bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and ‘green’ smartphone

apps to mobilize sustainable consumption in the
retail environment
Lucy Atkinson
Department of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Keywords
Mobile advertising, QR codes, uses and
gratifications, sustainable consumption.
Correspondence
Lucy Atkinson, Department of Advertising and
Public Relations, University of Texas at
Austin, Mail Code A1200, Austin, TX 78712,
USA.
E-mail: lucyatkinson@austin.utexas.edu
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12025
Abstract
Smartphone-based mobile advertising is a promising marketing vehicle, especially in retail
and point-of-purchase environments, yet we still do not know enough about what motivates
consumers to turn to mobile advertising. This is particularly true of new forms of mobile
advertising, like quick response (QR) codes, which rely on pull-based approaches, rather
than push-style advertising. The study clarifies this omission by exploring various ante-
cedents that encourage consumer use of mobile advertising. Relying on the uses and
gratifications approach as a theoretical framework, this study tests three antecedents of new
media adoption: institutional trust, involvement and market mavenism. Data are drawn
from a representative sample of 401 American adults and their willingness to use QR codes
in shopping environments within the context of purchasing sustainable products. The data
were analysed using ordinary least squares regression. Results indicate government trust,
buycotting and market mavenism are positively related to consumers’ willingness to use
mobile phone-based QR code advertising whereas corporate trust is negatively related. The
results offer important theoretical and managerial implications: first, there is a need to
include broader institutional trust variables in the uses and gratifications framework of new
media use; second, QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide meaningful,
usable information for involved consumers; and third, market mavens’ tendency to share
information should be harnessed by providing QR code content that is relevant, interesting
and easily passed on to other consumers.

sumption situation, specifically the use of quick response (QR)

Introduction
Mobile devices represent a fruitful avenue for advertisers and
consumers. For advertisers, mobile devices offer another way to
reach potential consumers with interactive, persuasive messages.
For consumers, mobile devices can empower would-be shoppers
by giving them greater access to useful, product-relevant informa-
tion on demand and in the retail environment. This potential is
even more promising as consumers adopt technologically more
advanced mobile phones, such as smartphones and other mobile
devices with web-browsing capabilities (Lane, 2010). Yet not
enough is known about how consumers approach these new kinds
of mobile marketing, nor is there sufficient understanding of what
specific consumption contexts are conducive to effective mobile
marketing.
This study clarifies these ambiguities by exploring the anteced-
ents of mobile advertising use in the retail environment. Relying
on uses and gratifications (U&G) theory as a framework, it focuses
on three consumer orientations – trust, involvement and market
mavenism – to predict when consumers are likely to use mobile
marketing. These orientations are explored within a specific con-
codes by consumers looking to buy ethical, environmentally
friendly or sustainable products. Framing the study in this specific
way helps improve external validity while making the practical
implications more realistic.
QR codes and mobile advertising
The Mobile Marketing Association defines mobile marketing as ‘a
set of practices that enables organizations to communicate and
engage with their audience in an interactive and relevant manner
through any mobile device or network’ (Mobile Marketing
Association, 2009). In 2012, smartphone sales are expected to pass
computer sales, and by 2013, mobile phones will overtake per-
sonal computers as the most common way to access the Web
(Lane, 2010). Harnessing this growth successfully remains a chal-
lenge, particularly when it comes to deciding what kind of mobile
advertising to adopt.
Mobile marketing has grown rapidly, in part because of its
ability to offer highly personalized, interactive communication
that is more specific to a consumer’s location or consumption

International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 387–393 387

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Smart shoppers?
context than traditional advertising messages (Rohm and Sultan,
2006). For example, this kind of mobile content can be targeted to
consumers while they are shopping, offering on the spot incentives
or the ability to price compare in the store. Typically, a distinction
is made between push and pull mobile advertising (Barnes, 2002;
Bamba and Barnes, 2007). Push advertising describes messages
that are initiated by the advertiser, whereas pull advertising refers
to communication of promotional material initiated by the con-
sumer (Unni and Harmon, 2007). Push advertising is sent by the
marketer to individual consumers, usually after they have com-
pleted a one-time opt-in to receive such messages. They might take
the form of a text message, for example, sent by an advertiser
announcing a sale on a particular brand of cereal. Although the
consumer has elected to receive these kinds of messages, they may
or may not be deemed useful. The consumer might not be inter-
ested in that brand of cereal or might not be near a store. Depend-
ing on various contextual factors then, the mobile ad might be
considered more distracting and bothersome than useful. Pull
advertising, on the other hand, refers to communication that is sent
by advertisers at the direct request of the consumer. The shopper
might be in the cereal aisle of their regular grocer, for example,
and notice an on-shelf promotional announcement inviting the
consumer to visit a web site or download a coupon. Given the
shopper’s spatial–temporal context of being in the store at the very
moment they are considering breakfast cereal, this kind of mar-
keting communication is usually perceived as more relevant and
meaningful.
Of the two kinds, more is known about how consumers respond
to mobile push advertising than to pull advertising (Okazaki and
Barwise, 2011). For example, push advertising in the form of short
message service, or text messaging, is more successful at building
brand awareness and more likely to lead to purchase when com-
pared with other forms of advertising, such as direct mail and
television (Bamba and Barnes, 2007). Yet mobile pull advertising
may actually be more effective. The key criteria for successful
mobile advertising are thought to be unobtrusiveness, relevance
and added value (Barnes, 2002). Pull advertising embodies these
characteristics more so than push advertising (Dou and Li, 2008).
As a result, compared with push advertising, consumers see pull
mobile advertising as offering more benefits and they are more
likely to sign up for it (Unni and Harmon, 2007).
Until recently, however, consumers have had little motivation
to engage in mobile pull advertising. Smartphone keyboards are
small and it can be challenging to type in a website URL or
search term (Dou and Li, 2008). The introduction of QR codes
has streamlined and simplified that process for consumers,
making it much more appealing (Okazaki and Barwise, 2011).
Invented by Denso Wave in Japan in 1994 originally to track
parts in car manufacturing, QR codes are two-dimensional bar
codes that can be converted to content, including URLs, phone
numbers and text, when scanned by a camera-enabled smart-
phone with a QR reader (Dou and Li, 2008; Okazaki, 2009;
Okazaki and Barwise, 2011).
Theoretical framework: U&G and
information seeking
Consumers seek out QR codes to access information (MGH,
2001). In-store and packaging-based QR codes are particularly
388
L. Atkinson
effective at providing timely product information given their
ability to reach consumers when and where they are ready to buy
with relevant, targeted and interactive information (Barnes, 2002;
Unni and Harmon, 2007; Jayawardhena et al., 2009). Providing
information satisfies a primary motive many consumers have in
seeking mobile advertising (Okazaki, 2004).
The U&G perspective found in the marketing and media
effects literature (Rubin, 2002; Sultan et al., 2009; Gao et al.,
2010) offers a theoretical framework for understanding these
motives. In the media effects tradition, U&G theory argues that
consumers approach the selection and use of mass media, both
mobile and traditional, in a goal-directed, purposive manner,
which in turn is mediated by various social and psychological
factors. In marketing, U&G theory has been used to explain the
factors that underlie a consumer’s decision to choose new media
technologies. Consumers can be motivated by factors related to
the content of the technology and to the process of using the
technology itself (Stafford et al., 2004). Still other motives have
to do with perceived benefits, such as entertainment, enjoyment
and expressiveness (Nysveen et al., 2005). Consumer motives to
attend to mobile advertising messages are influenced by per-
ceived credibility, informativeness and utility of the content of
the advertisement, among other factors (Tsang et al., 2004; Bauer
et al., 2005; Bamba and Barnes, 2007). Consumers who demon-
strate greater product involvement and those who are more
knowledgeable about mobile technology are also more likely to
seek out mobile advertising (Yang, 2004; Bauer et al., 2005;
Bamba and Barnes, 2007).
This study explores these various motives and contextual
influences on acceptance of QR codes and relies on a particular
context of sustainable consumption (Gulbrandsen, 2006; Holzer,
2006), or the decision to buy ethically sourced, environmentally
friendly or sustainable products, as a lens through which to
understand consumers’ willingness to use mobile advertising.
Sustainable consumption was chosen as the context in which to
study QR code advertising for a number of reasons. Sustainabil-
ity claims about being organic or fair trade are claims that
fall under the category of credence attributes, i.e. benefits or
attributes that cannot be verified through information or personal
experience (Darby and Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1974). In these situ-
ations, consumers rely on eco-labels (such as USDA’s organic
label) to affirm the credibility of the credence claim (Klintman,
2006; Kolandai-Matchett, 2009), but these labels are criticized
for being superficial, misleading or lacking credibility (Kalafatis
and Pollard, 1999; D’Souza et al., 2007; Mostafa, 2007). QR
codes can shore up consumer trust by offering more detailed,
context-specific information. For example, in 2011, new fuel
economy labels for cars in the United States were released
that included QR codes allowing consumers to compare vehicles
and see how cars would operate based on individual driving
habits (US Department of Energy, 2011). This depth of informa-
tion is particularly useful for green and ethical consumers, who
tend to seek more information and be more sceptical of adver-
tising compared with conventional consumers (Shrum et al.,
1995).
In addition to seeking information, ethical and eco-friendly
consumers who adopt mobile advertising are motivated to do so by
other social and psychological factors, such as situational trust,
involvement and market mavenism.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 387–393
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
L. Atkinson
Institutional trust
Past research into consumer willingness to accept mobile advertis-
ing has shown that trust is a pivotal factor. Trust is understood in this
study as an important factor when individuals face uncertainty or
risk, and trusting as a valuable means of dealing with an uncontrol-
lable or ambiguous future (Ekici and Peterson, 2009). Trust is of
special importance in mobile advertising, given the spatial and
temporal distance between the individual and the marketer, and in
situations where the individual must disclose personal, identifying
information (Mallat et al., 2008). In the area of push-advertising,
Okazaki et al. (2007) have shown that consumers are only likely to
open push mobile advertising when they believe the message to be
trustworthy. Less is known regarding trust and pull-type mobile
advertising. Because communication is initiated by the consumer,
consumers would likely feel more in control and empowered. Past
research into push advertising indicates this is the case and that
when consumers have the option of opting out of mobile advertising
at any time, they are more likely to give permission initially (Bauer
et al., 2005; Bamba and Barnes, 2007; Okazaki et al., 2007).
H1: Trust in advertising will be positively related to willingness
to engage in mobile advertising about sustainable products.
In addition to trust specifically oriented to the mobile advertis-
ing format, it is important to account for different kinds of trust
that also influence information seeking through pull-based mobile
advertising. Rarely, however, are these broader situational aspects
of trust taken into account in explaining willingness to use mobile
advertising. Given that many consumers are motivated to use
mobile advertising to satisfy information-seeking needs, it makes
sense to account for trust in other sources of information as a
factor in opting for mobile advertising sources (Papadopoulou
et al., 2002). These more generalized sources of trust are espe-
cially relevant in the context of ethical consumption, as many
consumers are distrustful of ethical claims (Kalafatis and Pollard,
1999; D’Souza et al., 2007). Information about ethical attributes
can come from a number of sources, including government agen-
cies (such as the United States Department of Agriculture), cor-
porations and advertising. Consumer trust in one source can
influence trust in another. For example, ethical consumers who are
distrustful of corporations and their ability to ensure product
safety may also be less trusting of advertising messages about
these claims. On the other hand, consumers who are more trusting
of the government’s ability to regulate corporations and ensure
consumer safety may then be more trusting of advertising claims
about sustainability attributes. Given the lack of past research
looking at consumers’ institutional trust and QR code use, the
following are framed as research questions.
Research question 1: How will trust in government be related
to willingness to engage in mobile advertising about sustainable
products?
Research question 2: How will trust in corporations be related
to willingness to engage in mobile advertising about sustainable
products?
Involvement
The U&G approach predicts that audiences who are more involved
with the subject of the message will be more likely to seek infor-
mation and to attend to it. Past research into mobile advertising
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 387–393
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Smart shoppers?
supports this: involvement, which can take a number of forms,
including product involvement, utility and personal relevance,
positively influences willingness to seek information (Yang, 2004)
and connect with mobile advertising. Cho (2003) demonstrated
that consumers who are more involved in a product are more
receptive to information about that product and are more likely to
click on relevant banner ads. Similarly, the more useful and per-
sonally relevant the consumer finds the information, the more
likely they are to attend to it (Bauer et al., 2005; Park et al., 2008).
In the context of sustainable consumption, consumers can dem-
onstrate their involvement by either purposefully avoiding particu-
lar goods for political, ethical or environmental reasons (i.e.
boycotting) or by deliberately seeking out particular goods for
political, ethical or environmental reasons (i.e. buycotting). Past
research indicates that while these two behaviours are related, they
are distinct, with boycotters showing more cynicism towards
advertising and buycotters showing more cynicism towards big
business (Paek and Nelson, 2009).
H2: Involved consumers, specifically boycotters, will be less
willing to engage in mobile advertising about sustainable
products.
H3: Involved consumers, specifically buycotters, will be more
willing to engage in mobile advertising about sustainable
products.
Mavenism
An additional factor that might influence consumers’ decisions to
engage in mobile advertising is their sense of agility or ease with
the technology. Mobile advertising is a relatively new phenom-
enon, and those who are more comfortable with the technology are
more likely to use it (Bauer et al., 2005). Other studies suggest
that innovators are particularly accepting of mobile advertising
(Hanley et al., 2006) and those who report higher levels of inno-
vativeness, or openness to new experiences, are more knowledge-
able about mobile advertising, more willing to use it, and more
accepting of mobile commerce in general (Bauer et al., 2005; Muk
and Babin, 2006; Yang, 2007).
In his study of young women in Japan, Okazaki (2009) demon-
strates that these consumers have a ‘flexible and favorable attitude
toward mobile advertising in Japan, probably because they act as
venturesome market mavens.’ Market mavenism describes a par-
ticular group of consumers who are influential among their peers
and are characterized by general marketplace expertise (Feick and
Price, 1987). Market mavens are aware of new products earlier,
are interested in and attend to the market, and are likely to seek
marketplace-oriented information. This holds interesting implica-
tions for sustainable consumption because green consumers are
more likely to be open to change and to exhibit traits of openness
(Gilg et al., 2005).
H4: Market mavens are more willing to engage in mobile adver-
tising about sustainable products.
Materials and methods
Sample
The hypotheses were tested using data collected from a nationally
representative sample of American adults. The survey was
389
Smart shoppers? L. Atkinson

conducted by Knowledge Networks of Menlo Park, California and i.e. not buy certain products for political, ethical or environmental
fielded over three weeks in December 2010. KN recruits and reasons (M = 1.93, SD = 0.98) and buycotting, i.e. deliberately
maintains an online panel that is representative of the entire U.S. buy certain products for political, ethical, or environmental
population (Feldman and Price, 2008; Iyengar et al., 2009). Panel reasons (M = 2.1, SD = 0.96) over the past 12 months. Using an
members are randomly recruited by probability-based sampling; established index (Feick and Price, 1987), respondents indicated
KN uses both random-digit dial and address-based sampling their agreement on a 7-point scale to six items (M = 3.98,
methods to cover both the online and offline populations in the SD = 1.2). These six items were averaged and the index showed
United States. Surveys are based on a dual sampling frame that strong reliability (a = 0.88).
includes both listed and unlisted phone numbers, telephone and
non-telephone households, and cell-phone-only households.
Lastly, the online panel is not limited to existing Web users or Dependent variable
computer owners. All potential panellists are randomly selected to Respondents indicated how likely they would be to scan a QR
join the panel and those households that do not have online access code while in a store to access information regarding a product’s
are provided hardware if needed and access to the Internet and environmental, ethical or sustainability record (M = 2.53,
hardware if needed (see http://www.knowledgenetworks.com). SD = 0.99). Although this measure taps behavioural intent, rather
The participants in this study represent a randomly selected than actual behaviour, past studies show that intent is highly cor-
subset of the KN panel, which in turn is representative of the U.S. related with actual behaviour and that intent is suitable as a
population, meaning the final sample is close to a random sample measure when new technologies are concerned (Bauer et al.,
of the U.S. population1. For this study, KN contacted 827 panel- 2005).
lists to participate, of whom 401 responded for a completion rate
of 48.5%. This sample size can be considered adequate, given the
representative quality of the respondents and a desire to avoid type Results and discussion
1 errors, or finding results that are statistically significant, but not A multiple regression was performed to examine the impact of
meaningfully or practically significant. This study is an improve- trust, involvement and market mavenism on likelihood of interact-
ment on many of the published studies on mobile advertising and ing via smartphone with a QR product code (see Table 1) while
technology use, which are convenience samples of college stu- controlling for demographics. Collectively, these variables signifi-
dents and/or are very small (Gilbert et al., 2003; Rodgers and cantly predicted QR code use F(10, 389) = 9.4, P < 0.001 and
Harris, 2003; Dittmar et al., 2004; Garbarino and Strahilevitz, accounted for 17.4% of the variance. The significant predictors
2004; Phillip and Suri, 2004; Tsang et al., 2004; Rohm and Sultan, were government trust (b = 0.183, P < 0.05), corporate trust
2006; Yang, 2007). (b = -0.253, P < 0.001), buycotting (b = 0.168, P < 0.05) and
mavenism (b = 0.177, P < 0.001). Participants who scored higher
Independent variables on the government trust, buycotting and mavenism measures were
more likely to engage with QR codes, whereas participants who
Participants answered a standard battery of demographic ques- scored lower on corporate trust were more likely to engage with
tions, including age [M = 47.69, standard deviation (SD) = 16.14], QR codes. H3 and H4 were supported and the two research ques-
education level (median = some college, no degree), ethnicity tions offer meaningful results. Advertising trust and boycotting
(77.6% white), gender (52.9% female) and household income were not significant predictors. H1 and H2 were not supported.
(median = $40 000–49 000). Three kinds of trust were measured:
government trust, corporate trust and advertising trust. The items
were drawn from existing, validated indexes (Obermiller and Table 1 Multiple regression analysis for variables predicting engage-
Spangenberg, 1998; Ekici and Peterson, 2009), and were averaged ment with quick response (QR) code mobile marketing
for each trust index. The three indexes showed strong reliability
(government trust, a = 0.94, M = 3.57, SD = 1.49; corporate trust, Variable B b t p
a = 0.92, M = 3.71, SD = 1.49; advertising trust, a = 0.86, Constant 2.257 6.306 0.000
M = 3.48, SD = 1.19). See Appendix for question wording for all Demographics
variables. Drawing on past research (Paek and Nelson, 2009; Age -0.011 -0.172 -3.623 0.000
Baek, 2010; Ward and de Vreese, 2011), two single-item measures Education -0.014 -0.030 -0.549 0.584
were used to tap involvement. Respondents indicated the fre- White -0.164 -0.070 -1.449 0.148
quency on a 5-point scale with which they engaged in boycotting, Female 0.069 0.035 0.745 0.457
Household income -0.009 -0.040 -0.740 0.460
1
In the sample for this study, respondents consisted of slightly more Situational trust
women (52.9%) than men, were predominantly white (77.6%), had a Government trust 0.123 0.183 3.255 0.001
median age of 48 (M = 47.69, SD = 16.14), and had a median household Corporate trust -0.168 -0.253 -4.131 0.000
income of ‘$40 000–49 999’. The sample approximated the U.S. popula- Advertising trust 0.067 0.081 1.410 0.159
tion. According to the US Census Bureau (2010a). United States, s0101. Involvement
Age and sex, US Census Bureau (2010b). United States, s1903. Median Boycotting 0.094 0.092 1.471 0.142
income in the past 12 months (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars). Ameri- Buycotting 0.173 0.168 2.606 0.010
cans are roughly equally distributed between the sexes (51% female), are Mavenism 0.147 0.177 3.667 0.000
80% Caucasian, have a median age of 36.9 years, and a median household
R2 17.7
income of $51 425.

390 International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 387–393

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
L. Atkinson
The results underscore the role of trust as a situational factor in
motivating individuals to consider mobile advertising. Like previ-
ous studies, it suggests an individual’s level of trust is an important
element in their decision to rely on mobile advertising, but it
extends this previous work by conceptualizing trust as a broader,
institutional influence. Rather than simply gauging someone’s
trust in mobile media, this study situates mobile advertising use in
the broader context of trust in all sources of product information.
Because individuals seek out advertising content as a way to
become more informed about their potential purchase, it is logical
that individuals would rely on this advertising content as part of a
larger menu of information sources, especially as it relates to
credence claims typical of sustainable products. Consumers who
are less trusting of manufacturers to ensure product safety, to
package goods appropriately and to protect consumer safety are
more likely to use QR codes. As well, consumers who are more
trusting of the government’s ability and willingness to regulate
firms, to protect consumers and to ensure public safety are more
likely to use QR codes when shopping for sustainable goods.
Consumer trust in advertising was not a significant predictor.
It seems that consumers turn to QR codes when they believe
corporations and manufacturers cannot be counted on to be truth-
ful about packaging claims and adhering to regulations. The infor-
mation provided by QR codes, which is available when the
consumer needs it at the moment they are contemplating a pur-
chase, offers consumers an immediate, relevant and useful
message. This message may help shore up apprehensions consum-
ers have about corporate claims of sustainability. By being able to
find additional information to back up or support otherwise simple
and less credible credence claims, consumers may feel more con-
fident in their decision to buy a particular ethical product.
In terms of trust in government, the pattern is reversed. Trust in
government’s ability to protect consumers and look out for their
interests is positively related to an individual’s willingness to use
QR codes when shopping for sustainable products. Individuals
who have faith in the government to protect their consumer inter-
ests are more likely to access the information found on a QR code.
It may be that consumers view the content of a sustainable prod-
uct’s QR code as a supplement or complement to the regulations
already put in place by government agencies. Taken together, these
two kinds of situational trust seem to work in tandem. Trust in
government protection of consumers leads to reliance on QR code
advertising and may make up for or compensate for a lack of
trust in corporate claims about sustainability or ethical product
attributes.
Involvement also helps predict consumer willingness to use
mobile advertising. Engaging in buycotting positively predicts
using QR codes for sustainable product information, whereas
engaging in boycotting is not a significant predictor. Buycotting –
deliberately choosing products for environmental, ethical or politi-
cal reasons – requires knowing not only which products to avoid
(boycotting), but also which products to choose. The information
requirements are greater and so the relevant, timely information
provided by an in-store QR code would be particularly useful for
would-be sustainable consumers.
Lastly, market mavenism is also a positive predictor of mobile
advertising use. Market mavens, individuals who display greater
awareness about new products and market information in general,
are more open to new technology, like QR codes. They are more
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 387–393
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Smart shoppers?
accepting of the novel advertising technique and more willing to
experiment with using it. The challenge of figuring out new tech-
nology, especially as it relates to the market, is an exciting one.
Managerial implications
Retailers should understand the factors driving individuals’ will-
ingness to use mobile advertising. Brands that are considering
using QR codes would be wise to frame their content to emphasize
the credibility of the message in a way that aligns with government
standards and regulation. Those individuals who are more likely to
use QR codes are also those individuals who distrust corporations
to regulate and monitor products. Retailers would do well to avoid
the meaningless terminology and content that corporations are
criticized for relying on, especially the vague, empty terms that
suggest laudable sustainability traits, but have no substance to
them (Consumer Reports, 2011).
As well, marketers could harness the power of market mavens,
those early adopter of QR code advertising, and encourage them to
get members of their social networks on board with mobile adver-
tising by talking up the benefits of the technology and using word
of mouth to increase adoption of mobile advertising among non-
mavens. Content should created that will maximize viral potential
and increase the reach and audience of the message. Providing
content that is interesting, relevant and easily shared will help
harness the market maven’s interpersonal influence and power of
word of mouth and build market share. Past research shows that
advertising campaigns that involve consumers are more likely to
foster a lasting and effective orientation to sustainable consump-
tion (Frame and Newton, 2007).
Mobile advertising represents a potentially important source of
persuasive information for consumers. This study has demon-
strated that consumer needs for reliable, context-specific informa-
tion about sustainable products can be met by mobile advertising
campaigns that harness the potential of QR codes. By framing the
content in a way that addresses consumer concerns about the
credibility of sustainability messages and by targeting the message
to consumers who are more involved and more innovative, mobile
advertisers stand to gain a sizable market advantage.
Acknowledgements
Data collection for this project was made possible by an external
research award from the Betty F. Elliott Initiative Faculty
Research Award administered by the College of Business at the
University of Michigan-Dearborn.
References
Baek, Y.M. (2010) To buy or not to buy: who are political consumers?
What do they think and how do they participate? Political Studies, 58,
1065–1086.
Bamba, F. & Barnes, S.J. (2007) SMS advertising, permission and the
consumer: a study. Business Process Management Journal, 13, 815–
829.
Barnes, S.J. (2002) Wireless digital advertising: nature and implications.
International Journal of Advertising, 21, 399–420.
Bauer, H.H., Reichardt, T., Barnes, S.J. & Neumann, M.M. (2005)
Driving consumer acceptance of mobile marketing: a theoretical
framework and empirical study. Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, 6, 181–192.
391
Smart shoppers?
Cho, C.-H. (2003) Factors influencing clicking of banner ads on the
WWW. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6, 201–215.
Consumer Reports, C. (2011) What makes a good eco-label? [WWW
document]. URL http://www.greenerchoices.org/eco-labels/eco-
good.cfm (accessed on 20 May 2012).
D’souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. & Peretiatko, R. (2007) Green deci-
sions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental
labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 371–376.
Darby, M.R. & Karni, E. (1973) Free competition and the optimal
amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 67–88.
Dittmar, H., Long, K. & Meek, R. (2004) Buying on the internet: gender
differences in on-line and conventional buying motivations. Sex Roles,
50, 423–444.
Dou, X. & Li, H. (2008) Creative use of QR codes in consumer commu-
nication. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 3, 61–67.
Ekici, A. & Peterson, M. (2009) The unique relationship between
quality of life and consumer trust in market-related institutions among
financially constrained consumers in a developing country. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 28, 56–70.
Feick, L.F. & Price, L.L. (1987) The market maven – a diffuser of mar-
ketplace information. Journal of Marketing, 51, 83–97.
Feldman, L. & Price, V. (2008) Confusion or enlightenment? Communi-
cation Research, 35, 61–87.
Frame, B. & Newton, B. (2007) Promoting sustainability through social
marketing: examples from New Zealand. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31, 571–581.
Gao, T., Sultan, F. & Rohm, A.J. (2010) Factors influencing Chinese
youth consumers’ acceptance of mobile marketing. Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing, 27, 574–583.
Garbarino, E. & Strahilevitz, M. (2004) Gender differences in the per-
ceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recom-
mendation. Journal of Business Research, 57, 768–775.
Gilbert, D., Lee-Kelley, L. & Barton, M. (2003) Technophobia, gender
influences and consumer decision-making for technology-related
products. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 253–263.
Gilg, A., Barr, S. & Ford, N. (2005) Green consumption or sustainable
lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37, 481–504.
Gulbrandsen, L.H. (2006) Creating markets for eco-labelling: are con-
sumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30,
477–489.
Hanley, M., Becker, M. & Martinsen, J. (2006) Factors influencing
mobile advertising acceptance: will incentives motivate college stu-
dents to accept mobile advertisements? International Journal of
Mobile Marketing, 1, 50–58.
Holzer, B. (2006) Political consumerism between individual choice and
collective action: social movements, role mobilization and signalling.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 405–415.
Iyengar, S., Hahn, K.S., Bonfadelli, H. & Marr, M. (2009) ‘Dark areas
of ignorance’ revisited. Communication Research, 36, 341–358.
Jayawardhena, C., Kuckertz, A., Karjaluoto, H. & Kautonen, T. (2009)
Antecedents to permission-based mobile marketing: an initial exami-
nation. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 473–499.
Kalafatis, S.P. & Pollard, M. (1999) Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory
of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination. Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing, 16, 441–460.
Klintman, M. (2006) Ambiguous framings of political consumerism:
means or end, product or process orientation? International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 30, 427–438.
Kolandai-Matchett, K. (2009) Mediated communication of ‘sustainable
consumption’ in the alternative media: a case study exploring a
message framing strategy. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
33, 113–125.
Lane, N. (2010) White paper on the USmA: the United States of mobile
advertising. Smaato.
392
L. Atkinson
Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V. & Öörni, A. (2008) An empirical
investigation of mobile ticketing service adoption in public transporta-
tion. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12, 57–65.
MGH (2001) QR code usage and interest survey.
Mobile Marketing Association (2009) MMA Updates Definition of
Mobile Marketing. Mobile Marketing Association, New York.
Mostafa, M.M. (2007) A hierarchical analysis of the green conscious-
ness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 445–
473.
Muk, A. & Babin, B.J. (2006) U.S. Consumers’ adoption – nonadoption
of mobile SMS advertising. International Journal of Mobile Market-
ing, 1, 21–29.
Nelson, P. (1974) Advertising as information. Journal of Political
Economy, 82, 729–754.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005) Intentions to use
mobile services: antecedents and cross-service comparisons. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 330–346.
Obermiller, C. & Spangenberg, E. (1998) Development of a scale to
measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology, 7, 159–186.
Okazaki, S. (2004) How do Japanese consumers perceive wireless ads?
A multivariate analysis. International Journal of Advertising, 23, 429–
454.
Okazaki, S. (2009) Mobile finds girls’ taste: Knorr’s new product devel-
opment. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9, 32–39.
Okazaki, S. & Barwise, P. (2011) Has the time finally come for the
medium of the future? Journal of Advertising Research, 51, 59–71.
Okazaki, S., Katsukura, A. & Nishiyama, M. (2007) How mobile adver-
tising works: the role of trust in improving attitudes and recall.
Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 165–178.
Paek, H.-J. & Nelson, M.R. (2009) To buy or not to buy: determinants
of socially responsible consumer behavior and consumer reactions to
cause-related and boycotting ads. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 31, 75–90.
Papadopoulou, P., Kanellis, P. & Martakos, D. (2002) Trust Formation
and Relationship Building in Electronic Servicescapes. European
Conference on Information Systems, Gdansk.
Park, T., Shenoy, R. & Salvendy, G. (2008) Effective advertising on
mobile phones: a literature review and presentation of results from 53
case studies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27, 355–373.
Phillip, M.V. & Suri, R. (2004) Impact of gender differences on the
evaluation of promotional emails. Journal of Advertising Research,
44, 360–368.
Rodgers, S. & Harris, M.A. (2003) Gender and e-commerce: an explora-
tory study. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 322–329.
Rohm, A.J. & Sultan, F. (2006) An exploratory cross-market study of
mobile marketing acceptance. International Journal of Mobile Mar-
keting, 1, 4–12.
Rubin, A.M. (2002) The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media
effects. In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, Second
edn (ed. by J. Bryant & D. Zillmann), pp. 525–548. LEA, Mahwah,
NJ.
Shrum, L.J., Mccarty, J.A. & Lowrey, T.M. (1995) Buyer characteristics
of the green consumer and their implication for advertising strategy.
Journal of Advertising, 24, 71–82.
Stafford, T.F., Stafford, M.R. & Schkade, L.L. (2004) Determining
uses and gratifications for the internet. Decision Sciences, 35,
259–288.
Sultan, F., Rohm, A.J. & Gao, T. (2009) Factors influencing consumer
acceptance of mobile marketing: a two-country study of youth
markets. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 308–320.
Tsang, M.M., Ho, S.-C. & Liang, T.-P. (2004) Consumer attitudes
toward mobile advertising: an empirical study. International Journal
of Electronic Commerce, 8, 65–78.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 387–393
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
L. Atkinson Smart shoppers?

Unni, R. & Harmon, R. (2007) Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull
mobile location-based advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising,
7, 48–71.
US Census Bureau (2010a) United States, s0101. Age and sex.
US Census Bureau (2010b) United States, s1903. Median income in the
past 12 months (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars).
US Department of Energy (2011) Learn about the new label. [WWW
document]. URL http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/ (accessed on 20
May 2012).
Ward, J. & De Vreese, C. (2011) Political consumerism, young citizens
and the internet. Media Culture & Society, 33, 399–413.
Yang, K.C.C. (2004) Effects of consumer motives on search behavior
using internet advertising. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 430–442.
Yang, K.C.C. (2007) Exploring factors affecting consumer intention to
use mobile advertising in Taiwan. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 20, 33–49.

Appendix: Measurement item wording, means, standard deviations and reliability

(where applicable)
Variable (and item wording) Mean/Median SD Reliability

Age 47.69 16.14

Education some college, no degree
Ethnicity 77.6% white
Gender 52.9% female
Household income $40,000 to $49,000
Government trust 3.57 1.49 a = .94
I trust the government to retain its integrity when lobbied by firms.a
I trust the government to protect consumers.a
I trust the government to appropriately regulate firms.a
I trust the government to do research that will ensure public safety.a
Corporate trust 3.71 1.49 a = .92
I trust manufacturers to ensure product safely.a
I trust manufacturers to package products appropriately.a
I trust businesses to abide by regulations protecting consumers.a
I trust businesses to efficiently provide what consumers want.a
Advertising trust 3.48 1.19 a = .86
I believe advertising is informative.a
Advertising is generally truthfula
Advertising is a reliable source of information about the quality and performance of
products.a
I feel I’ve been accurately informed after viewing most advertisements.a
Boycotting 1.93 0.98
During the last 12 months, how frequently did you boycott (not buy) certain products
for political, ethical, or environmental reasons?b
Buycotting 2.1 0.96
During the last 12 months, how frequently did you deliberately buy certain products for
political, ethical, or environmental reasons?b
Market mavenism 3.98 1.2 a = .88
I like introducing new brands and products to my friends.a
I like helping people by providing them with information about many kinds of products.a
People ask me for information about products, places to shop, or sales.a
If someone asked where to get the best buy on several types of products, I could tell
him or her where to shop.a
My friends think of me as a good source of information when it comes to new
products or sales.a
Think about a person who has information about a variety of products and likes to share
this information with others. How well would you say that this description fits you?a
QR code 2.53 0.99
Some smartphones, like iPhones and Blackberries, are equipped with technology that
allows you to scan a product’s barcode while you’re in the store and instantly
download information about the product’s environmental, ethical and sustainability
record. If you had access to such technology, how likely would you be to use it while
shopping?c
a
Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
b
Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
c
Response options ranged from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (very likely).

International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 387–393 393

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd