Mobile phone choice: technologyversus marketing. The brandeffect in the Italian market

Luca PetruzzellisDipartimento di Studi Aziendali e Giusprivatistici,

Universita degli Studi di Bari, Bari, Italy

Abstract

Purpose – The main research question of the paper is to determine whether technology nowadays isovercome by customer preferences and needs. In particular, the role of the brand is to be analysed withrespect to its influence in shifting customer preferences from the technical performances (tangibleelements) to the emotional/symbolic ones (intangible elements).

Design/methodology/approach – Consumer behaviour was analysed by interviewing a random(but well stratified) sample of mobile phone users in order to study their consumption style and themotivations underlying the buying process in order to understand, on the one hand, the variables thatinfluence people in the usage of mobile phones and, on the other, those that influence firms inlaunching new products, both from a technological point of view and from a marketing one.

Findings – The findings show various dimensions that are relevant in consumer minds whenconsidering decisions regarding technological products. Brand attitudes do relate positively toconsumer intention to use (purchase) specific mobile phones over others.

Research limitations/implications – The study, though exploratory, has underlined theimportance of brand and the dualism between marketing and technology in the adoption anddiffusion of technological products. Certainly, the analysis has some limitations, but it provides aninitial perspective into understanding brand issues. Future research should focus on the effects of thecooperation between mobile operators and mobile manufacturers.

Originality/value – This paper provides an analysis of the brand attitude and perception tested andviewed through user eyes.

Keywords Brands, Mobile communication systems, Consumer behaviour, Italy

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionAdvances in information and communication technologies are constantly changing theway people use and experience technology, which is ever more pervasive in consumers’life. Indeed technology is no longer a matter of “haves” and “have-nots” but of basicservices versus advanced ones. As technologies mature and product features becomemore similar, consumers are often unable or unwilling to differentiate between brandson rational attributes alone (Temporal and Lee, 2001). Commoditisation occurs due toboth technology and marketing, either as substitutes or as complementary variables(Weil and Stoughton, 1996; Munir and Philips, 2002). Such a phenomenon calls forstrong brands, in order to win consumer preferences and build a long lasting

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

The author wishes to thank Dr Cleopatra Veloutsou for her precious suggestions and support,and the anonymous reviewers for their comments.

EJM44,5

610

Received November 2007Revised May 2008Accepted October 2008

European Journal of MarketingVol. 44 No. 5, 2010pp. 610-634q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090561011032298

relationship with them (Kay, 2006). Differently from consumer goods, brands in thehigh-technology industry do not focus on the association between products andcompanies but on what is associated with the brand image (Hamann et al., 2007).Brands are perceived as a warranty not only of the quality and performance but also ofthe difference and emotional relationship with the product (Bahmanziari et al., 2003;Jiang, 2004).

However, little empirical research concerning high-tech brands exists (Batra andAhtola, 1991; Zambuni, 1997; Schoenfelder and Harris, 2004), even though there isgeneral consensus that branding becomes more important as high-tech productsbecome accessible to mass consumers (Reddy, 1997; Ward et al., 1999). In fact, themarketing of high-technology products is challenging and the use of brands has beenminimal until recently (Zajas and Crowley, 1995). An increasing number of thesecompanies, however, are now undertaking brand building activities in order togenerate long-term profits (Aaker and Jacobson, 2001). Although previous studies(Aaker, 1999) demonstrated that both personal and situational factors positivelyinfluence attitudes toward a brand, they did not analyse the interaction effects betweenthem. Further, most of the studies on mobile phone have been conducted in USA, UK orScandinavia, thus a different geographic area helps in understanding the influence ofcultural conditioning on consumer attitudes and brand personality perceptions (Limand Ang, 2008).

Therefore, this paper tries to apply the hedonic and utilitarian value dimensions tobetter understand the brand effect which, on the one hand, could mitigate the negativeeffects that technology could provoke, and on the other boost the positive and sensorialeffects (Mick and Fournier, 1998; Chernev, 2004). Two questions are addressed:

(1) Is technology consumption model more related to hedonic or utilitarianbenefits? Which of them comes first?

(2) Is nowadays technology overcome by customer preferences and needs?

In particular, what is the role of the brand with respect to its influence in shiftingcustomer preferences from the technical performances (tangible elements) to theemotional/symbolic ones (intangible elements)?

These issues are investigated on the basis of the following concepts drawn from theliterature:

. very few products are bought to satisfy basic needs, most purchases reflect socialobjectives and values (Holt, 1997);

. consumers achieve different type of objectives through hedonic and utilitarianbenefits (Chernev, 2004); and

. brand is a strategic asset and a powerful source of differentiation which plays acritical role in marketing strategy (Lim and O’Cass, 2001).

The paper discusses the hedonic versus utilitarian benefits in consumer behaviour (e.g.Voss et al., 2003; Chitturi et al., 2007, 2008), and models concerning brand choice (e.g.Tybout and Hauser, 1981; de Chernatony and McWilliam, 1990). Then it focuses on themobile phone choice, thus proposing the research questions. Methods of data collectionand analysis are explained. Finally, it offers discussion, conclusion and practicalimplications.

Mobile phonechoice

611

Utilitarian versus hedonic behaviourGiven the aestheticisation of life (Featherstone, 1991) and the post-modern lifestyles,consumption is much more than the simple purchase of products and services. It is away of self expression, individual identity formation, creativity, or even art (Gabrieland Lang, 1995; Schmitt, 1999; Norman, 2004). It involves experiential andinstrumental outcomes, which means that lifestyle as an explanatory variable of theconsumption model is a combination of socio-demographics with socio-psychologicalcharacteristics of individuals and behavioural variables (Babin et al., 1994). In fact,shopping in a holistic perspective is composed of three key dimensions, namely the“shopping environment”, the “socio-cultural context” and the “roles, motivations andbehaviour” of the individual shopper (Woodruffe et al., 2002). A fairly extensiveamount of research indicates that orientations impact shopping behaviour based onseveral factors such as consumer demographics and psychographics (Gilbert andWarren, 1995), usage situation (Moye and Kincade, 2002; Romero de la Fuente andYague Guillen, 2008), price sensitivity (Han et al., 2001; Munnukka, 2005), socialreferents (Bearden and Etzel, 1982; Escalas and Bettman, 2003), involvement(Michaelidou and Dibb, 2008), need recognition (Grønhaug and Venkatesh, 1991),product category (Mehta, 2007; Vijayasarathy and Jones, 2000) and so on.

Moreover, literature highlighted that consumption is mainly driven by twomotivations: a product-oriented (utilitarian) motive and/or an experience-oriented(hedonic) one (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Babin et al., 1994). Consistent withprevious research in marketing (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000;Okada, 2005; Chitturi et al., 2007, 2008), the term “utilitarian benefits” refers to thefunctional, instrumental and practical benefits of consumption offerings, thus they areperceived as being closer to necessities or needs. While the term “hedonic benefits” isreferred to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related benefits, as they areperceived as being closer to luxuries or wants. This reflects two contrasting paradigmsin consumer behaviour theory; the information-processing paradigm (e.g. Bettman,1979) and the experiential one (e.g. Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook andHirschman, 1982). The former identifies an objective, rational and problem solvingbehaviour. Thus, brand trust may be greater when the utilitarian value in the productcategory is high in terms of tangible product attributes, such as quality or convenience.The latter, instead, characterises consumer behaviour with more subjective, emotionaland symbolic aspects. In this case intangible, symbolic benefits encourage a greaterbrand affect. The more the delight the more favourable the affect toward the brandconsumed (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).

These two aspects of consumption are widely accepted as basic and fundamentaldescriptors of product category characteristics (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). In fact,numerous studies have attempted to measure them (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Babinet al., 1994; Spangenberg et al., 1997; Okada, 2005). For instance, Chitturi et al. (2007)maintain that consumers attach greater importance to the hedonic dimension, onlyafter a “necessary” level of functionality has been satisfied. Conversely, consumersattach greater weight to the utilitarian dimension, unless they believe that they have“earned the right to indulge”.

Therefore, consumers choose products according to the relative benefits they getfrom both hedonic and utilitarian aspects of the products; the former primarily in theform of experiential enjoyment and the latter in practical functionality (Hirschman and

EJM44,5

612

Holbrook, 1982; Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Mano and Oliver, 1993). However, thesuperiority of hedonic attributes in choosing a high tech product could cause guilty andanxiety (Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998; Kivetz and Simonson, 2002) while in case ofutilitarian driven choice consumers could suffer from sadness and disappointment(Okada, 2005). In particular as regards mobile phone consumers trade hedonicattributes for functional ones, for example when choosing a more functional mobilephone over a more aesthetically pleasing one, thus confirming the “principle of hedonicdominance” (Berry, 1994). Many studies on the utilitarian versus hedonic benefits(Kivetz and Simonson, 2002; Voss et al., 2003; Chernev, 2004; Okada, 2005; Chitturi et al.,2007, 2008) demonstrated that in choice tasks, consumers will prefer the option that isfunctionally superior. In contrast, in evaluation tasks, since consumers do not feelpressed to favour the functionally superior option, they will prefer the hedonicallysuperior option. Therefore, utilitarian and hedonic consumption behaviours are bothdiscretionary. The difference between them is a matter of degree and perception.Hedonic benefits are more difficult to evaluate and quantify than the functional ones.Consequently, it is more difficult to justify spending on hedonic goods and easier tojustify spending on utilitarian goods (Prelec and Loewenstein, 1998).

As consumers buy products not only for their material utilities, but also for thesymbolic meaning associated to their images (Xue, 2008; Elliot, 1997), the impact ofproducts’ symbolic meaning is strongly correlated to the interrelationship between theperceived product image and the buyer’s self-concept (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991). Infact, consumers nowadays try to attain social belonging through buying particularproducts ( Jiang, 2004).

In this paper hedonic and utilitarian are intended as instrumental to match the twomain brand elements (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998); that is:

(1) functional capabilities, relating to the brands’ tangible, rationally assessed,product performance; and

(2) symbolic features, such as intangible, emotionally assessed, emotional values ofthe brand’s personality.

Some of the benefits of a brand may indeed accrue from the product category it belongsto. Both hedonic and utilitarian aspects of products may account for certain tangibleand non-tangible aspects of brands.

Branding implicationsThe marketing literature has highlighted that brands can be powerful symbolicproducts, having considerable social impact, and provoking considerable loyalty(Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Holt, 2004). Brands that are characterised by widespreadconsumer awareness and positive associations affect their social contexts. Strongbrands have considerably more power to consumers than their ability to distinguish anoffer from those of competitors since they also show additional effects (Kay, 2006).

The stereotypical user of the product or service in the context within which it isused (Sirgy et al., 1997) is drawn by user and usage imagery (Keller, 1998). The formerconcerns the perception of the type of user. The consumer desire to promoteself-consistency and self-esteem motivates them towards positive evaluations ofbrands if user imagery is congruent with their desired self-image (Sirgy, 1982;Fournier, 1998). On the other hand, usage imagery regards the situational factors in

Mobile phonechoice

613

which the brand is used. The perceptions that result often influence brand personality(Plummer, 1984), that is defined as the set of human characteristics associated with abrand (Aaker, 1997). It can be described and communicated in terms of bothdemographic and psychographic characteristics (Aaker, 1997), providing features forthe brand position in consumer mind. A well-established brand personality heightensemotional ties with the brand, increases preference and patronage and develops trustand loyalty (Siguaw et al., 1999).

The product experience results in the active construction of meanings associatedwith the behaviours, thoughts and feelings that occur during consumption (Padgettand Allen, 1997), which consequently impact on consumer perceived brand image.

Brand literature (e.g. Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1998) considers products as a bundle ofproduct-related attributes, which are essentially defined as the components of the coreproduct function sought by consumers, and non-product-related ones, which areexternal to the function or process of the product/service offering. In particular, theKeller model reflects a customer focus on the functional, emotional and self-expressivebenefits of brands. In choosing the mobile phone, its attributes mainly influence thepurchase, given the high market concentration and the close connection with brandposition. Product specific variables differentiate consumer usage motivations.Academic research also reflects the growing importance of combining function (theutilitarian aspects) with form (the hedonic aspects) (Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998;Voss et al., 2003; Chitturi et al., 2008). Indeed, some product categories are moresensitive to brands than others according to the brand strength in assuring satisfactionand developing a certain identity (Riezebos et al., 2003).

Two major components of brand knowledge, namely brand awareness and brandimage are identified as crucial to successful brand building (Keller, 1993, 1998; Aaker,1997; Berry, 2000). The former is reached through the presentation of the corporatebrand, i.e. advertising, firm name and logo, while the latter through external brandcommunications, i.e. word-of-mouth and public relations, which are essentially notcontrolled by the company (Berry, 2000). To gain customer-based brand equity theconsumer must be aware of, and familiar with, the offering (brand awareness), andhold brand associations that are strong, favourable and unique in comparison withother brands offered in the same category (brand image).

Consumer choice in the mobile phone marketRecently, the explosive growth of penetration and usage of mobile devices haveattracted also academics (Massoud and Gupta, 2003; Barnes and Scornavacca, 2004;Park and Yang, 2006). Previous studies have focused on its adoption (Leung, 1998;Gruber and Verboven, 2001; Katz and Aakhus, 2002), customer satisfaction (e.g. Wooand Fock, 1999), social implications (Katriel, 1999; Rakow and Navarro, 1993; Wei andLeung, 1999), motivations and patterns of usage (Leung and Wei, 2000) and on thetechnology paradoxes consumers live (Thompson, 1994; O’Shaughnessy andO’Shaughnessy, 2002).

However, as any given generation of technology will end up being replaced by anewer generation, subjectivity (Addis and Holbrook, 2002) and social heterogeneity(Dattee and Weil, 2005) are the key determinants in shaping the interactions betweenthe perception of technological evolution and the formation of expectations. The formeraffects the involvement of people in an atmosphere and, as it involves attitudes and

EJM44,5

614

personal needs, influences perceptions and expectations; while the latter creates apersonal network with dispersed dyadic relations, linking personal constructs toattitudes towards risk. Perceptions and the formation of expectations lead to someinteresting adoption dynamics. Understanding what differentiates customers inchoosing a technology product is crucial in today’s high-tech era (Moore, 2002). Amajor stream of research has focused on the influence of personal characteristics suchas demographics and social-psychographics on consumer behaviour, which hasimportant implications for the practices of market segmentation and targeting, as wellas product positioning and marketing communication, especially for technologyproducts. Younger, higher income and better educated consumers tend to acceptmarket innovations more quickly (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985). Certainsocio-psychographic characteristics, such as innovative predisposition, opinionleadership, and risk-taking attitude, have also proved as being related to newproduct adoption (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991; Rogers, 1995).

Consumer behaviour theory has proved demographics as being a factor influencingthe adoption of technology-based product and services (Agarwal and Prasad, 1999), aswell as prior experience has a significant influence on buying behaviour (Goldsmithand Hofacker, 1991; Citrin et al., 2000). However, as regards high technology productprior experience and attitude towards the technology prove to have a strongerinfluence (Sorce et al., 2005). Experience and use should minimise the perceived riskassociated with the adoption of a new product or service. Thus, the history ofconsumers’ usage of mobile phones represents a useful criterion for segmenting amarket by innovativeness categories (Mazzoni et al., 2007). Furthermore, previousstudies (Rogers, 1995; Goldsmith et al., 1995; Ha and Stoel, 2004) show that innovativeconsumers are in general better educated and younger than the rest of the population,have higher incomes and occupational status, and are more often female than male.

Consumption attitudes are consumer context-specific dispositions that link personalvalues to actual consumption behaviours. The hedonic and utilitarian components ofattitude hold much potential for advancing the understanding of consumer attitudes.The benefits that come from the mobile usage can be functional, such as mobility,comfort, availability, timeliness, practicalness and/or psychological and social, aboveall security which, in turn, can be rational, emotional or experiential (Holbrook, 1999).

This is particularly evident in the mobile phone market, in which the verydifferentiating factors are no longer the core product innovations, that can be easilycommoditised, but the additional attributes that bring added value. A wide range ofvalue-added services, such as call-divert and mail box facilities, are now becomingstandard. However, the intense competition has led to a sharp fall in prices, which haveenhanced the commonality of mobile phone usage, and have led to the mobile phonebecoming an increasingly common part of everyday life in most developed countries.Branding offers the marketers the escape mechanisms from the commodity spiral. Itgives a higher value alluring the product with new dimensions. In fact, when theproduct as driver of customer values begins to get commoditised, brand helpsincreasing value by adding dimension and promotes discrimination (Verma, 2007).

The mobile phone industry has experienced an extraordinary growth rate due to thecombination of various factors, such as technological change, market demand and theevolution of competition. Approximately 95 per cent of all nations have mobile phonenetworks, and the majority of these countries have more mobile phone than landline

Mobile phonechoice

615

subscribers, and probably today more mobile phones than TVs (Botelho and Pinto,2004). Unlike any previous technology, mobile phone is now perceived as a socialnecessity, especially among teenagers (Kasesniemi and Rautianinen, 2002; Skog, 2002).The mobile phone has become a true “extension of man” (Castells et al., 2004). Its useand adoption in everyday routines fosters the positive attitude towards its role in life.This might be attributed to self-reinforcement and re-affirmation involved in attitudechange and the adoption of innovations (Rogers, 1995). The rapid worldwide adoptionand use of the mobile phone challenge the traditional gender boundaries and othertraditional dichotomies, such as work vs. leisure, freedom versus control; old versusyoung; technology versus nature.

From a simple status symbol positioning, mass mobile adoption has beenrepositioned in relation to the benefits it provides. In fact, it enables people to expandtheir communication capacity, creating new time and space relations. It grantsubiquitous access to services (Watson et al., 2002). The status-symbol system itself hasbecome experiential, where objects communicate as symbols since they are linked tostatus-symbolic experience (Kelly, 1987). Indeed, the mobile phone has become aneveryday, highly regarded, multipurpose interpersonal communication device ratherthan a working tool (Levinson, 2004; Ling, 2004). Subscribers show heterogeneousdemand influenced by significant variables, such as price sensitivity, specific productattributes, brand notoriety and individual lifestyle.

However, even though the mobile market is greatly subject to the commoditisationphenomenon, the brand is one of the most strategic elements in distinguishing theproducts as well as the consumer.

Previous studies on consumer behaviour related to mobile technology, althoughscarce, highlighted that, since mobile devices have become multi-functional consumerproducts, bundling with other consumer products such as MP3 players and digitalcameras, consumers’ choices are oriented to acquire different entertainmentopportunities. As a consequence, trust on technology, which can be reinforcedthrough a strong brand, proves to be a primary factor affecting consumers’ intentionsof using a mobile system for enjoyment, representing hedonic outcomes (Nah et al.,2003). The uncertainty or perceived risk related to the usage of newly emergingtechnology raises the issue of trust of the technology (Doney and Cannon, 1997). Thestrength of influence of hedonic and utilitarian value is expected to depend on themobile trust level. When highlighting the role of trust of technology, mobile technologytrust lets customers shape their attitudes and behaviours on the utilitarian basis.

In this market corporate brands compete through distribution and promotionstrategies, based mostly on a co-marketing approach with the service providers. In fact,the handset manufacturers, despite their strong brand identity, choose to strategicallycooperate with the service providers in order to create a unique selling proposition. Thestrong relationship and interaction between firms and customers redesign thecompetitive advantage; the constant innovation driven approach, which is based on thetechnological paradigm, is combined with strong marketing actions to develop loyaltyrelationship with the market.

Research questionsThe multi-sensory capabilities of the product and the multidimensionality of consumerbehaviour and mobile consumption model influence mobile phone choice in that the set

EJM44,5

616

of decision criteria is complex, with subjectivity (Addis and Holbrook, 2002) being thediscriminating factor. Among all the variables involved, the hedonic ones, such aslifestyle, personal attitudes, user and usage imagery, brand personality, feelings andexperiences, and the utilitarian variables, such as product attributes and usagemotivations, are combined in relation to the perception and expectation formationprocesses (Edell and Burke, 1987; Aaker, 1997). Therefore, consumption hedonism isessentially connected to multi-sensoriality of the handsets. The perceptions derivingfrom frequently synaesthetic experiences are a sense of power and control over thesurrounding environment, on personal relationships and therefore one’s own life(Cohen and Lemish, 2003).

Understanding the extent to which consumers choose mobile phone for hedonicpurposes is important to better understand the consumers’ use of affective and sensorychannels in evaluating products (Voss et al., 2003).

However, the mass mobile diffusion significantly affects lifestyle dimension, whilethe frequent usage and the clear and differentiated consumer expectations andpreferences affect the usage motivations and preferences of product attributes. Usagemotivations and emotional contents strongly differentiate them. When considering thefrequent use of utility oriented information, as well as the expected success of hedonicmotivated usage areas in mobile industry, it is important to examine the effect ofconsumer motivation on hedonic and utilitarian value dimensions simultaneously inconsumer behaviour research for mobile context (Park and Yang, 2006). Therefore, it ishypothesised that:

H1. Mobile phone choice depends on hedonic behaviour rather than utilitarianone.

The volatile nature of the high technology industry, especially the mobile phone one,given by the ever-changing demand, requires a lot of attention to marketing tactics(above all, advertising and promotion campaigns) rather than heavy expenditure ontechnological improvement. Among all the marketing thrusts, brand is one of the mostpowerful tools to achieve differentiation together, or sometimes in antithesis, with price(Tumbull et al., 2000). Indeed, certain brands substantiate identity and lifestyleproviding the product with a stronger value by creating awareness and reducinguncertainty over the product quality. Consumers treat a brand as a useful rule ofthumb or as a proxy for quality determining attributes. Thus it is more important andhelpful when the quality determining attributes are not available. Brand knowledge, inparticular, can affect more than product preferences or product choice alone; it affectsthe consumption experience itself (Hoeffler and Keller, 2003). Therefore, it ishypothesised that:

H2. The diffusion of the mobile phone is positively correlated to brand knowledge,which mitigates the commoditisation trap. Moreover, usage motivationsidentify different clusters on the basis of their relationships with the mobilephone.

Firms that push on emotional and psychological aspects, get higher feedback in termsof brand awareness. Values and expectations are typically brand-driven, and influenceconsumer choice. Therefore, consumers trust the brand. Since trust is the basis onwhich brand value lies (Delgado and Munuera, 2001), it positively influences attitudes

Mobile phonechoice

617

towards brand in order to set long time “liasons” such as loyalty (Fournier, 1995). Thehigher the brand credibility, the more positive the customers’ attitude towards thebrand and their willingness to purchase it (van Osselaer and Alba, 2000; Erdem andSwait, 2004). Brand knowledge fosters the customers’ level of trust and brand loyalty.In conclusion, the trust-effect is positively correlated with corporate ability to satisfycustomer expectations. The hypothesis is:

H3. The brand knowledge positively affects consumer behaviour, shiftingcompetition from utilitarian to hedonic behaviour and mitigating the negativeeffects of commoditisation.

MethodologyThe Italian market has been chosen since it shows very strong specificities, which canhelp mobile phone firms to develop successful marketing strategies. This marketoutperforms in terms of both numbers and socio-economic implications (Di Gregorio,2003; Valdani and Pagani, 2004; Mazzoni et al., 2007). In fact, the penetration rate ofmobile phones is 88.2 per cent (50.8 million SIMS) with an increase of 12 per centcompared to the previous year, while the average in Europe is 74.7 per cent (292 millionSIMS). Despite the unfavourable market situation, subscribers are growing on average9.9 per cent (Mazzoni, 2006; Anfov, 2007). Over the years consumer demand hasbecome ever more mature and sophisticated. It is sensitive to emotional contents andthe consequent experiential value. The individual emotions derive from hedonisticdelight connected to the product and service usage, while the social ones derive fromthe emotion sharing and the opportunity to experience new emotions derived fromconnectivity. In Italy, together with the development of technological systems, thespread of usage functions caused the enlargement of the set of new services (SMS,MMS, PC terminals, internet connections, ecommerce, cameras, video cameras, diaries,palm tops, TV services, walkie-talkie, etc.). The basic functions of mobile phones arerelated to various motivations connected to the Italian social identity and valuesystems, while functional ones (mobility, convenience, traceability, rapidity), mixedwith socio-psychological benefits, are related to self-gratification and the belonging torelevant social and professional groups (Costabile and Addis, 2002). Above all Italianconsumers show a particular attention to personal security due to both rational andemotional reasons. Mobile phones result as being a personal regulator of distance andseparation (Di Gregorio, 2003). In Italy, usage is highest among individuals whomaintain close contacts with their family (Fortunati, 2002). In such a scenario theItalian situation proves to be peculiar, due to some features of the Italian social identityand value system, characterised by typical communication ability, which thereforeinfluence the expected and perceived values of the offer.

In order to understand the consumption behaviour in the mobile market aquestionnaire was developed to investigate the factors that orient consumer choice,whether it is product substitution and/or adoption. The questionnaire was divided intofour sections: the first dealt with the respondent demographics and lifestyle, whichcould be useful to explain certain behaviour or cultural aspects. Apart from generalinformation such as gender, age, education and occupation (that represents a proxy ofthe annual salary), respondents were asked to specify their usage patterns of themobile phone, motivation to buy a mobile phone and their general attitude totechnology. The second section deals with customer relationship with the mobile

EJM44,5

618

phone, asking the interviewees to rank the level of satisfaction and their experiencewith their mobile phone, the reasons why they seek for new products. The third, thepurchase behaviour, analyses all the variables, the decision criteria and the model ofbuying; and the last specifically analyses the brand dimensions, measuring all thecomponents that form the brand knowledge. Respondents were asked also todistinguish between the handset manufacturers’ brands and the service operators’ ones(see Figure 1).

All variables, primarily drawn from the literature, were measured using multipleitems, as respondents were asked to rank the level of importance of various productattributes as mobile choice criteria on five point Likert type scales, that ranged from (1)not important to (5) very important, instead of seven points because of its clearerappearance and easier handling (Malhotra and Birks, 2000).

Mobile phone choice shows that hedonic and utilitarian benefits of a product differin their ability to delight and satisfy customers. Consistent with marketing literature(Keller, 1998) the constructs were divided into product related – the utilitarian –(Chuang et al., 2001; Barnes, 2002; Schilling, 2003) and non-product related attributes –the hedonic – (Edell and Burke, 1987; Lassar et al., 1995; Shankar et al., 2003).

The constructs of the utilitarian behaviour concerned the respondents’ perceptionsand expectations of the type of features and functions the mobile phone would have.Usability/functionality represents issues that are related to how usable and efficient isthe technology, how transparent is the learning process and how useful the functionsare (Hassenzahl, 2000). The expected functionality of the product is also linked to itsprice and promotions. Appealingness, as a physical factor, focuses on size (how big),weight and a feel in one’s hand (Tractinsky et al., 2000). On the other hand, the hedonicconstructs regarded different user experiences (Hassenzahl, 2002). The aestheticsoscillates around attractiveness of technology (e.g. shape, size), while novelty isintended as the sense of being up-to-date or trendy (Lavie and Tractinsky, 2004). Theinteractivity-social element addresses issues like interactivity with others, functionsthat are used in and sense of affiliation. Moreover, two dimensions accounted for theconstructs concerning the image and the style of the mobile phone brands, namely the“credibility and intimacy” dimension and the “personalisation” one ( Jordan, 2000;Sigala, 2006).

As regards the brand effect, a number of brand dimensions such as price (in termsof value for money), brand name, experience with brand, word-of-mouth,

Figure 1.The model

Mobile phonechoice

619

distinctiveness, credibility, reliability, identification, social belonging and image(Delgado and Munuera, 2001; Lim and O’Cass, 2001; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Erdemet al., 2002).

The questionnaire was submitted to a sample of consumers, randomly interviewedover a period of one month in a two-mile radius of a particular mobile phone shop in thecentre of an Italian city. According to Sudman (1980), data were collected during thestore opening hours, on all days of the week and at all store entrances. A total of 967shoppers were asked to participate after being intercepted as they left the store, for atotal of 403 usable questionnaires. The average response rate was 41.6 per cent, due tothe short time available for the interviews. Moreover, usual tests of non-response biaswere carried out, thus assuring the representativeness of the sample. To make sure thatthe interviewees were a suitable target group for mobile phones, they were first askedhow often they change their mobile phone.

Due to proximity to the city University and the shopping centre, the achievedsample is somewhat skewed in favour of younger people, while the sample is balancedas regards the gender. The sample included 51.4 per cent males and 48.6 per centfemales with an average age of 32 years, mainly unmarried (see Table I).

This paper aims at investigating the factors that influence mobile phone choice,analysing the Italian experience that represents a peculiar case in which hedonicfactors seems to overcome utilitarian ones. First, in order to verify the influence ofsocio-demographic variables, marketing actions and mobile attributes on purchase andalso on rebuys, a Pearson chi square analysis was carried out. Second, factor analysis,through the principal components method with varimax rotation, has helped indiscovering consumer perception and identifying groups of consumers who wereasked to rank their perceptions and expectations for the mobile phone.

Finally, in order to investigate the role of brand in the adoption and/or substitutionof mobile phones a partial least squares regression model was carried out.

FindingsThe results give an in-depth overview of the Italian consumer behaviour in choosingmobile phone. The mobile phone has constantly changed function, departing from theoriginal (Moore, 2002); it is also a symbol of belonging to a group and a part of one’sidentity. The identity is expressed both by personalising the appliance throughaccessories, such as design, size, colour of covers, ring tones, logos, screensavers, andby the actual use such as timing and placing the phone calls and messages. Thepersonalisation and the perception of mobile phones are strictly influenced by formdesign elements (Hassenzahl, 2002). The design of profitable, high-quality productsdepends on a detailed understanding of consumer preferences (Swift, 1997). In fact, thedesign specifications simply translate the user’s implicit preferences that are amultidimensional psychological construct composed of cognitive, affective andbehavioural dimensions (Chuang et al., 2001).

First a chi square analysis was carried out to investigate the variables that count inthe first purchase and rebuy. Above all, consistent with the literature, thedemographics do not show a strong influence. In fact, the sample shows how thetwo genders are becoming more accustomed to the use of mobile, thus lowering thetechnology barriers especially for females. Instead, the usage of mobile phone dependson income and work status (Rice and Katz, 2003). In fact, for p ¼ 0.05 the type of mobile

EJM44,5

620

( p ¼ 0.000) and the mobile owned ( p ¼ 0.042) results as being significant in relation tooccupation. This relationship confirms the mobile status symbol role, althoughtechnology proves to be important in the first purchase. In fact, the Veblen and thebandwagon effects shift the focus from cost minimisation to status symbol (Rohlfs,2001). Product quality is no longer the only and exclusive buying motivation. Higherincome, or better a certain well being, indicates greater financial ability to afford “new”products, while higher levels of education are suggestive of open-mindedness andability to process new information. Age, on the other hand, can be indicative ofrisk-avoidance and conservativeness, and thus can be negatively associated withinnovativeness.

Furthermore, the so-called sociability factor, previously considered as the main usereason of the landline phone (Fischer, 1992), especially from a gender point of view(Rakow, 1988), has a great impact on the consumption of new technologies and mobilecommunication. It is more than ever a matter of connection. People’s relationship,especially the young ones, with the mobile phone is consistent with their generalconsumption styles. An addictive use of the phone is related to trendy and impulsiveconsumption styles and prevalent among females. Technology enthusiasm andtrend-consciousness is linked to impulsive consumption and hard values and prevalent

Frequency %

Age15-17 12 3.018-24 96 23.825-34 172 42.745-54 63 15.645-54 39 9.755-64 11 2.7More than 65 10 2.5Total 403 100.0

GenderF 196 48.6M 207 51.4Total 403 100.0

EducationSecondary 16 4.0Diploma 64 15.9Undergraduate 223 55.3Post graduate 100 24.8Total 403 100.0

OccupationStudent 115 28.5Clerk or similar 155 38.5Freelance 70 17.4Housewife 26 6.4Unemployed 19 4.7Entrepreneur 18 4.5Total 403 100.0

Table I.Sample characteristics

Mobile phonechoice

621

among males. A minimal mobile phone usage is not related to gender but toenvironmentalism and thrifty consumption in general.

Hedonism, visibility, and open-mindedness have also been regarded as typical of theconsumption of young people, although young people’s consumption is moreimpulsive, hedonistic, visible, and expressive than the consumption of older age groups(Wilska, 2003).

As regards the rebuying process, data show it is strongly linked to past experience.Therefore, brand personality is a relevant feature, which has to be built in time. In fact,the strategic position needs time to impact consumers’ systems of value andperception. This requires a medium to long approach in order to build and project theimage.

In conclusion, the success of mobile phone choice is not only a function oftechnological characteristics but also depends on individuals and many socialdynamics. Systemic interactions are mediated by the relations structure of the socialnetwork that identifies individuals with different social roles among which opinionleaders can act as reference users.

The brand leadership is explained, according to the bandwagon theory, by thebrand self-referential effect. In fact, the brand leader was ranked by 45 per cent of thesample as the most reliable, thus increasing its level of customer satisfaction.Consumers that chose it have the comparison problem solved, being sure to buy notonly a reliable product but also a fashionable one.

Since products “communicate” various meanings, among which distinctiveness isthe most important, they have a differentiating and discriminatory function,distinguishing between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.

In order to understand which attributes customers perceived as important, a factoranalysis, through the principal components method with varimax rotation, was carriedout. It showed three dimensions (Table II) to which three possible groups of mobileconsumers correspond.

Consistently with the literature, the three groups can be identified as follows: thefirst group, “the brand huggies”, is more focused on brand dimensions and social

Factor Value Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha

Functional/utilitarian 0.95Advanced functions 0.587Dimensions and weight 0.679Software 0.676Design 0.741

Symbolic/hedonic 0.85Brand 0.850Personalisation 0.708Aesthetics 0.777Credibility and intimacy 0.870Interactivity 0.823

Economic 0.72Price 0.775Promotions 0.551

Note: Cumulative variance ¼ 0.62Table II.Factor analysis results

EJM44,5

622

factors. They constantly use the mobile to keep in touch with their distant life (i.e.family, friends, work), in order not to be out of communication, a sort of distancecontrol; and for socialisation, communication and entertainment. Interpersonalnetworks influence individuals by conveying evaluation information in order todecrease uncertainty about a technological innovation. They are more concerned onproduct and brand credibility rather than technology performance per se.

The second group, “the technology enthusiasts” (Moore, 2002), is represented by theconsumers that are very focused on technology and technical performance. They usethe mobile for relational purposes or for business, for they have stressed theimportance of functionality (i.e. durability, number of accessories available, softwarecapacity, etc.). They have more social participation than later adopters, due to theircosmopoliteness (Rogers, 2003).

Finally, the third group, “the pragmatists”, shows a strong commitment to thetangible attributes, in particular price and product diffusion. These consumers aresensitive to mass communication and rebuy mobile even though the previous one isstill working properly. Pragmatists tend to be vertically oriented meaning theycommunicate more with others like themselves within their own industry. Referencesand relationships are very important in this category.

Apart from the group names, the relationship with the mobile communicationhighlighted that it is no longer the technology that dynamically rules the competition,but the service.

In fact, while the focus of decisions of technology enthusiasts is dominated bytechnology and product concerns, the focus of pragmatists and “brand huggies”respectively, is rather on the market and firm. The heterogeneity in attitudes requiresthe technological advantage to be converted into product credibility in order to havewide access to the market where diffusion is reciprocally linked to corporate (brand)credibility.

In order to assess the effect of the various brand dimensions, partial least squares(PLS) were used to explain the multiple dependence relationships (Chin, 1998; EspositoVinzi et al., 2007). PLS is a variance based general technique for estimating pathmodels involving latent constructs indirectly observed by multiple indicators. Themodel was specified by two sets of linear relations; the outer model specifying therelationships between latent and manifest variables; and the inner model specifyingrelationships between the latent variables. This paper focuses on the inner model(Table III) and a number of fittings was calculated to test the model hypotheses

Predictedvariables

Predictorvariables Hypothesis Path

Variance due to thepath R 2

Criticalratio

Mobile choice Hedonicbehaviour H1 0.85 0.72 0.72 21.38Brand knowledge H2 0.36 0.27 0.61 2.22

Hedonicbehaviour Brand knowledge H3 0.45 0.34 3.02AVA 0.66

Table III.Partial least squares

results for the theoreticalmodel

Mobile phonechoice

623

(Fornell and Cha, 1994; Lohmoller, 1989) such as R2, average variance accounted for(AVA), average variance explained (AVE ¼ 0.35), regression loadings.

The between blocks correlation coefficients of the residuals of the manifestvariables were all relatively low, suggesting that the blocks are distinctly defined (Falkand Miller, 1992). Since the AVA for the endogenous variables (0.66) is greater than therecommended 0.10 (Falk and Miller, 1992) and paths weights and the bootstrap criticalratios respectively exceed the cut off points (paths variance . 0.015 and critical ratios. 1.96 for p values , 0.05), the three hypotheses are confirmed.

In particular, hedonic behaviour has a significant and positive impact on mobilechoice (b ¼ 0.85), thus H1 is supported. Consumers, especially the youth segment,choose mobile phone more for hedonic reasons. They use mobile phones to develop asense of belonging and maintain a good image with their peers (Carroll et al., 2002;Aoki and Downes, 2003; Wilska, 2003). However, the choice of mobile service providersis also coordinated for economic reasons. They select the same mobile service provider,who does not charge or charges minimal amounts for calls and messages within itsnetwork (Birke and Swann, 2006). Data services such as SMS and content downloadare mainly hedonic, while voice communications are mainly utilitarian.

Similarly, the influence of brand knowledge on the mobile choice is positive(b ¼ 0.36), thus supporting H2. Although brand trust and brand affect are directlyrelated to consumer purchase and attitudes, and indirectly to market share and relativeprice. Further, as expected, brand knowledge also has a significant positive effect(b ¼ 0.45) on hedonic behaviour, thus supporting H3. Brand attitudes do relatepositively to consumer intention to use (purchase) specific mobile phones over others.Therefore, brand, as a facilitator both of consumption and buying behaviour, mitigatescommoditisation reducing the importance of price, which is now meant as a strongquality indicator affecting brand image (Lassar et al., 1995). The associationsconsumers attached to a brand influence the corresponding attitude and intention touse the product. In fact, a brand with high brand awareness and loyalty does not needto push new technologies in order to win customer preferences in their value system;because of the brand strength, the new technology has already got these values evenbefore its introduction in the market, so that customers associate brand valuesautomatically to the new technology.

In addition, culture and lifestyle influence brand personality perceptions (Lim andAng, 2008). As products may possess both (either) hedonic and (or) utilitarian benefits,producers should promote hedonically superior alternatives in the earlier part of thedecision-making process and the functionally superior ones in the latter stages.However, it is crucial to understand why attitudes are enhanced when hedonic benefitsare used together with utilitarian products.

The study, though exploratory, has underlined the importance of brand and thedualism between marketing and technology in the adoption and diffusion oftechnological products. Certainly, the analysis has some limitations, such as the samplesize, the area and the variables considered. The sample age, however, confirms theimportance of the youth segment in the high-tech industry. Knowledge on how youthconsume specific mobile phones and services would help such firms to developattractive applications to increase youth’s adoption and use of mobile phones.Reference groups need to be studied in their influence of consumers’ usage and buyingbehaviour, as well.

EJM44,5

624

In particular, as regards Italy, it could be interesting to replicate the study indifferent areas since the country presents regional disparities, even though the areaconsidered shows features that minimise that issue. As the study provides an initialperspective into understanding brand issues, future research should focus on theeffects of the cooperation between mobile operators and mobile manufacturers. In fact,since the mobile market is divided into two different markets, that is the market ofhandset manufactures and the market of the services providers, the mobile choice oftenlies in a combination between handset and services. Such a choice may be influencedby motivational and social variables, even if these latter are more relevant in theservices area due to inter-personal relationships (Nysveen et al., 2005). Therefore, afuture issue is represented by what services consumers are more likely to use to fulfilhedonic or utilitarian purposes.

ConclusionThis study, in an attempt to understand consumer preference regarding mobile phones,highlighted some considerations to build an appropriate brand strategy. In fact, thefindings have indicated what variables influence people in the choice of high-techproducts, such as mobile phones; what value dimensions influence firms in launchingnew products, both from a technological point of view and from a marketing one, oftenanticipating the end of the life cycle; and explored the issues that link brand choice tobrand strategy.

As competition is played around differentiation strategies that involvetechnological aspects such as quality, design and technical performance, andmarketing aspects, namely brand, sense of belonging to a community, status symbol orbandwagon effect, the borderline between technology and marketing (innovation vs.communication) in developing and marketing new products is not clearly defined. Inparticular, brand and the hedonic/symbolic values around it are a strategic source ofdifferentiation, even though the time necessary to absorb the investment and R&Dcosts represents the main risk and thus the main reason for the higher number offacelifts or incremental innovations. Brand loyalty proves to be the key challenge to befaced with a bundle of offers that match the specific expectations of micro segments,easy to serve thanks to technology evolution.

On the other hand, the commoditisation process, which is common to alltechnological products, in theory should lead to lessening the brand value and theintangible elements, and to increasing price competition. Instead, a strong brand equityand collaborative relationship are strategic tools to reduce the commoditisation trap;the more commoditised the product is the less the value of technology.

The extraordinary growth of the demand is due to both psychological and socialreasons that, combining, have produced features specific of the Italian social identityand value system. Therefore, consumer behaviour is culture oriented towards highrelational but strongly individual products. Moreover, the interactions amongtechnological breakthroughs, consumer evolution and firm strategies influence themobile market trend in Italy (Pratesi, 1996). Consumption and attitudes, bothindividual and social, result as being affected by contextual and causal connection,thus requiring a new approach. The interaction and the reciprocal enhancement ofpsychological and social benefits on which demand externalities impact stimulate intra

Mobile phonechoice

625

and inter-type competition generated by technology and consumer value convergenceon the segments with the highest added value.

The proven increased frequency of high-technology adaptation requires a newthinking regarding the design of branding strategies for such products. Theconsequent practical implications are therefore not to focus on or invest in singleproduct campaigns or price competition but more on general image building andstrengthening it. In such a scenario people connectivity seems to be the most importantbenefit and the evolution of messages contributes to revitalising also the traditionalvoice services. It seems that since mobile phone industry is a hypercompetitivescenario, it is worthwhile to offer new services to a loyal and consolidate customer baserather than acquire more subscribers. As in such an industry innovation multiplies theproduct offerings through differentiation and versioning, it results in most cases inconfusing and paralysing overall market. Therefore, technology and marketing,specifically branding, are strongly interrelated since the former is changing the mediaand the tools for branding, apart from developing new opportunities. The latter,instead, helps firms in differentiating and guiding consumers in their choice.Advertising and promotion help in building and maintaining brand equity over time,in attacking or defending it from competitors, and even in supporting short periodpromotional strategies.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. and Jacobson, R. (2001), “The value relevance of brand attitude in high-technologymarkets”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 485-94.

Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34No. 3, pp. 347-56.

Aaker, J.L. (1999), “The malleable self: the role of self expression in persuasion”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 36, February, pp. 45-57.

Addis, M. and Holbrook, M.B. (2002), “On the conceptual link between mass customisation andexperiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 50-66.

Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1999), “Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of newinformation technologies?”, Decision Science, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 361-91.

Anfov (2007), Mobile Phones in Italy, Anfov, Roma.

Aoki, K. and Downes, E.J. (2003), “An analysis of young people’s use of and attitudes toward cellphones”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 349-64.

Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic andutilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 644-56.

Bahmanziari, T., Pearson, J.M. and Crosby, L. (2003), “Is trust important in technology adoption?A policy capturing approach”, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 43 No. 4,p. 46.

Barnes, J. (2002), “The impact of technology on customer relationships”, Australian MarketingJournal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-31.

Barnes, S.J. and Scornavacca, E. (2004), “Mobile marketing: the role of permission andacceptance”, International Journal of Mobile Communication, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 128-39.

EJM44,5

626

Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumerattitudes”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-70.

Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), “Reference group influence on product and brand-purchasedecisions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 198-211.

Berry, C.J. (1994), The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, NY.

Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-37.

Bettman, J.R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Addison Wesley,Reading.

Birke, D. and Swann, G.M.P. (2006), “Network effects and the choice of mobile phone operator”,Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 65-84.

Botelho, A. and Pinto, L.C. (2004), “The diffusion of cellular phones in Portugal”,Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 427-37.

Carroll, J., Howard, S., Peck, J. and Murphy, J. (2002), “A field study of perceptions and use ofmobile telephones by 16 to 22 year olds”, Journal of Information Technology Theory andApplication, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 49-60.

Castells, M., Mireia, F., Qiu, J. and Sey, A. (2004), The Mobile Communication Society: ResearchReport for the International Workshop on Wireless Communication, available at: http://annenberg.usc.edu/international communication/Wireless Workshop/MS.pdf

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affectto brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, April,pp. 81-93.

Chernev, A. (2004), “Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice”, Journal of ConsumerPsychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 141-50.

Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”,in Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2007), “Form versus function: how the intensitiesof specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate productpreferences”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLIV, November, pp. 702-14.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2008), “Delight by design: the role of hedonicversus utilitarian benefits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72, May, pp. 48-63.

Chuang, M.C., Chang, C.C. and Hsu, S.H. (2001), “Perceptual factors underlying user preferencestoward product form of mobile phones”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,Vol. 27, pp. 247-58.

Citrin, A.V., Sprott, D.E., Silverman, S.N. and Stem, D.E. Jr (2000), “Adoption of internetshopping: the role of consumer innovativeness”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,Vol. 100 No. 7, pp. 294-301.

Cohen, A. and Lemish, D. (2003), “Real time versus survey measures in research on mobile phoneuse”, New Media and Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 167-83.

Costabile, M. and Addis, M. (Eds) (2002), Mobile Communication, Il Sole 24Ore, Milano.

Dattee, B. and Weil, H.B. (2005), “Dynamics of social factors in technological substitutions”,Working Paper, No. 4599-05, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.

de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998), “Modelling the components of the brand”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, pp. 1074-90.

Mobile phonechoice

627

de Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1990), “Appreciating brands as assets through using a twodimension model”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 111-9.

Delgado, E. and Munuera, J.L. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of customer loyalty”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-58.

Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000), “Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXVII, February, pp. 60-71.

Di Gregorio, L. (2003), Psicopatalogia del cellulare. Dipendenza e possesso del telefonino, FrancoAngeli, Milano.

Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-sellerrelationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 36-51.

Edell, J.A. and Burke, M.C. (1987), “The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 421-33.

Elliot, R. (1997), “Existential consumption and irrational desire”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 285-96.

Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (2004), “Brand credibility and its role in brand choice and consideration”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 191-9.

Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Louviere, J. (2002), “The impact of brand credibility on consumer pricesensitivity”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2003), “You are what they eat: the influence of reference groupson consumers’ connections to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 339-48.

Esposito Vinzi, V., Fahmy, T., Chatelin, Y.-M. and Tenenhaus, M. (2007), “PLS path modeling:some recent methodological developments, a software integrated in XLSTAT and itsapplication to customer satisfaction studies”, Proceedings of the Academy of MarketingScience Conference “Marketing Theory and Practice in an Inter-functional World”, Verona,Italy, 11-14 July.

Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, The University of Akron Press,Akron, OH.

Featherstone, M. (1991), Consumer Culture & Postmodernism, Sage, London.

Fischer, C. (1992), American Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, CA.

Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994), “Partial least squares”, in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods ofMarketing Research, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Fortunati, L. (2002), “Italy: stereotypes, true and false”, in Katz, J.E. and Aakhus, M.A. (Eds),Perpetual Contact. Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 42-62.

Fournier, S. (1995), “The brand-as-relationship partner: an alternative view of brand personality”,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 391-5.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.

Gabriel, Y. and Lang, T. (1995), The Unmanageable Consumer. Contemporary Consumption andits Fragmentations, Sage, London.

Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1985), “A propositional inventory for new diffusion research”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 849-67.

EJM44,5

628

Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1991), “Innovative decision processes”, in Robertson, T.S. andKassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ, pp. 316-48.

Gilbert, F.W. and Warren, W.E. (1995), “Psychographic constructs and demographic segments”,Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 223-37.

Goldsmith, R. and Hofacker, C. (1991), “Measuring consumer innovativeness”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-21.

Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B. and Eastman, J.K. (1995), “The generality/specificity issue inconsumer innovativeness research”, Technovation, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 601-13.

Grønhaug, K. and Venkatesh, A. (1991), “Needs and need recognition in organisational buying”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 17-32.

Gruber, H. and Verboven, F. (2001), “The evolution of markets under entry and standardsregulation –the case of global mobile telecommunications”, International Journal ofIndustrial Organization, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 1189-213.

Ha, Y. and Stoel, L. (2004), “Internet apparel shopping behaviors: the influence of generalinnovativeness”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 32 No. 8,pp. 377-85.

Hamann, D., Williams, R.L. Jr and Maktoba, O. (2007), “Branding strategy and consumerhigh-technology product”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 98-111.

Han, S., Gupta, S. and Lehmann, D.R. (2001), “Consumer price sensitivity and price thresholds”,Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 435-56.

Hassenzahl, M. (2000), “Prioritising usability problems: data-driven and judgement-drivenseverity estimates”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 19, pp. 29-42.

Hassenzahl, M. (2002), “The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness”,International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 13, pp. 479-97.

Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methodsand propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.

Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K. (2003), “The marketing advantages of strong brands”, Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 421-45.

Holbrook, B.M. (1999), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge,New York, NY.

Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumerfantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 9, pp. 132-49.

Holt, D. (2004), How Brands Become Icons, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.

Holt, D.B. (1997), “Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: conceptualizing the social patterning ofconsumption in postmodernity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 326-50.

Jiang, P. (2004), “The role of brand name in customization decisions: a search vs experienceperspective”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 73-83.

Jordan, P. (2000), Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors,Taylor & Francis, London.

Kasesniemi, E.-L. and Rautianinen, P. (2002), “Mobile culture of children and teenagers inFinland”, in Katz, J.E. and Aakhus, M. (Eds), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication,Private Talk, Public Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 170-92.

Katriel, T. (1999), “Rethinking the terms of social interaction”, Research on Language and SocialInteraction, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2, pp. 95-101.

Mobile phonechoice

629

Katz, J.E. and Aakhus, M. (Eds) (2002), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk,Public Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kay, M.J. (2006), “Strong brands and corporate brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40Nos 7/8, pp. 742-60.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualising, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kelly, R.F. (1987), “Culture as commodity: the marketing of cultural objects and culturalexperiences”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 347-51.

Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002), “Earning the right to indulge: effort as a determinant ofcustomer preferences toward frequency program rewards”, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 39, May, pp. 155-70.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring customer-based brand equity”, Journalof Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.

Lavie, T. and Tractinsky, N. (2004), “Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of websites”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 60, pp. 269-98.

Leung, L. (1998), “Lifestyles and the use of new media technology in urban China”,Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 781-90.

Leung, L. and Wei, R. (2000), “More than just talk on the move uses and gratifications of thecellular phone”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 308-20.

Levinson, P. (2004), Cellphone: The Story of the World’s Most Mobile Medium and How It HasTransformed Everything!, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Lim, E.A.C. and Ang, S.H. (2008), “Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: a cross-culturalperspective based on cultural conditioning”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61,pp. 225-32.

Lim, K. and O’Cass, A. (2001), “Consumer brand classifications: an assessment ofculture-of-origin versus country-of-origin”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 120-36.

Ling, R. (2004), The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society, Morgan KaufmannPublishers, San Francisco, CA.

Lohmoller, J.B. (1989), Latent Variable Modeling with Partial Least Squares, Physica-Verlag,Heidelberg.

Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F. (2000), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, Prentice-Hall,Harlow.

Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Assessing the dimensionality and structure of consumptionexperience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20,December, pp. 451-66.

Massoud, S. and Gupta, O.K. (2003), “Consumer perception and attitude toward mobilecommunication”, International Journal ofMobile Communications, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 390-408.

Mazzoni, C. (Ed.) (2006), Scelte di consumo e reti del valore nella comunicazione mobile, Carocci,Roma.

Mazzoni, C., Castaldi, L. and Addeo, F. (2007), “Consumer behavior in the Italian mobiletelecommunication market”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 632-47.

Mehta, N. (2007), “Investigating consumers’ purchase incidence and brand choice decisionsacross multiple product categories: a theoretical and empirical analysis”, MarketingScience, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 196-217.

EJM44,5

630

Michaelidou, N. and Dibb, S. (2008), “Consumer involvement: a new perspective”, MarketingReview, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 83-99.

Mick, D.G. and Fournier, S. (1998), “Paradoxes of technology: consumer cognizance, emotions,and coping strategies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 123-43.

Moore, G. (2002), Crossing the Chasm, Harper Business Press, New York, NY.

Moye, L.N. and Kincade, D.H. (2002), “Influence of usage situations and consumer shoppingorientations on the importance of the retail store environment”, International Review ofRetail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 59-79.

Munir, K. and Philips, N. (2002), “The concept of industry and the case of radical technologicalchange”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 13, pp. 279-97.

Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27,March, pp. 412-32.

Munnukka, J. (2005), “Dynamics of price sensitivity among mobile service customers”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 65-73.

Nah, F.F-H., Zhao, F. and Zhu, W. (2003), “Factors influencing users’ adoption of mobilecomputing”, in Mariga, J. (Ed.), Managing E-commerce and Mobile ComputingTechnologies Book, Idea Group Inc, Hershey, PA, pp. 260-71.

Norman, D.A. (2004), Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, Basic Books,New York, NY.

Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbjornsen, H. (2005), “Intentions to use mobile services:antecedents and cross-service comparisons”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 330-46.

Okada, E.M. (2005), “Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLII, February, pp. 43-53.

O’Shaughnessy, J. and O’Shaughnessy, N.J. (2002), “Marketing, the consumer society andhedonism”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 5/6, pp. 524-47.

Padgett, D. and Allen, D. (1997), “Communicating experiences: a narrative approach to creatingservice brand image”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 49-62.

Park, J.K. and Yang, S. (2006), “The moderating role of consumer trust and experiences: valuedriven usage of mobile technology”, International Journal of Mobile Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2,pp. 24-32.

Plummer, J.T. (1984), “How personality makes a difference”, Journal of Advertising Research,Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 27-31.

Pratesi, C.A. (1996), Il marketing dei servizi ad alta tecnologia, Sperling & Kupfer, Milano.

Prelec, D. and Loewenstein, G. (1998), “The red and the black: mental accounting of savings anddebt”, Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 4-28.

Rakow, I.F. and Navarro, V. (1993), “Remote mothering and the parallel shift: women meet thecellular telephone”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol. 10, pp. 144-57.

Rakow, L. (1988), “Women and the telephone: the gendering of a communications technology”,in Kramarae, C. (Ed.), Technology and Women’s Voices, Routledge & Kegan, New York,NY, pp. 207-28.

Reddy, A. (1997), The Emerging Hi-tech Consumer, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.

Rice, R.E. and Katz, J.E. (2003), “Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides ofusage, adoption, and dropouts”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 27, pp. 597-623.

Riezebos, R., Kist, B. and Kootstra, G. (2003), Brand Management. A Theoretical and PracticalApproach, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Mobile phonechoice

631

Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.

Rohlfs, J.H. (2001), Bandwagon Effects in High Technology Industries, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.

Romero de la Fuente, J. and Yague Guillen, M.J. (2008), “Re-incorporating usage situation inchoice models: a base for future developments”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 24Nos 3/4, pp. 245-63.

Schilling, M. (2003), “Technological leapfrogging: lessons from the US videogame consoleindustry”, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 6-32.

Schmitt, B.H. (1999), Experiential Marketing, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Schoenfelder, J. and Harris, P. (2004), “High-tech corporate branding: lessons for market researchin the next decade”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2,pp. 91-9.

Shankar, V., Smith, A.K. and Rangaswamy, A. (2003), “Customer satisfaction and loyalty inonline and offline environments”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20No. 2, pp. 153-76.

Sigala, M. (2006), “Mass customisation implementation models and customer value in mobilephones services: preliminary findings from Greece”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16No. 4, pp. 395-420.

Siguaw, A.M., Matilla, A. and Austin, J.R. (1999), “The brand personality scale: an application forrestaurants”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 48-55.

Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300.

Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, J., Chon, K., Claiborne, C.B., Johar, J.S. andBerkman, H. (1997), “Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuringself-image congruence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3,pp. 229-41.

Skog, B. (2002), “Mobiles and Norwegian teens: identity, gender, and class”, in Katz, J.E. andAakhus, M. (Eds), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, PublicPerformance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 255-73.

Sorce, P., Perotti, V. and Widrick, S. (2005), “Attitude and age differences in online buying”,International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 122-32.

Spangenberg, E.R., Voss, K.E. and Crowley, A.E. (1997), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitariandimensions of attitudes: a generally applicable scale”, Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 24, pp. 235-41.

Strahilevitz, M. and Myers, J.G. (1998), “Donations to charity as purchase incentives: how wellthey work may depend on what you are trying to sell”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 434-46.

Sudman, S. (1980), “Improving the quality of shopping center sampling”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 423-31.

Swift, R.W. (1997), “Science drives creativity: a methodology for quantifying perceptions”,Design Management Journal, Spring, pp. 66-71.

Temporal, P. and Lee, K.C. (2001), Hi-Tech Hi-Touch Branding: Creating Brand Power in the Ageof Technology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

EJM44,5

632

Thompson, C.J. (1994), “Unfulfilled promises and personal confessions: a post positivist inquiryinto the idealized and experienced meanings of consumer technology”, Advances inConsumer Research, pp. 104-8.

Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S. and Ikar, D. (2000), “What is beautiful is usable”, Interacting withComputers, Vol. 13, pp. 127-45.

Tumbull, P.W., Leek, S. and Ying, G. (2000), “Customer confusion: the mobile phone market”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 16, pp. 143-63.

Tybout, A.M. and Hauser, R.J. (1981), “A marketing audit using a conceptual model of consumerbehaviour”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, Summer, pp. 82-101.

Valdani, E. and Pagani, M. (2004), “Le nuove dinamiche competitive nel settore di telefoniamobile di terza generazione: le strategie dei player in Italia”, Mercati e Competitivita, Vol. 0,pp. 67-88.

van Osselaer, S.M.J. and Alba, J.W. (2000), “Consumer learning and brand equity”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 27, pp. 1-16.

Verma, H.V. (2007), “Branding: context, content and consequences”, Journal of ManagementResearch, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 27-39.

Veryzer, R.W. and Hutchinson, W.J. (1998), “The influence of unity and prototypicality onaesthetic responses to new product designs”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4,pp. 374-94.

Vijayasarathy, L.R. and Jones, J.M. (2000), “Intentions to shop using internet catalogues:exploring the effects of product types, shopping orientations, and attitudes towardscomputers”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 29-38.

Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohman, B. (2003), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitariandimensions of consumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40, August,pp. 310-20.

Ward, S., Light, L. and Goldstine, J. (1999), “What high-tech managers need to know aboutbrands”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, July/August, pp. 85-95.

Watson, R.T., Leyland, F.P., Berthon, P. and George, M.Z. (2002), “U-commerce: expanding theuniverse of marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4,pp. 333-47.

Wei, R. and Leung, L. (1999), “Blurring public and private behaviors in public space: policychallenges in the use and improper use of the cell phone”, Telematics and Informatics,Vol. 16 Nos 1-2, pp. 11-26.

Weil, H.B. and Stoughton, M.D. (1996), “Commoditization of technology-based product andservice: a generic model of market dynamics”, working paper, MIT Sloan School ofManagement, Cambridge, MA.

Wilska, T.A. (2003), “Mobile phone use as a part of young people’s consumption styles”, Journalof Consumer Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 441-63.

Woo, K.-S. and Fock, H.K-Y. (1999), “Customer satisfaction in the Hong Kong mobile phoneindustry”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 162-74.

Woodruffe, B.H., Eccles, S. and Elliott, R. (2002), “Towards a theory of shopping: a holisticframework”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 256-66.

Xue, F. (2008), “The moderating effects of product involvement on situational brand choice”,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 85-94.

Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-basedbrand equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Mobile phonechoice

633

Zajas, J. and Crowley, E. (1995), “Commentary: brand emergence in the marketing of computersand high technology products”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 56-63.

Zambuni, R. (1997), “Hi-tech brands at the crossroad”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15No. 7, pp. 4-7.

Zinkhan, G.M. and Hong, J.W. (1991), “Self concept and advertising effectiveness: a conceptualmodel of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 348-54.

Further reading

Alexander, A. and Nicholls, A. (2006), “Rediscovering consumer-producer involvement –a network perspective on fair trade marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40Nos 11/12, pp. 1236-53.

Christodoulides, G., de Chernatony, L., Furrer, O., Shiu, E. and Abimbola, T. (2006),“Conceptualising and measuring the equity of online brands”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 22, pp. 799-825.

Crowley, A.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Hughes, K.R. (1992), “Measuring the hedonic andutilitarian dimensions of attitudes toward product category”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 3No. 3, pp. 239-49.

Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as signaling phenomenon”, Journal of ConsumerPsychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57.

Hartman, J.B., Shim, S., Barber, B. and O’Brien, M. (2006), “Adolescents’ utilitarian and hedonicweb-consumption behavior: hierarchical influence of personal values and innovativeness”,Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 813-39.

Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10No. 2, pp. 14-19.

Lemish, D. and Cohen, A. (2003), “On the gender nature of mobile phone culture in Israel”,Sex Roles, Vol. 52 Nos 7/8, pp. 511-21.

Moisio, R.J. (2003), “Negative consequences of mobile phone consumption: everyday irritations,anxieties and ambiguities in the experiences of Finnish mobile phone consumers”,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 30, pp. 340-5.

About the authorLuca Petruzzellis is an Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Bari, Italy. His mainresearch interests lie in consumer behaviour, services marketing, and mass customisation. Hehas published in various Italian and international journals and contributed to severalinternational books. He is also author of a book on place marketing. He is also the author ofseveral papers that have been accepted in international congresses as EMAC. Luca Petruzzelliscan be contacted at: lu.petruzzellis@disag.uniba.it

EJM44,5

634

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints