et al.

In-app advertising

Text and image advertising

2013

Raines

In-app advertising

Text and image advertising

2013

Yang et al.

Smartphones and tables

SMS, Text and image advertising

SMS

However, it is evident from Table 2 that the majority of consumer attitude studies have been focused on SMS advertising or mobile advertising in general. Currently, very few studies exist that take into account the enhance capabilities of the smartphones, despite the fact that there is some evidence that suggest that this type of mobile advertising elicits different attitudes than other traditional forms. For example, Chen et.al (2013) highlight that Chinese consumers are less critical towards the new forms of mobile advertising through apps. Similarly, Persaud and Azhar (2012) found that consumers in Canada across various age groups display positive attitudes towards innovative mobile marketing using smartphones. Thus there is a clear need to keep expanding the empirical body of research done in this context.

Factors affecting consumers’ attitudes to mobile advertising

Literature on consumer attitudes towards mobile advertising is extensive and keeps growing, as a reflection of the increased penetration of smartphones worldwide. In this context, Tsang et.al (2004) proposed a theoretical framework in which the factors of entertainment, 6

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 informativeness, credibility and irritation were identified as factors that influence attitudes, while displaying as well a direct relationship between attitude, intention and behavior based on the Theory of Reasoned Acion (TRA).

Informativeness is defined as the ability of the

advertising to inform the consumers about the product, the product alternatives, so the greatest level of satisfaction for consumers can be achieved (Ducoffe, 1996). This construct is characterized as one of the central drivers of attitudes for advertising in the mobile devices (Bauer et al., 2005). Advertising credibility is defined as the consumers’ perceptions of the truthfulness and believability of the advertising (Brackett and Carr, 2001). There is increasing evidence that suggests a positive correlation between the perceptions of a mobile advertisement’s credibility and the overall attitude (Brackett and Carr, 2001; Ducoffe, 1996; Tsang et al., 2004). Irritation relates to a type of advertising that employs tactics that annoy, overwhelm, or overly manipulate consumers (Ducoffe, 1996). In the context of mobile advertising, advertisements may provide an array of information that confuses the recipient, are overwhelming as well as annoying; messages commonly known as spam (Scharl et al., 2005). Negative attitudes may arise due to the consumers feeling confused and annoyed. The negative relationship between attitude and irritation has been empirically supported in various studies (Bracket and Carr, 2001, Tsang et al, 2004).

The concept of hindrance in mobile advertising

Changes in mobile technologies have been followed with changes in mobile advertising capabilities and formats. New mobile technologies are allowing for new advertisement locations ( Table 1) and some industry studies suggest that consumers are willing to accept this type of advertising in exchange of free services (e.g. games, news, etc.) (Lewis, 2001). In this matter, Bhave, et al (2013) identified several factors that affect attitudes towards this type of advertising, and the concept of hindrance emerged as a factor affecting attitudes towards this type of advertising. There is some evidence that suggest that when in-app advertisements hinder the mobile application experience of users, it can lead to irritation (Bhave et al., 2013). It is important however to distinguish between hindrance and irritation as two independent factors. Based on the framework from Tsang et.al (2004), the irritation factor in the advertising context refers to advertising content and format that annoy or manipulate the consumers and thus cause negative attitudes (Bracket and Carr, 2001; Tsang et.al 2004). In contrast, the

7

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 construct of hindrance is conceptualized more in relation to the level of stoppage and distraction that the advertising generates to the user experience when navigating online or using their mobile devices (Table 3). For example, many mobile applications have a banner section at the bottom of the display, and consumers are not irritated by it as they understand that this can allow them enjoy the application free of charge (Paliwoda et al., 2007). Table 3- Conceptualization of Hindrance in the marketing literature Bhave, Jain and Roy Hindrance is defined with factors of: (2013)  Stoppage: The format of the advertisement causes disturbance the current activity when the user is redirected outside the app. User often stops their current activity and starts looking at information about the product/brand, thus their app experience is hindered.  Distraction: Ad’s located in the middle of the activity and those that are animated in format are too noticeable, cause distraction. Yoo and Kim (2005);  Distraction: Flashing and animated advertisements grab Zhang (2006) unwanted attention for users involved. Jain et al. (2010)  Delay and Distraction: Users feel advertisements such as pop-up and video advertisements are a waste of time hinder the user experience.

Limitations with current mobile marketing models

Current models on attitudes towards mobile advertising have several limitations. Firstly, the context in which they have been tested do not correspond with the new formats that are available, in particular there is very limited understanding of how these factors affect in-app mobile advertising. Secondly, since these models do not account for the use that consumers are giving to mobile applications, they do not take into consideration the negative effects that these type of advertising can have in the experience of the app. Tsang et al. (2004) already found support for the negative effect on consumer attitudes towards advertising when no explicit consent is given. However, new business models such as freemium are increasingly being adopted to promote online applications (Liu et al., 2012). Several of these application use inapp advertising as the means to make this business model sustainable (Wagner et al., 2013). There is some evidence that one of the major factors causing a negative attitudes towards inapp advertisements is that it causes hindrance to experience of the users (Bhave et al., 2013; Wayne, 2007). This study aims to further explore the construct of hindrance in the context of in-app mobile advertising and to develop a scale that can be used and tested for further studies in other mobile marketing contexts.

8

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Methodology Our study is divided in two phases, and we followed the methodology suggested by Churchill (1979) for scale development. Stage 1 is the conceptualization and item generation of the construct while Stage 2 is the scale validation stage.

Stage 1 procedures – Conceptualization and item generation From the literature review, key elements of the construct of hindrance were identified and used as guidance for the development of a focus group guide. Focus groups are considered a good method for learning about the participant’s conceptualizations of a particular phenomenon, and it has the advantage that it allows for interaction between members of the group. Steward et al. (2006) further suggest that through participant interaction it is possible to gain deeper insights into individual experiences. A convenience sampling strategy of seven undergraduate students was utilized. Undergraduate students are suitable for this study as research illustrates that young age demographic from ages 18-24 has been identified as the strongest predictor in mobile application usage (Purcell, 2011)

The discussion focused on in-app advertising and it aimed to gain an insight on what the participants defined as hindrance in this context. Before conducting the focus group, the questions were pre-tested with 3 peers and minor adjustments on the wording and style of the questions were made to enhance the clarity of the topics of discussion. Respondents were encouraged to share their insights through examples and personal experiences.

The order of questions was set out in a way in which the discussion began with an icebreaker to make the participants comfortable with the moderator (on of the researchers) and with the other participants. The order of the formal questions (Appendix A) were set out in a way in first the participants were asked about what the term hindrance meant to them. Next, the participants were asked to comment on their usage of their smartphones and what role their smartphones and the apps they use play on their lives. The discussion was then moved to questions about what hindrance meant in the in-app advertising context and how ad characteristics and app usage played a role in the participants’ perception of the level of hindrance in-app advertisements cause. The final questions focused on gaining an insight on how the participants thought in-app advertising could be improved in order to be perceived as less hindering to their smartphone and app experience. However, it must be noted that although

9

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 guiding questions were prepared, the focus group was semi-structured in nature in which there was flexibility in the discussion and there was room for new topics to arise.

Stage 2 procedures – Scale validation Following Stage 1 for item generation, we looked to develop and validate a scale using quantitative methods. Researchers can accomplish empirical validity by testing the initial items generate on recruited participants and by applying factor analysis on the responses (Turley and Milliman, 2000). Thus, the data from the previous qualitative stage was used to develop a survey with the items identified from the qualitative study. The recruited participants were provided with a copy of the self-administered survey. The survey simply gave a basic description about the topic of the survey and asked the participants to rate the statements given using a Likert scale. Prior to handing out the survey to the main participants, the survey was pre-tested in a pilot study. The survey was given to 10 people with an explanation of the purpose of the research and a definition of the hindrance construct. The participants were asked to complete the survey and comment on the wording and relevance of the items. The process of factor analyses is generally performed with large sample sizes. Literature suggests that while performing factor analysis researchers must aim to stay away from sample sizes that are too small to present the patterns and correlations that factor analysis tries to present, however a sample of 50 participants is considered the reasonable absolute minimum to yield a clear recognizable factor pattern and was the sample size selected for this study (Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985; Velicer and Fava, 1998). Findings and discussion Stage 1: Focus group for conceptualization and item generation

For the analysis in this stage, content analysis of the focus group is used. Content analysis is a technique highly suitable with exploratory research, which extracts desired data from a body of material by systematically, and objectively identifying specified characteristics of material (Smith, 2000). In this process, the focus groups discussions were first transcribed, then read, and then were coded in order to reduce the data into relevant categories (Table 4).

10


Table 4- Focus Group Results for Scale Item Generation Factor under Hindrance Stoppage

Focus Group Discussion Comments “The ones that redirect me to a different website are perceived with high hindrance. They interrupt me, sometimes I accidently click on them, and afterword and restart the app I was using which ruins the experience” “Sometimes you click on the in-app advertisement by mistake and it just takes you somewhere else”. “The most hindering types would be the ones that take you out of the app activity you are involved in”

Distraction

Delay

Interruption

“If the length of the advertisement is more than a few seconds, I perceive it as a hindrance and a disruption to my concentration” “Relevant advertisement to the situation or app I’m in. They catch my attention and I find that hindering. “The banner ads would be with least hindrance perceived as you don't have to consciously notice them. The most would be the one that’s pop-up in front of your face in the middle" “Pop-up ads are distracting most of the time in in-app advertising because we are usually highly involved with our phones". “Keep the ads brief and innovative, it’s less hindering if the duration is short” “When I’m working on my phone, even if it’s relevance, I see these ads as a waste of time” “Target me when I’m using low involvement apps that I used in my spare time such as 9gag. They should focus on timing”. “In my experiences, I keep refusing to interact but it seems they just don’t get me. “The hindrance caused in personal related apps like blackberry messenger apps is really annoying.”

11

Scale Items Generated 

  

     

  

  

In-app advertisements that take me away from the app when I click cause me to start over the task I was currently performing. In-app advertisements deviate me away from my current activity. In-app advertisements allow me to perform my desired activity in the desired app without any stoppages. In-app advertisements are a barrier to my goals within an app In-app advertisements break my concentration when I am actively involved with an app. In-app advertisements are not a disturbance to my app experience. In-app advertisements that are relevant to the app I’m involved are not a distraction. In-app advertisements that are irrelevant to the app I’m involved in distract me. In-app advertisements that are placed in the middle of what I’m involved in (eg. Pop-up ads) are disruptive. In-app advertisements that are located in the same area as my current activity (eg. banner ads) are distracting. In-app advertisements allow me to continue my app activity without unnecessary delay. In-app advertisements are a waste of time. In-app advertisements that appear before I proceed to the next step in my activity postpone my desired goal. In-app advertisements allow me to be in control of my app experience. In-app advertisements intrude my personal space and desired app experience. In-app advertisements lead to forceful interaction


We classified our findings based on the four dimensions found in the literature (Table 3) and these dimensions were later used to the process of item generation of the second stage of this study.

Stoppage:

During the course of the focus group, when the participants were asked to discuss what hindrance in this context was to them and what they perceived as the most hindering some participants expressed: “The ones that redirect me to a different website are perceived with high hindrance. They interrupt me, sometimes I accidently click on them, and afterword and restart the app I was using which ruins the experience” (Participant 6) “Sometimes you click on the in-app advertisement by mistake and it just takes you somewhere else” (Participant 2). The insights provided by the participants are consistent with Bhave et al (2013)’s research on in-app advertisements. While the participants illustrate situations of where their app activity is being hindered when their current task is stopped and they are redirected to another location, Bhave et al (2013) expresses that the format of the advertisement plays an important role in the hindrance caused by the advertisement. He further goes on to state that in-app advertisements which redirects the consumers out of their activity, in some situations stops their current work and leads them to start browsing the brand and product information on their cellphones instead, hence hinders their app experience.

Distraction

The discussion of the type of advertisements that cause the most hindrances also provided useful insights for the purpose of this study. Respondents expressed:

12

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 “The banner ads would be with least hindrance perceived as you don't have to consciously notice them. The most would be the one that’s pop-up in front of your face in the middle" (Participant 4) “For me the banner ads are the least hindering, however I have seen some banner ads that when you scroll down, they keep coming down” (Participant 7) “Pop-up ads are distracting most of the time in in-app advertising because we are usually highly involved with our phones" (Participant 2)

Thus, in-app advertisements are perceived hindering when they catch the attention of the consumers and when they cause them to notice them when the participants are actively involved in their activity based on location and format. Literature also suggests that Pop-up ads, flashing ads and animated ads grab unwanted attention (Yun Yoo and Kim, 2005; Zhang, 2006). In addition, Bhave et al (2013) discuss that noticeable advertisements such as pop-up ads and animated ads hinder the user’s primary task.

Delay

During the discussion, when asked about what would make the in-app advertisements less hindering the main concerns participants expressed was the time wasted due to the in-app advertisements: “Keep the ads brief and innovative, it’s less hindering if the duration is short” (Participant 6) “When I’m working on my phone, even if it’s relevant, I see these ads as a waste of time”, Target me when I’m using low involvement apps that I used in my spare time such as 9gag. They should focus on timing”. (Participant 2)

The concerns of the time wasted due to in-app advertisements are consistent with Jain et al. (2010) findings on online advertising in which they find that the waste of time, especially in between games, hinders the users’ experience.

13

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Interruption

During a discussion in which participants were sharing negative experiences of in-app advertising participants expressed: “In my experiences, I keep refusing to interact but it seems they just don’t get me" (Participant 3). “The hindrance they cause in personal related apps like the blackberry messenger app is really annoying" (Participant 7)

Participants suggest that their app activity and experience is hindered as in-app advertisements are an interruption that cause consumers to forcefully interact as well as cause hindrance in their experience during personal activities in personal and social apps. Thus, the additional dimension of interruption was added as part of the hindrance construct.

The final outcome of this process resulted in four factors in the hindrance construct: Distraction, Stoppage, Delay and Interruption. Furthermore, the initial item generation produced 16 items with 6 items under the Distraction factor, four items for Stoppage, 3 Items for Delay and 3 Items for Interruption (Table 4). The initial pool of 16 items then was submitted to a scale purification process that will be described in the next stage.

Stage 2: Scale validation

The data collected through the survey with the 16 items was put in the process of exploratory factor analysis on SPSS with maximum likelihood extraction. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is recommended in order to continue the process for scale refinement and validations with high level of construct validity. The items loadings on the factors can be examined to determine if specific items need editing or deletion (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). The main objective of EFA is to statically explore the factors that define the hindrance scale for inapp advertising and to reduce the initial items generated. Factor analysis is an accepted method to establish construct validity. The main criterion of item selection was based on the screen plot, Eigen values, and the factor loadings (Burton and Mazerolle, 2011). Factor analysis based 14

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 on the extraction Maximum Likelihood was chosen suitable for this study as the researcher’s purpose was to understand the latent structure of the set of variables as simultaneously exercising item reduction based on the structure (Conway and Huffcutt, 2003). Rotation produces a more interpretable and simplified solution in matrix. It maximizes high item loadings and minimizes low item loading. The recommended rotation method is oblique, and it is the method used in this research. This method produces factors that are correlated (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). A KMO and Barlett test of Sphericity was conducted to verify sampling adequacy. The results were significant (2 (120) = 253.68, p < .01). While running analysis, four factors were predicted to explain the construct based on the initial item generation process derived through secondary qualitative research and focus groups. The screen plot and the results indicated that the final solution was a three-factor solution. As the aim for this factor analysis was to develop a scale for hindrance that could be put together with other scales which on average contained three items, a strict view was taken in item reduction leaving only the factors with the highest factor loadings of over 0.6. This produced results in which 4 factors explained 44.64% of the variance. In total nine items out of the initial 16 could be used (Table 5).

15

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Table 5- Factor loadings Factor Distraction/ Delay .744

In-app advertisements that are irrelevant to the app I'm involved in distract me In-app advertisements that are placed in the middle of what I'm involved in (e.g. Pop-up ads) are disruptive In-app advertisements allow me to continue my app activity without unnecessary delay In-app advertisements break my concentration

Interruption/ Delay

Stoppage

Interruption/ Delay

.660

.625 .604

In-app advertisements that are located in the same area as my current activity (e.g. banner ads) are distracting In-app advertisements lead to forceful interaction In-app advertisements that appear before I proceed to the step in my activity postpone my desired goal In-app advertisements are barrier to my goals within an app

.668 .601

In-app advertisements that take me away from the app when I click cause me to start over the task I was current performing In-app advertisements cause me to deviate from my current activity In-app advertisements allow me to perform my desired activity in the desired app without any stoppages In-app advertisements that are relevant to the app I'm involved in are not a distraction

.625

In-app advertisements are not a disturbance to my app experience In-app advertisements intrude my personal space and desired app experience In-app advertisements are a waste of time

.924

In-app advertisements allow me to be in control of my app experience

.691

Overall, this analysis indicates that the dimensions of hindrance of distraction and interruption are also associated to elements of delay, as items that relate to this construct were found in these factors. The factor stoppage on the other hand, was found to be distinct from the others and was not associated with elements of delay.

Conclusion This paper presents a critical review of literature on mobile advertising and highlights the need for theoretical contributions in this area of marketing, specifically to suit the new forms of technology in this field. While the original Tsang et al. al (2004) framework emphasizes the 16

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 factors of entertainment, credibility, irritation and informativeness, this research challenges the use of a framework made for SMS advertising in the in-app advertising context and emphasizes the need for additional factors to be added. A theoretical contribution to the Tsang et al. (2004) is made by adding the factor of hindrance as something that plays a role in formulating negative consumer attitudes in the in-app advertising context. Four factors were identified to generate hindrance in this context: distraction, interruption, delay and stoppage. It is proposed that that if consumers perceive in-app advertisements as something that hinder their activities within an app and/or their overall app experience, negative attitudes are formed. As with any research, a number of limitations are associated with this study and these should be considered for a more practical use of this study as well as before conducting future research based on this. First, while aiming to generate scale through the use of focus groups, only one focus group was used to aid the initial item generation. Using only one focus group limits the reliability of the patterns that have been drawn out. In an attempt to increase reliability, multiple sessions of the focus groups should be conducted (Walden, 2009). This will ensure that clear recognizable reoccurring patterns are seen. In addition, after the scale item generation through focus groups, factor analysis was used to validate the scale. While this research uses an acceptable minimum sample, it still acts a major limitation for this research as academics have recommended large sample sizes for factor analysis as a large sample can help determine whether or not the factor structure and individual items are valid (Costello and Osborne, 2005). There are many recommendations on literature that can be followed for more accurate sampling for factor analysis. O’Rourke and Hatcher (2013) recommends that the number of subjects should be the larger than 5 times the number variables. Comree and Lee (2013) suggested that 100= poor, 200- fair, 300= good, 500= very good and a 1000 or more= excellent. We aim to further develop this study to reach more optimal levels of reliability and encouraged other scholars in the field of mobile advertising to do the same. By addressing these limitations, the reliability and validity of the hindrance scale proposed can be improved. Overall, this paper adds on to the under-researched area of in-app advertising by proposing a new factors to the original Tsang et.al (2004) framework. Marketing academics can build on this by testing this scale on populations to see if these factors are statistically significant as compared to other factors in the framework. In addition, the proposed scale is one attempt to measuring hindrance in the in-app advertising context.

17

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Appendices Appendix A Focus Group 1) Welcome Note/ Introduction 2) Purpose of the Focus group - Reason of the focus group explained in the context of the dissertation and how the participants can make valuable contributions 3) Ice breaker: Complete the following sentence in a comedic manner. I spend more time on my smartphone and it’s apps than ___________. 4) Questions 1. What does the term “Hindrance” means to you overall? 2. In the advertising context? 3. Comment on your usage of apps. What are your favorite and most use apps and why? Comment on your app experiences. 4. Do you consider in-app advertising a hindrance to your desired activity/outcome and overall experience? (Onscreen banner ads, inserted ads, click to expand ads /pop-up /video and out of app ads? 5. In defining hindrance in the in-app advertising context-what is it about in-app advertising that makes you perceive it as an advertising form that will cause hindrance? Can you list and explain any factors? (Keep in mind (interference due to location, disruption caused by format, and distraction caused by irrelevance) 6. In which situations are hindrance caused by in-app advertising higher than others? (Location, involvement, personal and social apps) 7. How does hindrance affect your attitude, intention and behavior in the in-app advertising context? 8. Any additional comments on in-app advertising and the hindrance they can cause. Things you want changed which will reduce the hindrance caused? 5) Debriefing/ Thank participants for attending and hand out incentives.

18

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Appendix B

Hindrance Survey This a survey about the level of hindrance an in-app advertisement causes. Please rate the following statements provided below by selecting your chosen option. 1.In-app advertisements break my concentration when I am actively involved with an app. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

2.In-app advertisements that are relevant to the app I’m involved in are not a distraction. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


3.In-app advertisements that are irrelevant to the app I’m involved in distract me. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


4. In-app advertisements that are placed in the middle of what I’m involved in (e.g. Pop-up ads) are disruptive. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


5. In-app advertisements that are located in the same area as my current activity (e.g. banner ads) are distracting. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


6. In-app advertisements are not a disturbance to my app experience. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


7.In-app advertisements are a barrier to my goals within an app.

19

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


8.In-app advertisements cause me to deviate from my current activity. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


9. In-app advertisements that take me away from the app when I click cause me to start over the task I was currently performing. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


10.In-app advertisements allow me to perform my desired activity in the desired app without any stoppages. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


11. In-app advertisements allow me to continue my app activity without unnecessary delay. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


12.In-app advertisements are a waste of time. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


13.In-app advertisements that appear before I proceed to the next step in my activity postpone my desired goal. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


14.In-app advertisements intrude my personal space and desired app experience. (1) Strongly Disagree

20

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 (2) (3) (4) (5)

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

15.In-app advertisements allow me to be in control of my app experience. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


16.In-app advertisements lead to forceful interaction. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


21

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 References Arrindell, W.A., Van der Ende, J., 1985. An empirical test of the utility of the observations-tovariables ratio in factor and components analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement 9, 165–178. Barwise, P., Strong, C., 2002. Permission-based mobile advertising. J. Interactive Mark. 16, 14–24. doi:10.1002/dir.10000 Bauer, H.H., Barnes, S.J., Reichardt, T., Neumann, M.M., 2005. Driving consumer acceptance of mobile marketing: a theoretical framework and empirical study. Journal of electronic commerce research 6, 181–192. Bhave, K., Jain, V., Roy, S., 2013. Understanding the Orientation of Gen Y Toward Mobile Applications and in-App Advertising in India. International Journal of Mobile Marketing 8, 62–74. Brackett, L.K., Carr, B.N., 2001. Cyberspace advertising vs. other media: Consumer vs. mature student attitudes. Journal of advertising research 41, 23–32. Burton, L., Mazerolle, S., 2011. Survey Instrument Validity Part I: Principles of Survey Instrument Development and Validation in Athletic Training Education Research. Athletic Training Education Journal 6, 27–35. Chang, H.J., Villegas, J., 2008. Mobile Phone User’s Behavior: The Motivation Factors of the Mobile Phone User. International Journal of Mobile Marketing 3, 4–14. Chen, H., Liu, F., Dai, T., 2013. Chinese Consumers Perceptions Towards Smartphone and Marketing Communication on Smartphone. Mobile Marketing International Journal of 38. Cheung, L., Harker, D., Harker, M., 2008. The state of the art of advertising from the consumers’ perspective: A generational approach. The Marketing Review 8, 125–146. Churchill, G.A., Jr., 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16, 64–73. doi:10.2307/3150876 Comrey, A.L., Lee, H.B., 2013. A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press. Conway, J.M., Huffcutt, A.I., 2003. A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational research methods 6, 147–168. Cyril De Run, E., Mohsin Butt, M., Fam, K.-S., Yin Jong, H., 2010. Attitudes towards offensive advertising: Malaysian Muslims’ views. Journal of Islamic Marketing 1, 25–36. Dou, X., Li, H., 2008. Creative use of QR Codes in consumer communication. International Journal of Mobile Marketing 3.

22

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Ducoffe, R.H., 1996. Advertising value and advertising on the web. Journal of advertising research 36, 21–35. Fennis, B.M., Stroebe, W., 2010. The Psychology of Advertising. Psychology Press. Google, 2015. Types of mobile ads [WWW Document]. Gordon, M.E., De Lima-Turner, K., 1997. Consumer attitudes towards Internet advertising: A social contract perspective. International Marketing Review 14, 362–375. Hameed, K., Shaf, H., Ahsan, K., Yang, W., 2010. An Enterprise Architecture Framework for Mobile Commerce. International Journal of Computer Science Issues 7, 6–51. Heggestuen, J., 2013. One In Every 5 People In The World Own A Smartphone, One In Every 17 Own A Tablet [CHART] [WWW Document]. Business Insider. URL http://www.businessinsider.com/smartphone-and-tablet-penetration-2013-10 (accessed 8.13.15). Jain, K., Czerwinski, M., Song, Y., He, L., 2010. Evaluating the unaccounted cost of distraction of display ads to the users. Jingjun Xu, D., 2006. The Influence of Personalization in Affecting Consumer Attitudes Toward Mobile Advertising in China. Journal of Computer Information Systems 47, 9– 19. Khan, M., 2013. Mobile sets the stage for evolving business models, Mobile Outlook 2013. Leppäniemi, M., Karjaluoto, H., 2008. Mobile marketing: From marketing strategy to mobile marketing campaign implementation. International Journal of Mobile Marketing 3, 50– 61. Lewis, S., 2001. M-commerce: ads in the ether. Asian Business 37, 31. Liu, C., Au, Y., Choi, H., 2012. An Empirical Study of the Freemium Strategy for Mobile Apps: Evidence from the Google Play Market. ICIS 2012 Proceedings. MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J., 1989. An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The Journal of Marketing 48–65. Media Buying, 2015. Mobile Ad Spend to Top $100 Billion Worldwide in 2016, 51% of Digital Market

-

eMarketer

[WWW

Document].

URL

http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Mobile-Ad-Spend-Top-100-Billion-Worldwide2016-51-of-Digital-Market/1012299 (accessed 8.14.15). Mehta, A., Purvis, S.C., 1995. When attitudes towards advertising in general influence advertising success, in: Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. Waco, TX: Baylor University, Norfolk, VA. 23

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Muk, A., 2007. Consumers’ Intentions to Opt into SMS Advertising. International Journal of Advertising. Nielsen, 2014. Decoding the UAE smartphone usage [WWW Document]. Noor, M.N.M., Sreenivasan, J., Ismail, H., 2013. Malaysian Consumers Attitude towards Mobile Advertising, the Role of Permission and Its Impact on Purchase Intention: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Asian Social Science 9, 135–153. O’Donohoe, S., 1995. Attitudes to Advertising: A Review of British and American Research. International

Journal

of

Advertising

14,

245–261.

doi:10.1080/02650487.1995.11104615 O’Rourke, N., Hatcher, L., 2013. A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling, Second Edition. SAS Institute. Paliwoda, S., Marinova, S., Petrovici, D., Marinov, M., 2007. Determinants and antecedents of general attitudes towards advertising: A study of two EU accession countries. European Journal of Marketing 41, 307–326. Perez, S., 2015. Consumers Spend 85% Of Time On Smartphones In Apps, But Only 5 Apps See Heavy Use. TechCrunch. Persaud, A., Azhar, I., 2012. Innovative mobile marketing via smartphones: are consumers ready? Marketing Intelligence & Planning 30, 418–443. Purcell, K., 2011. Half of adult cell phone owners have apps on their phones. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Raines, C., 2013. In-App Mobile Advertising: Investigating Consumer Attitudes Towards PullBased Mobile Advertising Amongst Young Adults In the UK. Journal of Promotional Communications 1. Scharl, A., Dickinger, A., Murphy, J., 2005. Diffusion and success factors of mobile marketing. Electronic

Commerce

Research

and

Applications

4,

159–173.

doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2004.10.006 Shetty, S., 2015. Mobile: Present or Future? Gulf Marketing Review June. Smith, C.P., 2000. Content analysis and narrative analysis. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology 313–335. Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., Rook, 2006. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. ed. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks. Sung, J., Cho, K., 2012. The Influence of Media Type on Attitude Toward Mobile Advertisements Over Time. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 15, 31– 36. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0061 24

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Tsang, M.M., Shu-Chun Ho, Ting-Peng Liang, 2004. Consumer Attitudes Toward Mobile Advertising: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8, 65– 78. Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research 49, 193–211. Varnali, K., Toker, A., 2010. Mobile marketing research: The-state-of-the-art. International Journal of Information Management 30, 144–151. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.08.009 Varnali, K., Yilmaz, C., Toker, A., 2012. Predictors of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in mobile advertising: A field experiment. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 11, 570–581. Velicer, W.F., Fava, J.L., 1998. Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological methods 3, 231. Wagner, T.M., Benlian, A., Hess, T., 2013. The Advertising Effect of Free – Do Free Basic Versions Promote Premium Versions within the Freemium Business Model of Music Services?, in: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Presented at the 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 2928–2937. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2013.21 Watson, C., McCarthy, J., Rowley, J., 2013. Consumer attitudes towards mobile marketing in the smart phone era. International Journal of Information Management 33, 840–849. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.06.004 Wayne, H., 2007. Global Mobile Commerce: Strategies, Implementation and Case Studies: Strategies, Implementation and Case Studies. IGI Global. Worthington, R.L., Whittaker, T.A., 2006. Scale development research a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist 34, 806–838. Yang, B., Kim, Y., Yoo, C., 2013. The integrated mobile advertising model: The effects of technology- and emotion-based evaluations. Journal of Business Research 66, 1345– 1352. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.035 Yang, K.C.C., 2007. Exploring Factors Affecting Consumer Intention to Use Mobile Advertising in Taiwan. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 20, 33–49. doi:10.1300/J046v20n01_04 Yuan, S.-T., Tsao, Y.W., 2003. A recommendation mechanism for contextualized mobile advertising. Expert Systems with Applications 24, 399–414. doi:10.1016/S09574174(02)00189-6

25

International Conference on Organization and Management 2015 Yun Yoo, C., Kim, K., 2005. Processing of animation in online banner advertising: The roles of cognitive and emotional responses. Journal of Interactive Marketing 19, 18–34. Zhang, P., 2006. Pop-up Animations: Impact and Implications for Website Design and Online Advertising, in: Galleta, D., Zhang, P. (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction an Management Information Systems: Applications. M.E. Sharpe, New York.

26