Hello my name is Nicky and I’m from UCL. Today I’m here to present our paper which is a ‘wizard of oz’ study on consumer responses to tailored smartphone ads
In UK alone mobile advertising revenues (display, search, messaging) was valued at £203 million in 2011 which is more than double that previous year (£83 million in 2010) – Ofcom report
Research in mobile advertising from a consumer perspective suggests perceived utility which is positively related to the intention to adopt mobile advertising. The content of the ad or message – as it being entertaining, informative and credible - correlates with advertising value.Furthermore, inclusion of discounts increased the utility of ads. On the other hand however, research also raised concerns amongst participants particularly how data is collected and used. It also raised other privacy issues such spamming and intrusiveness CLICKAdvertisers are increasingly investing in mobile advertising since other than text messaging, with smartphones they can tailor the content to match owner’s interests as well as location
According to OfCom there were 32.6million smartphone users in UK in 2011 (about 39% of adult population) This raises the potential to extend the concept of tailored smartphone advertising even further
You might have heard about or personally experienced mobile advertising when playing games or searching for something on your phone. Or even received text messages or notifications from downloaded apps. Popular services include Living Social, Vouchercloud and Groupons. BUT what do people think of tailored adverts as they receive or see them on their personal smartphones?
So, our Research question ......How will consumers respond to smartphone tailored adverts in situ? Will they accept or reject them?
Most of mobile advertising research carried out in the past was based on reflective techniques such as online or phone surveys. Or even participants’ responses to described scenarios. To be able to better understand how people react to mobile advertising in real world our research was carried out ‘in the wild’
20 participants were recruited – 11 female and 9 male. The mean age being 33. The ads were sent over a periods of 5 days to 20 participants in situ. All participants were professional who lived and worked in London. They were also all experienced smartphone users and had owned a smartphone for a year. 15 of them had an iPhone while 5 had an Android. All had experience in mobile location services or apps as well as used their phone to brows the internetAll participants filled in a pre-study questionnaire which captured participants’ personal interests, pastimes, activities and most-frequented locations in LondonThe 20 participants were split into 2 groups so that half received discount type of ads and the other half info-only type of ads Each ad carried a question to gauge the participant’s most-likely response to the advertised itemFinally, participants were interviewed individually. They were asked about their experience and to expand on their reasons for their responses while accounting for those ads to which they failed to respond to. Each interview took approx 15 mins.
To carry out the study a desktop application was built to create the adverts. The content of the ads (text 1) was dependent on each participant’s personal profile which we had built by means of the pre-experiment questionnaire. So, if for e.g. a participant was into travelling and books then we would look up bookstores in the vicinity of their location and wrote a promotional advert around that item. In the 2nd text box we typed the question for the survey for e.g. in this case ‘would you go and consider buying the book?’CLICKWe would also upload an image as well as the Google generated map of (in this case) the bookstore’s location Finally we’d assign the advert to the respective participant. CLICKThis screen shows an ad created on this desktop application. The application generated a URL link which was then inserted as part of the text message. So, what happened was the participant received a text message, clicked on the link to fullview the advert and respond to it. Elapsed time: the recipient of the advert had one hour in which to view and respond to the advert. This time window was set in an attempt to counter shifts in time and place
We created an account on skype called mobileads_11 and used Skype’s to messaging function send the ad link to participants’ phonesEach time recipients read the message, clicked on the link their phone browser was triggered to then display the ad in its full view.
And these are samples of adverts participants saw on their smartphones. This is the Discount version .... And this the info-only type of advert Each participant received 4 of these ads on each day of the study at various intervals - morning, lunchtime, afternoon and evening
This is how we viewed responses in the same desktop application. CLICKOther than capturing the responses the system provided us with the geolocation of the participant at the time the advert was viewed. This was picked up by the browser of the phone. With this piece of data we tailored the content of the next ad. PS participants were asked to allow sharing of their location with the sender (warning which was displayed every time browser was triggered when link within text message was clicked)
200 ads were sent to each group. The Informative Group responded to 143 (71.5%) of adverts while the Discounts Group responded to 122 (61%).
The majority of ads were rejected in both groups (informative 42%, discount 49%). Also, there was little difference between the groups in terms of accepting ads: the Discount Group selected ‘yes’ for 31% and the Informative Group selected ‘yes’ for 29%. A Chi-Square test confirmed that type of advert (informative or discount) did not significantly affect responses, X2(2, N = 265)=3.38, p=.18.
The qualitative data as captured through the phone interviews was analysed.GT revealed 3 stages that a person must go through before they accept/reject an ad.There are several barriers that could stop them from moving from one stage to the other
In the 1st stage GT was concerned with factors that effect the willingness to sign up for such an advertising service – participants were concerned with; - who was the service provider? - 3 said they would sign up if provider had good reputation while 6 mentioned signing up IF they had the ability to control what personal info was being used and how Otherwise they were reluctant to provide info to strangers/big bro
In the 2nd stage GT focuses on factors which could prevent users to attend to the ad and in time. These included; - 5 participants mentioned network limitations (bad reception) - 4 participants mentioned having phone on silent or turned off so failing to realise they had a pending message - perception of urgency could determine whether an ad is viewed immediately or not. 4 participants mentioned that SMS is a quick & effective J-I-T delivery method but at the same time interruptive (esp while at work)- 9 participants missed on the ad since they were physically away from their phone while 3 noted emotional attachment to personal phone and would prefer not to receive ads
In the 3rd stage focusing on processing the advert which users would be viewing and therefore, influence whether an ad would be finally be accepted or rejected. These include; - the accuracy of the ad in terms to personal relevance and location at the time – 18 participants felt that ads had broadly met personal interests and location. This is well in-support of past research - 7 participants said ads were received J-I-T however, 13 participants criticised the location of the advertised item as being out of their range or ‘not close enough’ particularly while at work - while 3 in Discounts group said they rejected ads cause offer was not ‘big enough’ or exclusive, 7 in the Information Group said they would have been inclined to respond more favourably if ad contained offer/discount - the number of ads received and the frequency at which these are received is proportionate to rate of irritancy and hence unacceptability – 7 felt they receive too many and were irritated by them being interrupted at work - the mood of the participant at the time the ad is received which could affect the receptiveness rate of the ad (2 mentioned not being in the mood). Attitude towards info ie search vs receptive for which 3 preferred to search rather than receive the info
Our research captured responses of professional to smartphone tailored ads in context of their everyday lives.GT revealed a number of factors which influence the process and decision of whether to accept an ad or not. This supported past research in that discounts are not key determinants to willingness to sign up and that other factors which make up perceived utility are important (Unni, Bauer etc..)
To create effective tailored advertising service, advertisers need fine-grain data on users emotional states and contexts of use, which could vary for each consumer. While, and at the same time reduce perceived cost by keeping customers well informed on how the service works other than its benefits
Finally, consumers must be given choice and ability to customise the service The interviews also revealed that participants wanted to be given the ability to adjust service settings to suit their needs and situation at the time eg;selecting time periods in which to receive ads limit or extend the distance of advertised itemsability to turn on/offability to switch between types of delivery methods ability to change amount of adverts received during any given time periodAnd having the choice between offers, info-only type of ads
This table shows the top reasons for each of the responses ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘maybe’ for each Group The top reason participants selected for ‘yes’ responses were; ‘It was useful information’ for the Informative Group (73%); and ‘It was a good offer’ for the Discounts Group (63%).The main reasons participants selected ‘maybe’ responses were; ‘Might have been useful if I needed it’ - Informative Group(with 40%) while the Discount Groupsaid ‘I needed more time to think about it’ - (33%). The main reason both Groups selected for ‘no’ responses was; ‘It was not what I needed’ (informative 47%, discounts 73%).There were no ‘lack of offer/discount’ reasons provided to Informative GroupIn the Informative Group, 7 out of 10 participants said that they might have responded more favourably if the adverts carried an offer.
When did my mobile turn into a 'sellphone'? - HCI2012UK presentation
When Did My Mobile Turn Into A ‘Sellphone’? A study of consumer responses to tailored smartphone ads Nicolette (Nicky) Conti Charlene Jennett Jose Maestre M. Angela SasseHCI 2012
Background In UK mobile advertising revenues (display, search, messaging) was valued at £203,000,000 in 2011 - double that previous year (£83,000,000 in 2010) Ofcom, 2012
Background Mobile Advertising Perceived Utility Concerns message about what personal characteristics; data is collected and used entertaining loss of privacy credible informative irrelevant content discount mobile frequency and number coupons of ads received Smartphones – key target for ‘just-in-time’ ads tailored to match owner’s interests and current location
Background 32.6million smartphone users in UK in 2011 - about 39% of adult population Ofcom,2012
Research AimsHow will consumers respond to smartphonetailored adverts in situ? Will they accept orreject them?
StudyResearch ‘in the wild’ participants signed up for an experience- sampling of a future advertising service
Study• Sent ads to 20 professionals in London over 5 days• Ads were tailored to personal interest & location• 10 participants received ads with discounts while 10 received ads with product or service info only• Response to each ad was captured via mobile survey questionnaire• Carried out post-experience phone interviews
Questionnaire ResultsResponses by Group 200 ads sent to each Group Number of Informative Discount Responses Group Group 143 (71%) 122 (61%) Number of responses per Group
Questionnaire ResultsResponses by Group Type of Informative Discount response Group Group ‘Yes’ 41 (29%) 38 (31%) ‘Maybe’ 42 (29%) 24 (20%) ‘No’ 60 (42%) 60 (49%) Total 143 (100%) 122 (100%) responded Frequencies of ‘yes’, ‘maybe’ and ‘no’ responses
Analysis of Qualitative Data Sign up to Ad Service Receiving ads Processing ads Accept/ Reject Ad GT model depicting process of accepting/rejecting an advert
• Who – is service provider? 1st stage Sign up to Ad Service • What – info is being used ? • How – will my info be used? “I will definitely consider but if it was a credible company that would run the service .....” D5“..I wonder what info they couldget and use of me…” I10 “It feels like „big brother „...” I4
• Network – coverage limitations2nd stage Receiving Ads • Personal settings – on/off, silent • Delivery method – SMS vs email • Not near phone –e.g. left in next room “I was in a meeting most of the day or my phone was on silent” I9 “I would be on my way home on the tube and missed them” D2 “..not always have my phone cause it was charging at my desk” I5
• Accuracy – personal relevance, location • Context – timeliness, distance 3rd stage Processing ads • Special offers – discounts, exclusivity • Quantity – few / many ads received • Mood – receptive/dismissive“it was timed in terms of thenotifications so for e.g. when I “For my perspective ‘close’ is say 5needed things for lunch time ” D8 minutes walk away and plus it depends on my time of day or work or weekend day - I‟m generally in a rush during the weekdays …. ” I3 “I liked the idea to how it was personalised to your location and in reference to what you would be doing like coffee in morning.” D9
ConclusionsKey Take-Away PointsOur research captured the responses of workingprofessionals to smartphone tailored ads in the context oftheir everyday lives o Results suggest that there are barriers that advertisers must overcome if smartphone tailored advertising is to be successful
ConclusionsKey Take-Away Points• Advertisers need to tailor ads depending on type of target consumer and context in which advert is received
ConclusionsKey Take-Away Points• Consumers must be given choice & ability to customise:- o Time o Location o Service availability o Delivery Method o Information Quantity o Quantity of Adverts o Type of Adverts
Questionnaire ResultsReasons INFORMATIVE GROUP DISCOUNT GROUP ‘Yes’ n=41 ‘Yes’ n=38 It was useful information 73% It was a good offer 63% ‘Maybe’ n=42 ‘Maybe’ n=24 Might have been useful if I I needed more time to think 40% 33% needed it about it ‘No’ n=60 ‘No’ n=60 It was not what I needed 47% It was not what I needed 73% Top Reasons selected for ‘yes’, ‘maybe’ and ‘no’ responses
Study Limitations(further research)• Bigger sample and different target audience• Tested over a longer period of time and whether there are any novelty/habitation effects• Focus on other factors that affect person’s decision such as mood and emotion• More real-time data vs. manual intervention• SMS vs. other types of ad delivery methods• Other types of mobile advertising pull vs. push• Test for actual behaviour that is, actual purchase