The perfect fit:
the role of shopping mode and ad type for
mobile ad effectiveness
Celine Buri
Overview
›
Introduction
›
Literature review & conceptual model
›
Research design
›
Procedure
›
Results
Introduction (1/2)
•
Focus on push-based ads(e.g. Andrews et al. 2016; Fong, Fang, & Luo 2015; Li et al. 2017)•
No comparison of push- vs. pull-based ads in LBA (Shieh, Xu, & Ling 2019; Unni & Harmon 2007)•
Scarcity of studies linking in-store mobile advertising to psychological constructs(Das, Mukherjee, & Smith 2018; Khajehzadeh, Oppewal, & Tojib 2014)Introduction (2/2)
• Combine mobile advertising with a well-founded psychological construct à increased generalizability
Literature review (1/2)
›
Match between regulatory goal communicated with a product and the one pursued by consumer à increases purchase intention and vice versa (Labroo & Lee 2006; Das et al. 2018)›
Fit between regulatory orientation and shopping motivation à significantly influences the perceived value and trust of mobile retailing(Thongpapanl et al. 2018)àH1: Regulatory fit positively influences purchase intention.
›
Push messages interrupt goal pursuit of people with a prevention focus(Unni & Harmon 2007)›
Higher privacy risk (Xu et al. 2011)Literature review (2/2)
›
Push messages induce impulse buying à hedonic shoppers (Shieh et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2011; Yim et al. 2014).›
Hedonic shoppers more open during shopping trip à regulatory fit less important(Khajehzadeh et al. 2014).›
Promotion focus: open for opportunities that could be helpful to achieve goal(Förster & Higgins 2005; Pham & Avnet 2004).àH2b: Hedonic shoppers perceive similar high levels of regulatory fit in push- and pull-based advertising.
›
Consumer’s opinion about product & purchase intention increaes with regulatory fit (Labroo & Lee 2006; Wan, Hong, & Sternthal 2009)›
Regulatory fit mediates the relationship between product type and shopping motivation for utilitarian shoppers(Khajehzadeh et al. 2014)
›
Hedonic shoppers are more open during shopping trip à respond to both hedonic and utilitarian products à both pull and push messages à regulatory fit not essential (Khajehzadeh et al. 2014)Conceptual model
Shopping motivation:
hedonic vs. utilitarian
Regulatory fit
Results (1/5)
0 6,3 10 5,3 7,4 11,1 10 2,1 1,1 22,1 7,9 2,6 7,9 5,3 1,1 0 0 5 10 15 20 2512-17 years 18-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 45-54 years 65-74 years 75+
Quota
Results (2/5) – correlation matrix
Utilitarian_sm Hedonic_sm Prevent_focus Promo_focus Push Pull
Results (3/5) – H1
R2 b p
Regulatory fit .421 .649 .000
DV: purchase intention
Results (5/5) - mediation analysis
bhedonic= .6370***
butilitarian= .6358***
ahedonic= .3694***
autilitarian= -.1140ns Regulatory fit
Purchase intention Shopping motivation
c’hedonic= .0319ns c’utilitarian= -.1139***
Shopping motivation Purchase intention chedonic= .2672***
Conclusions & recommendations
• Confirms positive connection between regulatory fit & ad type on purchase intention
• Differentiate consumers more on a psychological level
• Differentiate better between different consumer groups
àPersonalized mobile marketing strategy
(Tong et al. 2020)
• Repeat on bigger scale • More reliable items for push
message
• Possibly skewed because of pandemic
• No sustainable evidence for regulatory fit between shopping motivation + ad type
• Pull messages generally higher value than push messages(Shieh et al. 2019)
• Regulatory fit strong impact on purchase intention
Thank you for your attention!
References
›
Andrews, Michelle, Luo, Xueming, Fang, Zheng, and Ghose, Anindya (2016), “Mobile ad effectiveness: Hyper-contextual targeting with crowdedness,” Marketing Science, 35 (2), 218-233.›
Das, Gopal, Mukherjee, Amaradri, and Smith, Ronn J. (2018), “The Perfect Fit: The Moderating Role of Selling Cues, on Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Types,“ Journal of Retailing. 94 (2), 203-216.›
Fong, Nathan M, Fang, Zheng, and Luo, Xueming (2015), “Geo-Conquesting: Competitive Locational Targeting of Mobile Promotions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 726-735.›
Förster, Jens and Higgins, E. Tory (2005), “How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus,” PsychologicalScience, 16 (8), 631-636.
›
Khajehzadeh, Saman, Oppewal, Harmen, and Tojib, Dewi (2014), “Consumer responses to mobile coupons: The roles of shopping motivation and regulatory fit,” Journal of Business Research, 67 (11), 2447-2455.›
Labroo, Aparna A. and Lee, Angela Y. (2006), “Between Two Brands: A Goal Fluency Account of Brand Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 374-385.
›
Li, Chenxi, Luo, Xueming, Zhang, Cheng, and Wang, Xiaoyi (2017), “Sunny, rainy, and cloudy with a chance of mobile promotion effectiveness,” Marketing Science, 36 (5), 762- 779.›
Shieh, Chih-Hui, Xu, Yingzi, and Ling, I-Ling (2019), “How location-based advertising elicits in-store purchase,”References
›
Pham, Michel and Avnet, Tamar (2004), “Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), 503-518.›
Thongpapanl, Narongsak, Ashraf, Abdul R., Lapa, Luciano, and Venkatesh, Viswanath (2018), “Differential effects of customers' regulatory fit on trust, perceived value, and m- commerce use among developing and developedcountries,” Journal of International Marketing, 26 (3), 22-44.
›
Tong, Siliang, Luo, Xueming, and Xu, Bo (2020), “Personalized mobile marketing strategies,” Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 48 (1), 64-78.
