All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

How the Smartphone Is Changing College Student Mobile Usage and Advertising Acceptance: A Seven-Year Analysis
Unformatted Document Text:  (SD=10.29) for feature phone owners and 55.2% (SD=4.58) for smartphone owners. The range increased from 33.6 percentage points to 48.3 percentage points during the study for feature phone owners, and decreased from 60.2 percentage points to 54.2 percentage points for smartphone owners. R2: Are there any differences in the types of advertisements received on feature phones versus smartphones? Those students responding “Yes” to receiving an ad on their mobile phone were then asked, “If yes, what type of advertisement was it?” Most types of ads received showed an increase during the study (see Figure 2). For feature phones, text message ads increased the most between November 2005 and February 2011, rising 62.8 percentage points, followed by a link to the Internet, which rose 11.8 percentage points. For smartphones, a link to the Internet increased the most, doubling from 15.7 percentage points in February 2009 to 35.2 percentage points in February 2011, followed by text message ads that increased 14.9 percentage points during the same period. Figure 2. If yes, what type of advertisement was it? (Check all that apply.) Feb 11 Sm N=388 Feb 10 Sm N=372 Feb 09 Sm N=305 Mean Smart phone Mean Feat phone Feb 11 Feat N=388 Feb 10 Feat N=372 Feb 09 Feat N=305 Feb 08 Feat N=467 Feb 07 Feat N=270 Nov 06 Feat N=682 Nov 05 Feat N=669 SD Smart phone SD Feat phone Text message 77.8 49.7 62.9 63.5 49.3 90.9 68.2 57.8 37 34.4 28.9 28.1 14.06 23.80 Link to Internet 35.2 11.6 15.7 20.8 6.0 12.5 8.3 9.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 0.7 12.61 4.17 Audio advertisement 8.3 2.6 5.7 5.5 3.7 4.5 5.7 1.8 2.4 3 4.8 NA 2.85 1.53 Visual advertisement 16.7 4.5 4.3 8.5 1.7 2.3 3.2 2.4 1.1 0.7 1 1.3 7.10 0.92 All types 6.5 1.3 0 2.6 1.2 2.3 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.4 2.3 3.44 0.80 Don’t know/Does not apply to you 1.9 43.2 28.6 24.6 22.8 2.3 31.2 34.9 NA NA NA NA 20.94 17.85 Other 4.6 1.3 1.4 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.3 3 1 1.1 0.6 NA 1.88 0.91 N.A.: Question not asked during survey; Mean and SD based on completed surveys; Sm=smartphone; Feat=feature phone. R3: Under which of the following conditions would students consider accepting advertisements on their feature phones versus smartphones? Subjects were asked to select from the six factor statements contained in the Mobile Advertising Acceptance Scale developed by Saran et al. (2004). Two non-factor statements, “I won’t accept ads on my mobile phone,” and “Don’t know/Does not apply,” were added to give response options to subjects who might not want to accept mobile ads. Responses clustered into five distinct segments (see Figure 3). The largest segment (M=40.5% smartphone, M=50.2% feature phone) was those who said they would not 14

Authors: Hanley, Michael.
first   previous   Page 15 of 35   next   last



background image
(SD=10.29) for feature phone owners and 55.2% (SD=4.58) for smartphone owners. The range increased 
from 33.6 percentage points to 48.3 percentage points during the study for feature phone owners, and 
decreased from 60.2 percentage points to 54.2 percentage points for smartphone owners. 
R2: Are there any differences in the types of advertisements received on feature phones versus 
smartphones?
Those students responding “Yes” to receiving an ad on their mobile phone were then asked, “If yes, 
what type of advertisement was it?” Most types of ads received showed an increase during the study (see 
Figure 2). For feature phones, text message ads increased the most between November 2005 and February 
2011, rising 62.8 percentage points, followed by a link to the Internet, which rose 11.8 percentage points. 
For smartphones, a link to the Internet increased the most, doubling from 15.7 percentage points in 
February 2009 to 35.2 percentage points in February 2011, followed by text message ads that increased 
14.9 percentage points during the same period.
Figure 2. If yes, what 
type of advertisement 
was it? 
(Check all that apply.)
Feb 
11 
Sm 
N=388
Feb 
10 
Sm 
N=372
Feb 
09 
Sm 
N=305
Mean 
Smart 
phone
Mean 
Feat 
phone
Feb 
11 
Feat 
N=388
Feb 
10 
Feat 
N=372
Feb 
09 
Feat 
N=305
Feb 
08 
Feat 
N=467
Feb 
07 
Feat 
N=270
Nov 
06 
Feat 
N=682
Nov 
05 
Feat 
N=669
SD 
Smart 
phone
SD 
Feat 
phone
Text message
77.8
49.7
62.9
63.5
49.3
90.9
68.2
57.8
37
34.4
28.9
28.1
14.06
23.80
Link to Internet
35.2
11.6
15.7
20.8
6.0
12.5
8.3
9.6
3.6
3.7
3.8
0.7
12.61
4.17
Audio advertisement
8.3
2.6
5.7
5.5
3.7
4.5
5.7
1.8
2.4
3
4.8
NA
2.85
1.53
Visual advertisement
16.7
4.5
4.3
8.5
1.7
2.3
3.2
2.4
1.1
0.7
1
1.3
7.10
0.92
All types
6.5
1.3
0
2.6
1.2
2.3
0.6
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.4
2.3
3.44
0.80
Don’t know/Does not 
apply to you 
1.9
43.2
28.6
24.6
22.8
2.3
31.2
34.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.94
17.85
Other
4.6
1.3
1.4
2.4
1.6
2.3
1.3
3
1
1.1
0.6
NA
1.88
0.91
N.A.: Question not asked during survey; Mean and SD based on completed surveys; Sm=smartphone; Feat=feature phone.
R3: Under which of the following conditions would students consider accepting advertisements on 
their feature phones versus smartphones?
Subjects were asked to select from the six factor statements contained in the Mobile Advertising 
Acceptance Scale developed by Saran et al. (2004). Two non-factor statements, “I won’t accept ads on 
my mobile phone,” and “Don’t know/Does not apply,” were added to give response options to subjects 
who might not want to accept mobile ads. Responses clustered into five distinct segments (see Figure 3). 
The largest segment (M=40.5% smartphone, M=50.2% feature phone) was those who said they would not 
14


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 15 of 35   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.