Running head: Branded Mobile Apps: Effectiveness in Branding Efforts Capstone Professional Project...

Running head: Branded Mobile Apps: Effectiveness in Branding Efforts

Capstone Professional Project

Branded Mobile Apps: Effectiveness in Branding Efforts

By Hussam Harb AlMukhtar

Supervised by Rosanne Hartman, Ph.D.

Canisius College

COM 605

2Branded Mobile Apps: Effectiveness in Branding Efforts

Abstract

Mobile phone applications (apps) have generated a great interest among marketers

who have increased dedicated budgets for mobile marketing. This study attempts to assess

the effectiveness of branded mobile apps in shifting attitude towards a certain brand. More

specifically, this study identifies two types of apps: informational apps, which provide users

with information that answers their questions, help them make a decision and serve a

specific purpose they have, and experiential apps are game-like applications deliver

enjoyment to the user and do not require much cognitive abilities to navigate through.

Findings of this study suggest that experiential apps have a positive effect in shifting

attitudes toward a brand. Results also indicate that informational apps did not appear to

have an impact on brand attitude. Despite these findings, other results from this study

allude that experiential apps are not necessarily better than informational apps in affecting

brand attitude.

2


Introduction

Mobile marketing spending increased 95% in the first half of 2012 totaling in $1.2

billion, up from $636 million in the same period of 2011 (IAB, 2012). This mass growth in

the mobile marketing industry indicates an equivalent mass growth in the audience for

mobile electronic communications and promotions (Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker and

Naik, 2010). eMarketer (2012) reports that, excluding talk and text messaging, US

consumers are spending 82 minutes per day using mobile devices. The mobile audience has

been consuming information by receiving messages from marketers; they also actively

interact with brands through the different channels mobile devices provide (Shankar and

Balasubramanian 2009).

Mobile marketing consists of all marketing efforts that use mobile devices as a

medium and mobile users as targets, is an expanding industry. With over a million

smartphone devises currently being activated on a daily basis, it is an expanding industry.

Smartphone users are spending more time using mobile applications (apps) per day than

the average Internet users spend online. Marketing managers are continuously exploring

the possibilities of using mobile avenues (apps, mobile-ready websites and short messaging

systems (SMS)) in their branding strategies (Newark-French, 2011).

A brand name is among the most fundamental and long-lasting assets of a firm.

Marketing managers seek ways to enhance the value of brands by leveraging this value

through brand extensions and other means. Mobile technologies provide marketer with a

new venue where they can listen, monitor and interact with their customers to enhance

their brands. As the mobile application market continues to grow in stature and popularity

3


it will become imperative for brands to assess their target market and create relevant

applications to meet growing demand.

Mobile apps can be instrumental in driving customers to a brand’s online social

presence. As the number of social network users continues to grow in tandem with the

smartphone, brands should look to integrate the two elements to hopefully extend the user

experience and encourage engagement and acquisition moving forward. However, research

in this area is limited. Therefore, this study will investigate the relationship between mobile

marketing through the use of mobile apps and branding efforts, more specifically brand

attitude. Recognizing the different approaches for branding, this study will be looking into

the effectiveness of mobile apps in improving attitude towards a brand. The study will be

identifying two types of apps, informational, or user-centered application and experiential,

or game-like applications, and attempting to measure an attitude shift towards a brand as a

result of using each type of apps.

Current research has returned inconclusive findings as to which type of branded

apps is more effective in the branding efforts (Bellman, Potter, Treleaven-Hassard, Robinson

and Varan, 2011). Bellman et al (2011) have tested the effectiveness of the different apps in

shifting attitude towards two brands in one product category. This study will attempt to

expand on Bellman et al’s (2011) study by measuring the shift in attitude towards one

brand name in one product category. Using one brand of a product category provides more

control than using two brands in one product category, as participants might have

preconceived notions toward one brand over the other. The results of this study can

provide marketers the chance to pick and choose what type of apps to build when

formulating their mobile marketing strategies, as one can be more expensive than the other.

4


It is no surprise that mobiles are changing the way consumers search, shop and

interact with one another. Mobile media, the mobile web, apps and text messaging are

transforming the user experience and the way consumers interact with brands. This has

casted a range of opportunities for companies to leverage mobile to grow their brands.

Having branded app, which is informative, educational or entertaining, is becoming a key

part of any mobile strategy. Marketers can leverage on mobile apps to boost brand

awareness and affinity by thoroughly understanding their target audience.

Literature Review

Attitude

Attitudes are a popular research topic in advertising/marketing studies for at least

two reasons: first, they are useful in predicting consumer behavior (Mitchell and Olson

1981), and second, several theoretical frameworks for the study of attitudes are available

from researchers, thereby facilitating research on this pivotal construct. Advertising and

marketing efforts must change attitude to change behavior (Berger and Mitchell, 1989).

Bettman (1979) contends that attitude represents affect toward the object. Lutz (1991)

considers that attitudes are solely an affective construct and reflects "predispositions"

toward an object, which may lead to an actual behavior. Additionally, Lutz (1991) claims

that attitudes function as a "filter" for how an individual perceives an object. Attitudes have

been defined by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) as "a learned predisposition of human beings to

respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object."

This study will adopt Lin’s (2008) definition of attitude as a continuously reactive

orientation learned from a certain object. This definition suggests that attitudes can be

changed when subjects are exposed to stimuli.

5


Baldinger and Robinson’s (1996) study found that two- thirds of all studied brands

had market share increases when brand attitude became more positive. Millward Brown,

Inc. reports (Hollis, Farr and Dyson, 1996), based upon their proprietary brand equity

model, that a person's self-reported brand value is driven by their attitude toward the

brand. Finally, Simonin and Ruth (1998) report that brand attitude toward specific brands

influenced impressions of subsequent alliances the brand entered into. This implies that

with a greater brand recognitions comes a more positive attitude.

The importance of attitude in marketing comes to play with its connection to

behavior, specifically in predicting consumer behavior (Mitchell and Olson, 1981; Sundar

and Kim, 2005). Attitudes are positively correlated with purchase intentions (Hussain Shah,

Aziz, Jaffari, Waris, Ejaz, Fatima and Sherazi, 2012). Attitudes are easier to change than

intentions or behaviors, and research found that attitude change could indicate a change in

behavior later (Morris, Chongmoo Woo and Jooyoung Kim, 2002). A great deal of research

says it’s easier to change attitude than to alter a behavior (Mitchell and Olson 1981, Lutz

1980 and Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) which if positively occurs can change a purchase

behavior (Lin, 2011).

Striving to perceive the relationship between attitude and behavior, researchers

came up with models, which would define the constituent parts of attitude. Schiffman and

Kanuk’s (2004), and Rice’s (1997) models suggest that attitude have three components;

cognition, emotion and intention. The cognition part signifies belief or disbelief in an object

- and in this case, a brand (Rice, 1997). Consumer feelings and emotions with regard to a

certain object reflect the emotional component of attitude, while the intentions component

can encompass behavior itself (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004). Creating messages that

6


involves the cognition component and triggers emotions can result changing behaviors and

increasing purchase intent (Lin, 2011).

Interactivity affects consumers’ attitudes (McMillan 2000, Suh and Chang 2006, Wu

1999). The higher the perceived interactivity of the medium the more positive the users’

attitude is (Wu, 1999). Advertising on mobile devices through the use of brand-provided

apps is highly interactive and is potentially even more engaging than website and rich-

media banner advertising (Shankar and Balasubramanian 2009). This high level of

engagement, which is a combination of different beliefs held by a consumer about how the

technology fits into his/her life (Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel, 2009), is likely to be

highly persuasive (Wang, 2006) and make mobile devices important to brand attitude.

Most mobile phones and apps allow users to customize applications to fit what they

want. By customizing these applications, users elaborate extensively on what does the

content of the applications mean to them, and might make a personal connection with the

advertised brand. They also selectively download and use apps based on their own

personal needs. This personal connection with the brand generated by mobile apps, if it

was positive, might results in a favorable behavior towards the brand (Petty and Cacioppo,

1986).

Mobile Devices and Branded Apps

Juniper Research (2013) indicates that marketers use mobile marketing for four

purposes: 1) Initial consumer discovery and engagement; 2) Relationship building; 3)

Product purchase (remote); 4) Product purchase (point of sale). Considering that these

points incorporate branding, relationship management and the actual purchase, one can

see how important mobile, as a medium, is becoming.

7


The customizable nature of mobile phones, especially smartphones, makes these

devices an extension of their owners and a great media for marketers to pursue (Shankar

and Balasubramanian 2009, Bellman et al. 2011). This personal nature of mobile phones

forces limitations on marketers when implementing strategies. For example, marketers

have to get users to “opt-in” and give the permissions to advertise on their phones to

maintain a positive attitude about the advertisement (Tsang, Ho, and Liang, 2004). Tsang et

al. (2004) found that consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising are generally negative,

but are positive if permission is obtained.

One of the increasingly popular aspects of mobile marketing is branded apps. To

reflect the characteristics of branded apps, this study adopted Bellmans et al’s (2011)

definition as “software downloadable to a mobile device which prominently displays a

brand identity, often via the name of the app and the appearance of a brand logo or icon,

throughout the user experience.” This increasing importance of the branded apps comes

from the high level of interactivity they often bring (Bolton and Saxena-Lyer 2009, Shankar

and Balasubramanian 2009).

Sundar and Kim (2005) noted that the mere presence of interactivity in advertising

messages is positively associated with attitudes and it positively influences the persuasion

process. They report that interactive ads affect purchase intent more than static ads

(Sundar and Kim, 2005). Consumers get exposure to highly interactive advertising for a

longer time than static or ads with low interactivity (Cauberghe and De Pelsmacker, 2010)

and process more information there as well (Sicilia, Ruiz, and Munuera, 2005). Sicilia et al

(2005) argue that interactive information needs to be structured by the consumer and this

activity requires extensive cognitive effort, which implies that the level of information

8


processing will be high. They found that consumers react to interactivity with higher

favorability toward the advertised product/brand in websites than noninteractivity, and

interactivity is important in increasing knowledge for individuals with low involvement

(Sicilia et al, 2005).

One perspective for viewing engagement and brand attitude is provided by the

elaboration likelihood model (ELM). ELM suggests that attitude formation may be

influenced strongly by message arguments, i.e. central route, or by contextual cues i.e.,

peripheral route (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). Findings of studies on contextual aspects of

advertisements, such as music (Gorn, 1982) and spokesperson popularity (Petty, Cacioppo

and Schumann, 1983), suggest that these aspects may highly affect brand attitude when

consumers have low involvement with the product. On contrast, when a product is highly

relevant, consumers may process an argument in depth and their attitudes would then be

affected (Petty et al., 1983). Therefore, Bellman et al (2011) argue that using branded apps

can result in a positive attitude shift towards a brand.

Some studies recognize the link between attitudes towards an ad to brand attitude.

Mitchell and Olson (1981) found that attitude towards an ad mediated brand attitude as

well as purchase intentions. Attitude toward an ad affects brand attitude for both low and

high brand knowledge (Lutz, MacKenzie and Belch, 1983). Other findings support the

notion that attitude toward an ad has a strong direct influence on brand attitudes for less-

involved receivers (Gardner, Mitchell and Russo 1985; Park and Young 1986). Park and

Young (1986) found that the effect of music in an ad on brand attitude depends on the type

and level of involvement. Music had a facilitative effect on brand attitude for subjects in the

low involvement condition and a distracting effect for those in the cognitive involvement

9


condition. This suggests that the creative execution of an app can exert effects on its

effectiveness in shifting brand attitude (Shmip, 2007). A more interactive and engaging

application, in retrospect, should generate a greater shift in brand attitude.

In addition, branded apps can provide a “pull” form of marketing, as opposed to the

traditional “push” forms (Bellman et al, 2011). Pull marketing is all the activities

that encourage prospects to seek a brand out and find out whether it has something of

value to offer them (Bendinger, 2009). It tries to stimulate demands and pull product off the

shelves. On the other hand, push marketing is when a brand uses various activities to get its

message in front of its ideal client. With push marketing, the marketer is in control of what

the message is, how it is seen, when and where (Bendinger, 2009). It counts on people

remembering that proposition and pushes product into the designed distribution channels.

Ahluwalia and Varshney (2005) argues that consumers have a more positive attitude

towards a pull advertisement than a push one.

With interactivity, users can have eight different kinds of interactive experiences

(Calder et al, 2009). For the purpose of this study, this study will only be focusing on two

kinds of experiences, utilitarian/information-gathering (informational) and intrinsic

enjoyment (experiential) as both of them directly relate to the different types of contents

consumers might get exposed to. (Hoffman and Novak, 1996).

Informational and Experiential Apps

Looking at the two kinds of experiences, this study is identifying the first type of

branded apps as being an informational app. The conceptualization of Informational apps is

derived from Hoffman and Novak’s work (1995) as apps with prominent text-, or

multimedia-based content that (1) delivers a utilitarian experience, (2) satisfies an

10


extrinsic motivation, and (3) provides purposive exposure to intentional and selective

content. That is, the app users would believe that the app provides information to help

them find answers, make decisions, or accomplish something in their lives and serves a

specific need they have. An app from BMW that displays useful information about the car,

and helps a customer make a buying decision is considered an informational app. The

information available on this type of apps employs high cognition during the persuasion

process, according to ELM, which in turn positively alter attitudes toward a brand (Petty

and Cacioppo, 1986).

On the other hand, the second type of apps identified in this study is the

experiential. Experiential apps are defined as apps with game-like content that (1) delivers

an intrinsic enjoyment, (2) satisfies internal motivations, and (3) focuses more on the

medium rather than on the provided content (Hoffman and Novak, 1995). Experiential apps

provide users with an experience that enables them to unwind and escape from the

pressures of life and delivers enjoyment to the user (Calder et al, 2009). They are less

intentional, and nonselective in orientation (Rubin and Perse, 1987). An app from BMW

that is game-like, does not require a lot of cognition, and might not serve any purpose for

the user other than enjoyment is considered an experiential app. This type of apps banks on

the peripheral cues it contains during the persuasion process, according to ELM, which

suggests a positive shift in brand attitude (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986).

Users of informational apps will have to apply their cognitive abilities to absorb the

information provided by the app. The utilitarian and information-heavy nature of

informational apps requires users to apply high levels of cognitive functioning, and

therefore, ELM suggests that users should have high involvement and relevance to the app

11


for it to be beneficial to them. ELM (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) suggests that when users

have high involvement, they are more likely to process information through a central

processing route. Therefore the informational content of the app should be processed

cognitively, as ELM’s central processing route suggests. Because of that, users are more

likely to have understood the meaning and utility of the app’s content and formed a closer

personal connection with the brand (Bellman et al, 2011). Therefore, the study

hypothesizes that:

H1: Using informational apps increases attitude towards the advertised brand.

Moreover, even though relevance of the product category to the user is an important

factor in the ELM perspective, research results show that the relevance of product category

made no difference to the effectiveness of a branded app (Bellman et al, 2011). Based on

the interactivity available in apps, peripheral routes can be used in informational apps

along side the central routes. The mere presence of interactivity in the app is ample enough

to be a peripheral cue and alter attitude when it is noted but not used (Liu, Shrum, 2009).

ELM suggests that when users have low involvement, they are more likely to process

messages through a peripheral route (Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann, 1983). In line with

the ELM, experiential apps can tap into consumers' peripheral route to persuasion that

focuses on the presentation of timely and attention-catching information to the customer,

rather than into the central route to persuasion that calls for intensive processing of

detailed information (Shankar and Balasubramanian 2009). It is known, from the

definition, that experiential apps users do not need external motivations to use and enjoy

them, rather they are internally motivated to use them to pass time or as a relaxation tool

(Hoffman and Novak, 1996). Experiential apps users, therefore, are processing messages

12


through peripheral routes using the peripheral cues in the apps’ contents. The preceding

discussion leads to the following hypothesis.

H2: Using experiential apps increases attitude towards the advertised brand.

Although some research suggests that consumers processing messages through

peripheral routes do not get deeper in the content of the message and may not evaluate its

positive and negative aspects (Banyte et al, 2007), Petty et al (1983) argue that a peripheral

strategy can generate attitude changes equal to what a central strategy can generate. The

highly interactive (Sundar and Kim, 2005) and the personal (Shankar and

Balasubramanian, 2009) natures of experiential apps can positively influence the

persuasion process.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis was derived.

H3: Experiential apps have a greater effect on brand attitude than informational apps.

Methods

Participants

The method of sampling is non-random, convenient sampling of undergraduate and

graduate students from a private collage located in the northeast of the United States. All

participants (N=149) were randomly assigned to three groups using a computer-generated

survey. Upon accessing the survey using a computer, a randomizing formula provided by

Qualtrics.com placed participants into one of the three designed groups. Two of the groups

used a branded app and reported attitude. One group only reported attitude towards a

brand. The group that was not exposed to any app was necessary to act as a base to

measure the attitude shift. 152 people accessed the survey and the response rate was

13


98.02%. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 66 years old where 49% of them were

females.

Survey Instrument

This study employed a self-administered survey as an instrument to gather reported

attitudes towards the tested brand, familiarity of the brand name and attitude towards the

used app. A survey to measure attitude towards the brand by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)

was used employing five 7-point semantic-deferential scales. Terms such as

“unappealing/appealing,” “bad/good,” “unfavorable/favorable,” “pleasant/unpleasant” and

“likeable/unlikeable” were used (last two were reversed) (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).

Cronbach’s alpha for the five brand attitude scales was at the acceptable level of 0.736.

Following Mitchell and Olson (1981), this study used the mean score of six evaluative scales

(unpleasant/pleasant, unlikeable/likeable, boring/interesting, tasteless/tasteful,

artless/artful and bad/good) as a measure of attitude toward the app used. The Cronbach’s

alpha reliability of the six-item measure of attitude towards an app was acceptable at 0.901.

Lastly, a two 7-point scale anchored by “not known/known” and “not familiar/familiar” was

used to measure brand familiarity for the tested brand. The familiarity scale had a

Cronbach’s alpha of an acceptable 0.875.

Procedure

Students were invited to participate in the study in February and March 2013 after

consent has been granted from the Institutional Review Board. Students in ten different

classes were contacted through five professors about the study. They heard about the study

from the researcher and those who were interested in participating logged on to a website

through computers available in their classrooms. A cover letter provided to all participants

14


informed them that they do not have to partake in this study if they do not wish to and they

can quit at any time (See Appendix C). Students were not promised extra credit and none of

them received any sort of compensation for their participation. The computer program

used for the survey assigned participants randomly into one of three groups: informational

group, experiential group and control group. After the assignment, the two manipulated

groups received either an iPhone or iPod touch devices with the branded apps already

loaded. Participants in the informational app group used the “Colgate” app designed and

published by Colgate-Palmolive Company on an iPhone or an iPod touch (See Appendix A).

Participants in the experiential app groups used the “Tooth-Fairy” app designed by Colgate

Palmolive Company and published by MagiClick Digital Solutions on an iPhone or an iPod

touch (See Appendix B). The content and creative executions of these two apps reflect the

definitions of the two types of apps studied. The Colgate brand was chosen as a result of the

availability of these two apps, as there are few brands that can afford to have different types

of apps available. Participant were asked to use the provided app for three to five minutes

and then continue to fill in the online survey. Due to the limited availability of the handheld

devices, only five to six participants were able to take the survey at the same time.

Results

Hypothesis one predicted that using an informational branded app would result in a

positive attitude shift. The result of an independent-sample t test showed that there was a

statistically significant difference between the brand attitudes of the control group

(m=24.04, SD=4.839) compared to the informational group (m=25.80, SD=5.528) at the 0.05

level (t=1.694, df=98, p=0.0465). Therefore H1 was supported.

15


Hypothesis two predicted that using an experiential branded app would result in a

positive attitude shift. H2 was supported as the independent-sample t test showed that

there was a statistically significant difference between the brand attitudes of the

experiential group (m=26.55, SD=5.831) when compared against the control group

(m=24.04, SD=4.839) at the 0.05 level (t=2.319, df=96, p=0.0115).

Hypothesis three predicted that experiential branded apps would generate a greater

attitude shift than informational apps. Results from the independent-sample t test failed to

reject the null hypothesis and indicated that there was no statistically significant difference

between attitudes from the informational group (m=25.80, SD=5.528) compared to the

experiential group (m=26.55, SD=5.831) at the 0.05 level (t=0.657, df=97.148, p=0.256).

Therefore H3 was not supported.

Results also showed that there was no statistically significant difference between

attitudes toward the informational app (m=15.92, SD=6.474) when compared to the

experiential app (m=14.47, SD=7.214) at the 0.05 level (t=-1.058, df=95.899, p=0.1465).

Discussion

Observing the growing interest in the new mobile media, the purpose of this study

was to investigate the effects of branded mobile applications on brand attitude. The project

identified two different types of mobile apps based on their content: informational and

experiential apps. H1 was supported: informational apps have a positive impact on brand

attitude. Colgate’s informational app provided users with advice and solutions for dental

problems. The app delivered the content in an interactive way represented by the touch

screen capacity of the device (Sundar and Kim, 2005). Participants’ brand attitude was

shifted through the central processing route in absorbing the information presented (Petty

16


and Cacioppo, 1986). Although ELM’s central processing route requires higher involvement

with the advertised product for it to have a better impact, Bellman et al.’s (2011) research

suggests that relevance of the product made no difference to the effectiveness of the

process. It is possible that the shift occurred through the mere presence of interactivity (Liu

and Shrum, 2009) as well.

H2 was also supported by this study indicating that experiential apps positively

change brand attitude. The most likely explanation for the effectiveness of this type of apps

is that they offer a high level of user engagement, based on rich experiences (Calder et al.,

2009). The delivery of intrinsic enjoyment for participants through this type of apps can be

another factor, as it offered an escape from the academic setting in which they were

present. The effects of H1 and H2 are significant to marketers. Since attitudes help predicting

consumer behavior (Mitchell and Olson, 1981), increasingly positive attitude gives

marketers a better insight about their consumers. But most importantly, brand attitude is

positively correlated with brand equity, which in return yields in greater brand preference

and purchase intent (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble and Donthu, 1995). Using brand apps, whether

be it informational or experiential, results in an improved affect attachment to the brand

and increases sales.

When investigating brand attitudes after the exposure to experiential apps and

informational apps, data suggest that there is no significant shift between the two groups.

Therefore, H3 was not supported. Comparing attitudes toward the two apps, results suggest

that there is no significant difference between the creative executions of the two chosen

apps, which helps confirming the null hypothesis against H3. If ELM was to be used to

examine the result, we find that that scale is tipped in favor of the informational app for

17


having more impact in the persuasion process. However, interactivity might balance the

scale in favor of the experiential app when we consider the forced exposure to the brand

and the possibility of lack of interest of the participants to the presented messages. The

study’s failure to support this hypothesis does not affect the other findings, but it merely

indicates that it found no difference between the two approaches. This leaves the choice as

to which type of apps to use to the marketers and their creative strategies.

Implications

Mobile phone apps provide a pull marketing opportunity delivered via a platform

that consumers have strong emotional attachments to. Many view their mobile phones as

extensions of themselves. This has resulted in an increasing interest in capitalize on the

affective and interactive experience that apps provide (Shankar and Balasubramanian,

2009). Results from this study suggest that branded mobile applications show a significant

impact on brand attitude. Although there is a growing trend and urgency for brands to build

mobile-ready websites (Compuware, 2011), this study implies that it could be more cost

effective to invest in branded apps instead.

Although these findings can help marketers in effectively choosing the type of apps

they need to build, the actual process of building a branded app is not easy. Creating an

interactive game or a useful informational app that appeals to consumers and attract them

enough to use it regularly requires a significant amount of resources. Identifying the

concept of the app, programming and testing them require a large budget of time and

money to ensure success. Added to that is the skyrocketing number of apps available in the

different virtual stores for the different mobile platforms (ABI, 2013). Getting a new app

noticed when there are hundreds of thousands of other apps on these virtual shelves is

18


most likely to require a separate advertising campaign and marketing budget. Marketers

have sorted mainly to web banner advertising to promote for their apps. Also, marketers

have been utilizing the power of social media to generate chatter about their apps and

redirect users into downloading them.

However, if the branded app is focused on filling a market niche and solving a unique

consumer problem, the app will inevitably deliver a new generation of brand advocates

with the long exposure to the app and its messages (Cauberghe and De Pelsmacker, 2010).

But because many apps are abandoned soon after they are downloaded (Gordon, 2013),

effective branded apps need to be designed to have lasting value and feature easy-to-use

social sharing tools that streamline the acquisition of new brand advocates.

On the other hand, branded apps provide real-time, actionable analytics. It's

important to know that apps can facilitate a two-way flow of information. While the app

presents valuable information or delivers enjoyment to consumers, it can also deliver

actionable analytics back to the brand. Analytics and marketing metrics is considered a

great measure for the return on investment in a campaign (Srinivasan & Hanssens, 2009). It

can confidently identify which parts of a marketing tactic are delivering the best financial

returns. Incorporating analytical tools into the app-design process produces visibility

regarding the volume of consumers who use the app to visit the brand website or make a

conversion. Instructional content or product information that is accessed more often than

other pieces of content in the app may shed light on messaging or training deficiencies in

materials the company produces.

Limitation

19


Like all lab studies, the findings of this study should be transferred to the real world

application with caution. The most important limitation is the forced exposure to the apps.

Data used in this study were collected from people who might not have been interested in

the advertised product or the testing apps. This limitation might translate our results to be

more moderate compared to the real world.

Another limitation is preconceived notions about the tested brands. Colgate

Toothpaste is a known brand and participants might have had strong affects towards it that

could not be altered in the mere five minutes of interaction. Not allowing repeated uses

over a longer time might have an effect. In their two-stage model of message repetition,

Petty and Cacioppo (1980) argued that moderate repetition enhanced people’s ability to

positively respond to messages. The design of the study factors into this limitations and

results as well. Not having a pre-post study design might hide some attitude shift.

Furthermore, any generalization from these findings should be treated with caution

given the age range of respondents. The heavy youth skew in the sample due to the adopted

sampling method should be taken into account when interpreting the results of this study.

Future Research

Given the limitations discussed above, future research should replicate the study

using apps from a pool of voted applications by participants. Having a wide variety of

branded app would eliminate some of forced exposure effects of this study. On the other

hand, further study should attempt at allowing more interaction time with the apps and use

a pre-post study design.

Finally, the apps tested were of an interactive advertising nature and not the

increasingly popular apps, which deliver location-specific information or offers (Shankar

20


and Balasubramanian, 2009). The inclusion of timely and precisely localized information

could make mobile apps even more effective and drive consumers to repeatedly use these

apps offering longer exposure to the brand. Future study should explore the effectiveness of

the geo-location based and interactive apps.

While mobile marketing has already come quite far in just the past few years, the

fact remains that there is much more that can still be done. With almost every electronic

device available being built to connect to the Internet, smartphones and other gadgets alike

will bring marketers and users together to create experiences, influence purchases and

make life a little easier.

21


References

ABI Research, Mobile Applications Research Service. (2013, March 04). Android Will

Account for 58% of Smartphone App Downloads in 2013, with iOS Commanding a

Market Share of 75% in Tablet Apps [Press release]. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from

http://www.abiresearch.com/press/android-will-account-for-58-of-smartphone-

app-down

Ahluwalia, P., & Varshney, U. (2005). Supporting quality-of-service of mobile commerce

transactions. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 421-

434.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baldinger, A. L., & Rubinson, J. (1996). Brand loyalty: The link between attitude and behavior.

Journal of Advertising Research, 36(6), 22.

Banytė, J., Jokšaitė, E., & Virvilaitė, R. (2007). Relationship of Consumer Attitude and Brand:

Emotional Aspect. Engineering Economics, 52(2), 65-77.

Bellman, S., Potter, R. F., Treleaven-Hassard, S., Robinson, J. A., & Varan, D. (2011). The

Effectiveness of Branded Mobile Phone Apps. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(4),

191-200. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2011.06.001

Bendinger, B. (2009). Advertising and the business of brands: An introduction to careers &

concepts in advertising & marketing. Chicago (2144 N. Hudson, Chicago, IL 60614), IL:

Copy Workshop.

Berger, I. E., & Mitchell, A. A. (1989). The Effect of Advertising on Attitude Accessibility,

Attitude Confidence, and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship. Journal of Consumer

22


Research, 16(3), 269. doi: 10.1086/209213

Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley Pub

Bolton, R., & Saxena-Iyer, S. (2009). Interactive Services: A Framework, Synthesis and

Research Directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 91-104. doi:

10.1016/j.intmar.2008.11.002

Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An Experimental Study of the

Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of

Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321-31.

Cauberghe, V., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2010). The Effectiveness of Telescopic Ads Delivered Via

Interactive Digital Television: The Impact of the Amount of Information and the Level of

Interactivity on Brand Responses. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24(4), 297-308. doi:

10.1016/j.intmar.2010.07.003

Cauberghe, V., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2010). The Effectiveness of Telescopic Ads Delivered Via

Interactive Digital TV: The Impact of the Amount of Information and the Level of

Interactivity on Brand Responses. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24(4), 297-308.

Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and

Purchase Intent. Journal of Advertising, 24, 3rd ser., 25-40.

Compuware. (2011, July 19). New Study Reveals the Mobile Web Disappoints Global

Consumers [Press release]. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from

http://www.compuware.com/d/release/592528/new-study-reveals-the-mobile-

web-disappoints-global-consumers

eMarketer. (2012, October 22). EMarketer: Consumers Spending More Time with Mobile as

23


Growth Slows for Time Online. EMarketer Newsroom. Retrieved from

http://www.emarketer.com/newsroom/index.php/consumers-spending-time-mobile-

growth-time-online-slows/

Gardner, M. P., Mitchell, A. A., & Russo, J. E. (1985). Low involvement strategies for

processing advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 14(2), 4-12.

Gordon, M. (2013, March 13). Black Holes and Superstars in the App Universe. Flurry.

Retrieved April 20, 2013, from http://blog.flurry.com/bid/95072/Black-Holes-and-

Superstars-in-the-App-Universe

Gorn, G. (1982). The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical

Conditioning Approach. Journal of Marketing, 46, 94-101.

Hirschman, E. (1986). The Effect of Verbal and Pictorial Advertising Stimuli on Aesthetic,

Utilitarian and Familiarity Perceptions. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 27-34.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1995). Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated

Environments: Conceptual Foundations. Journal of Advertising Research, 30(3), 50-68.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow Online: Lessons Learned and Future Prospects.

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2008.10.003

Hollis, N., Farr, A., & Dyson, N. (1996). Understanding, measuring and using brand equity.

Journal of Advertising Research, 36(6), 9-21.

Hussain Shah, S. S., Aziz, J., Jaffari, A. R., Waris, S., Ejaz, W., Fatima, M., & Sherazi, S. K.

(2012). The Impact of Brands on Consumer Purchase Intentions. Asian Journal of

Business Management, 4(2), 105-110.

IAB. (2012, October 11). IAB internet advertising revenue report (Rep.). Retrieved

http://www.iab.net/insights_research/industry_data_and_landscape/adrevenuereport

24


Juniper Research. (2013, January 23). Retail mCommerce: Mobile & Tablet Marketing,

Advertising & Coupon Strategies 2013-2017 (Publication). Retrieved

http://www.juniperresearch.com/viewreports.php?category=70

Lin, Y. (2011). The impact of advertising appeals and advertising spokespersons on

advertising attitudes and purchase intentions. African Journal of Business

Management, 5, 21st ser., 8446-8457.

Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. (2002). What Is Interactivity and Is It Always a Good Thing? Implications

of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising

Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 53-64.

Loudon, D. L., & Della, B. A. (1993). Consumer behavior: Concepts and applications. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Lutz, R. J. (1980). The role of attitude theory in marketing. Los Angeles, CA: University of

California, Los Angeles, Center for Marketing Studies.

Lutz, R. J., MacKenzie, S. B., & Belch, G. (1983). Ad Affect, Brand Attitude, and Choice: The

Moderating Roles of Delay and Involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 532-

9.

McMillan, S. J. (2000). Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: function, perception,

involvement, and attitude toward the web site. In PROCEEDINGS OF THE

CONFERENCE-AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ADVERTISING (pp. 71-78). Pullman, WA;

American Academy of Advertising; 1999.

Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of

Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318-332.

Mittal, B. (1995). A Comparative Analysis of Four Scales of Consumer Involvement.

25


Psychology and Marketing, 12(7), 663-82.

Morris, J. D., Chongmoo Woo, Geason, & Jooyoung Kim. (2002). The Power of Affect:

Predicting Intention. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(3), 7-17.

Newark-French, C. (2011, August 31). Mobile App Inventory Hungry Enough to Eat Internet

Display Ad Spend [Web log post]. Retrieved from

http://blog.flurry.com/blogflurrycom/bid/71285/Mobile-App-Inventory-Hungry-

Enough-to-Eat-Internet-Display-Ad-Spend

Park, W., & Young, M. (1985). The Effects of Involvement and Contextual Factors on Consumer

Information Processing of a TV Commercial. Journal of Marketing Research.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral

routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and Peripheral Routes to

Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of Consumer

Research, 10(2), 135. doi: 10.1086/208954

Rice, C., & Rice, C. (1997). Understanding customers. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience Activity and Television News Gratifications.

Communication Research, 14(1), 58-84. doi: 10.1177/009365087014001004

Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2004). Consumer behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Shankar, V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2009). Mobile Marketing: A Synthesis and Prognosis.

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), 118-129. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2009.02.002

Shankar, V., Venkatesh, A., Hofacker, C., & Naik, P. (2010). Mobile Marketing in the Retailing

Environment: Current Insights and Future Research Avenues. Journal of Interactive

26


Marketing, 24(2), 111-120. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2010.02.006

Shimp, T. A., & Shimp, T. A. (2007). Advertising, promotion, and other aspects of integrated

marketing communications. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.

Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S., & Munuera, J. (2005). Effects of Interactivity in a Web Site: The

Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 31-45.

Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps?

Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes.

American Marketing Association, 35, 1st ser., 30-42.

Srinivasan, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2009). Marketing and Firm Value: Metrics, Methods,

Findings, and Future Directions. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 293-312. doi:

10.1509/jmkr.46.3.293

Suh, K., & Chang, S. (2006). User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online stores: The role

of telepresence. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 99-113. doi:

10.1080/01449290500330398

Sundar, S., & Kim, J. (2005). Interactivity and Persuasion: Influencing Attitudes with

Information and Involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising,, 5(2), 5-18.

Tsang, M. M., Ho, S., & Liang, T. (2004). Consumer Attitudes Toward Mobile Advertising: An

Empirical Study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 65-78.

Wang, A. (2006). Advertising Engagement: A Driver of Message Involvement on Message

Effects. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4), 355. doi: 10.2501/S0021849906060429

Wu, G. (1999, March). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward web sites. In PROCEEDINGS

OF THE CONFERENCE-AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ADVERTISING (pp. 254-262).

American Academy of Advertising.

27


Appendix A: Branded App 1: Informational App

Colgate icon:

Colgate screen shot:

App Link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/colgate-dental-advisor/id507130123?mt=8

28

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/colgate-dental-advisor/id507130123?mt=8


Appendix B: Branded App 2: Experiential App

Tooth Fairy icon:

Tooth Fairy screen shot

Tooth Fairy Link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tooth-fairy/id470515255?mt=8

29

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tooth-fairy/id470515255?mt=8


Appendix C: Survey Cover Letter

Dear Participant,

I am a graduate student from Canisius College’s Communication and Leadership

program. As part of my requirements for graduation, I will be conducting a study

measuring the effectiveness of branded apps on brand attitude. I am asking that you

participate in this experiment; it should take up to ten minutes to play with an app on a

provided iPhone or an iPod touch and approximately five minutes to complete a survey.

The survey is completely anonymous. Your participation is voluntary and you can stop at

any time. Thank you for your participation. Please contact me at 813-220-3575 or

[email protected] or Dr. Rosanne Hartman, Director of the Communication and

Leadership program at Canisius College at 716-888-2589 or [email protected]

should you have any questions or comments regarding this study.

Sincerely,

Hussam AlMukhtar

30

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix D: Survey

Please rate each of your responses to the statements below on a scale of 1 to 7.

For me, the Colgate toothpaste brand is:

1- Unappealing 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Appealing

2- Bad 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Good

3- Unpleasant 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Pleasant

4- Unfavorable 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Favorable

5- Unlikeable 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Likeable

6- Not known 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Known

7- Not familiar 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Familiar

For me, the Colgate app I just used is:

8- Unpleasant 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Pleasant

7- Unlikeable 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Likeable

9- Boring 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Interesting

10- Tasteless 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Tasteful

11- Artless 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Artful

31


12- Bad 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ Good

32


Appendix E: Test Results

T-Test – Informational compared to Control

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upp

er

All Brand

Attitude

Equal variances

assumed

3.455 .066 1.694 98 .093 1.763 1.041 -.302 3.82

8

Equal variances

not assumed

1.699 97.172 .093 1.763 1.038 -.297 3.82

3

T-Test - Experiential compared to Control

Group Statistics

Code for the group Assignement

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. ErrorMean

All Brand Attitudeexperiential 49 26.55 5.831 .833

control 49 24.04 4.839 .691

Group Statistics



All Brand Attitudeinformational 51 25.80 5.528 .774

control 49 24.04 4.839 .691

33



Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances



tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference


Difference

Lower Upper

All Brand

Attitude

Equal variances

assumed

5.995 .016 2.319 96 .023 2.510 1.082 .361 4.659

Equal variances

not assumed

2.319 92.843 .023 2.510 1.082 .361 4.660

T-Test – Informational compared to Experiential


Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances



tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference


Difference

Lower Upper

All Brand

Attitude

Equal variances

assumed

.430 .513 .658 98 .512 .747 1.136 -1.507 3.001

Equal variances

not assumed

.657 97.148 .513 .747 1.137 -1.510 3.004

Group Statistics



All Brand Attitudeexperiential 49 26.55 5.831 .833

informational 51 25.80 5.528 .774

34

Running head: Branded Mobile Apps: Effectiveness in Branding Efforts Capstone Professional Project...

Documents

Transcript of Running head: Branded Mobile Apps: Effectiveness in Branding Efforts Capstone Professional Project...