International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

‘Hello, Mrs. Sarah Jones! We recommend this product!’

Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising:
comparisons across advertisements delivered via three
different types of media ijcs_784 503..514

Jay (Hyunjae) Yu1 and Brenda Cude2

1
Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
2
College of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Keywords Abstract
Personalized advertising, privacy, advertising
effect, consumer behaviour. As new technologies (e.g. online, mobile and interactive TV) develop worldwide, numer-
ous types of personalized advertising, in which companies use an individual’s name and/or
Correspondence other types of personal information, have become more popular in many countries. Using
Jay (Hyunjae) Yu, Manship School of Mass many types of information about specific individuals, personalized advertising is designed
Communication, Louisiana State University, to convey a customized message at the right time to the right person using diverse media.
Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA. However, despite its universally increased use, few academic studies have explored the
E-mail: Bus89@lsu.edu effectiveness of personalized advertising and consumers’ response to it. This exploratory
study focused on consumers’ perceptions of personalized advertising delivered online
doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00784.x (e-mail) and offline (letter and telephone call). The results show that consumers generally
have negative perceptions of personalized advertising, regardless of how it is delivered,
with the strongest negative reaction to telephone calls.

Companies’ interest in planning and conducting personalized
advertising is increasing around the world (Poon and Jevons,
1997; Gal-Or and Gal-Or, 2005). Researchers from diverse coun-
tries including the US, China, South Korea, Greece, Mexico,
Taiwan, Poland and Germany have recently investigated several
issues regarding this miraculous boom in personalized advertising
(Bozios et al., 2001; Yuan and Tsao, 2003; Chorianopoulos et al.,
2004; Tsang et al., 2004; Bulander et al., 2005; Kazienko and
Adamski, 2007). One of the major motivations for this universal
interest in personalized advertising is directly related to marketers’
increasing doubts about the effectiveness of many traditional
advertising methods that target mass audiences, methods they have
long relied upon to market a variety of products (Jin and Villegas,
2007). The effectiveness of traditional mass advertising, which is
generally produced in identical messages for a non-specific audi-
ence, has been questioned due to diverse reasons, such as increas-
ing advertising clutter (Rotfeld, 2006), people’s general avoidance
of advertising (Kim and Pasadeos, 2007), and the development
of several technologies such as DVRs (Digital Video Recorders)
that allow consumers to avoid exposure to advertisements if they
choose (‘Digital Home Technology: Tivo Builds Real Time DVR
Advertising Research Offering’, 2006).
The development of new communication technologies may not
only have weakened traditional advertising’s effectiveness, but it
also has made delivery of diverse types of personalized advertising
possible (Pramataris et al., 2001; Howard and Kerin, 2004;
Morimoto and Chang, 2006). not just to developed western coun-
tries, but worldwide (Consumers International, 2002). Personal-
ized advertising can be delivered using techniques more advanced
than traditional e-mails, including personalized web pages that use
cookies to capture an individual’s history of web surfing, person-
alized interactive television advertising, smart banners and mobile
advertising (Bozios et al., 2001; Pramataris et al., 2001; Yuan and
Tsao, 2003).
The Internet’s popularity in daily life in many countries around
the world has also given companies another way to gather con-
sumer information for marketing purposes (M2PressWIRE, 2006;
Trollinger, 2006). Companies use all possible channels, both
online and offline, to develop personal information databases
about consumers (Marketing News, 2006). These databases make
it possible to create personalized advertisments with customized
messages for each individual consumer (Kim et al., 2001; Yuan
and Tsao, 2003; Lekakos and Giaglis, 2004; Wolin and Korga-
onkar, 2005).
However, despite the increase in the amount of personalized
advertising, as well as the development of diverse new technolo-
gies that can be used to deliver it, few academic researchers have
examined consumer responses to it (Sundar and Kim, 2005).
Researchers from many countries (e.g. Li et al., 2002; Sheehan
and Hoy, 1999; Wu, 2006) have noted the need to learn more about

International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514 503

Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising
consumers’ attitudes towards the phenomenon known as person-
alized advertising. While a personalized advertising message may
be more effective because the message is individualized (Pavlou
and Stewart, 2000), it also may be rejected by consumers who are
concerned about their privacy (Sheehan and Hoy, 1999; Miyazaki
and Fernandez, 2000; Sacirbey, 2000; Phelps et al., 2001). This
could possibly lead to negative attitudes as well as the marketer
(Sheehan and Gleason, 2001).
Motivated by the controversy surrounding the effects of per-
sonalized advertising, this exploratory study investigated con-
sumers’ actual attitudes towards personalized advertising. More
specifically, this study aimed to learn if consumers’ perceptions
of personalized advertising differ depending on the type of
media used to deliver it: online (e-mail), offline mail (letter), and
telephone (solicitation phone call). In addition, this study exam-
ined consumers’ self-reported responses upon receiving person-
alized advertising, their privacy concerns and their intentions to
purchase the product in the personalized advertisement. Finally,
this research investigated the relationships between consumers’
intentions to purchase the advertised product and three indepen-
dent variables (i.e. general perceptions of personalized advertis-
ing, actual responses to personalized advertising and privacy
concerns). The influence of these three variables on consumers’
purchase intentions was examined for each of the three media
types.
Even though the sample for this study only included American
consumers, the researchers expect that the results will provide
important implications for marketers and researchers in other
countries. In a global economy, consumers in diverse cultures have
much in common in terms of exposure to advertising, especially
advertising delivered online, and thus share some common atti-
tudes about advertising (e.g. Wolburg and Kim, 1998; Adler et al.,
2004; Yu et al., 2008).
This study’s definition of personalized
advertising
In this study, personalized advertising was defined as advertising
that is created for an individual using information about the indi-
vidual (Yuan and Tsao, 2003; Wolin and Korgaonkar, 2005). This
information includes either personally identifying information
such as one’s e-mail address, name, or residence, and/or personal
information such as shopping history, websites visited, preference
for a specific product, or one’s hobby. Further, personalized adver-
tising in this study was limited to advertising delivered without the
individual’s prior permission (Pavlou and Stewart, 2000).
Other terms have been commonly used to mean something
similar to personalized advertising, such as ‘customized advertis-
ing’ (Tsang et al., 2004; Gal-Or and Gal-Or, 2005) and ‘interac-
tive advertising’ (Sasser et al., 2007). However, personalized
advertising is a broader term that is relevant to advertising deliv-
ered via any type of media, and thus was more appropriate for
this study.1
1
The terms interactive advertising and customized advertising have been
mainly used in online advertising and mobile advertising contexts because
of their technological interactivity (Pramataris et al., 2001; Xu et al.,
2008).
504
H.J. Yu and B. Cude
The increasing prevalence of
personalized advertising
Given the popularity of one-to-one marketing (Friedman and
Vincent, 2005), database marketing (Wehmeyer, 2005) and rela-
tionship marketing (Palmatier et al., 2006), companies’ interest
in collecting consumers’ personal information is greater than
ever worldwide. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
reported that approximately 92% of websites collected personal
information for future marketing (FTC, 2000). Some specialized
third parties collect and sell information to other companies as
well (Pavlou and Stewart, 2000). Basic database programs can be
merged to provide an in-depth portrait of a consumer’s individual
purchasing behaviour (Foxman and Kilcoyne, 1993), including
personalized information that can be diverse and include demo-
graphic characteristics, geographic information and psycho-
graphic information (Lekakos and Giaglis, 2004). The FTC (2009)
reported that information for personalized advertising comes from
multiple sources, such as consumers’ online activities including
the searches they routinely conduct, the web pages they visit, and
even the specific content they view.
Personalized advertising’s popularity even challenges the long-
standing definition of advertising. According to the American
Marketing Association (Alexander, 1960) and several researchers
(Rosenberg, 1995; Perreault and McCarthy, 1999; Armstrong and
Kotler, 2000), advertising is defined as any paid form of non-
personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods or services
by an identified sponsor through mass communication media. As
some important elements surrounding the definition change, there
is room for re-thinking the concept of ‘non-personal’. New tech-
nology that transforms mass communication into a series of per-
sonalized advertising messages may eventually shift the focus of
traditional mass advertising to more individualized and focused
audiences (Pavlou and Stewart, 2000).
Perspective 1: positive effects of
personalized advertising
Positive aspects of personalized advertising for both consumers
and marketers have been repeatedly noted. Several researchers
have indicated that personalized advertising can increase user
involvement and thus the advertisement’s effectiveness (Stewart
and Ward, 1994; Roehm and Haugtvedt, 1999; Pavlou and
Stewart, 2000; Yuan and Tsao, 2003; O’Leary et al., 2004). In
personalized advertising, consumers receive only messages that
are relevant to them, which are more likely to generate purchase
intentions or other desired responses (Pavlou and Stewart, 2000).
McKeen et al. (1994) suggested that consumers’ greater involve-
ment in advertising also increases their satisfaction with advertis-
ing. Howard and Kerin (2004) also found that personalization in
the advertising copy increased advertising effectiveness. In their
experiments, the response rate to advertisements with personalized
notes such as ‘Hello Miss OOO! Try this. It works!’ was higher
than the response rate to non-personalized advertising messages.
An important benefit of personalized advertising is the potential
for increased interaction between the consumer and the adver-
tising. Nowak et al. (1999) found in their empirical study that
personalized online advertising increased the possibility of
clicking behaviour among consumers. Rodgers and Thorson
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
H.J. Yu and B. Cude
(2000) also noted that referring to users by name and mentioning
consumers’ specific interests in an advertisement can increase
interaction. Pavlou and Stewart (2000) hypothesized that the
degree to which advertising is perceived to be personalized and
individually focused would be an important measure of advertis-
ing’s effectiveness.
Perspective 2: negative effects of
personalized advertising
While personalized advertising has benefits for both marketers and
consumers, several scholars have noted its negative effects and
speculated about whether the negatives might offset the positives
(Sheehan, 1999; Sacirbey, 2000; Phelps et al., 2001). Tsang et al.
(2004) found that consumers who responded to their survey gen-
erally had negative attitudes towards personalized mobile adver-
tising unless they had specifically consented to it. Also, they
confirmed a direct relationship between unfavourable consumer
attitudes and future consumer behaviour and suggested that it is
unwise to send personalized advertising messages to potential
customers without prior permission.
Further, many have discussed whether personalized advertising
violates consumers’ privacy rights (Sheehan and Hoy, 1999;
Miyazaki and Fernandez, 2000). In their study of online person-
alized advertising, Sheehan and Hoy (1999) found that many par-
ticipants did not respond to personalized advertisements; in fact,
many asked their Internet Service Providers to remove them from
the mailing list. The respondents also reported that they were less
likely to register for websites that requested their personal infor-
mation. According to the recent UPI-Zogby International Poll
(2007), more than 90% of the participants from diverse countries
were concerned about their privacy or the possibility of identity
theft in their daily lives. Under this situation, personalized adver-
tising becomes less effective for consumers everywhere if they
view it as a serious invasion of their privacy (Sheehan, 1999;
Gurau et al., 2003).
The dilemma of ‘personalization vs. privacy’ epitomizes this
complicated situation regarding the effects of personalized adver-
tising (Long et al., 1999; Caudill and Murphy, 2000; Mabley,
2000). As online users become more sophisticated and advertisers
create more ways to deliver targeted content, both consumers and
marketers expect personalized advertising more than ever. Gurau
et al. (2003) reported that many customers want more individu-
alized attention, one-to-one communication and personalized
offers. On the other hand, the potential for abuse to individual
consumers has increased exponentially as the amount of personal
data collected in consumer marketing database has grown
(Caudill and Murphy, 2000). Therefore, several researchers have
warned marketers not to use personalized advertising without
questioning its possible negative effects (e.g. Nowak et al., 1999;
Sacirbey, 2000).
The possibility of violating consumers’ privacy has lead to new
discussions about regulations for diverse types of personalized
advertising in many countries including the US, China and several
European countries (Gao, 2005; King, 2008). Issues surrounding
personalized advertising and privacy are a comparatively new
realm because the major topics in advertising regulation have
traditionally dealt with specialized audiences (e.g. children, ado-
lescents senior citizens) (Ward, 1976; Pereira et al., 2005), offen-
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising
sive content in advertising (e.g. sex, violence) (Nathanson, 1999),
the sensitive nature of some products advertised (e.g. cigarettes,
alcohol, medications) (Sheehan, 2005; Yu et al., 2008), and fraud
in advertising (e.g. messages in diet advertising) (Moschis and
Moore, 1979).
In 2008, the FTC proposed guidelines for advertisers regarding
personalized advertising (FTC Staff Report 2009). The FTC, as
well as regulators in several other countries (Gao, 2005), has relied
upon self-regulation rather than establishing strict regulations
(Bulander et al., 2005). Even countries with more restrictive tra-
ditions in advertising regulations, such as China, Taiwan and
South Korea (Tsang et al., 2004; Gao, 2005), have adopted a
self-regulation approach to personalized advertising.
Thus, understanding consumers’ perceptions of personalized
advertising is important. Self-regulation increases the opportuni-
ties for marketers to make mistakes in preparing and delivering
personalized advertising, mistakes that can harm consumers.
Research questions
This study investigated consumers’ perceptions of and attitudes
towards the three types of personalized advertising. Data were
collected via a four-part online survey. The survey addressed (1)
general perceptions of personalized advertising, (2) self-reported
responses upon receipt of personalized advertising, (3) opinions
about personal privacy regarding personalized advertising, and (4)
intentions to purchase the advertised product. The results from the
four parts indicated above were compared among the three differ-
ent types of personalized advertising (through e-mails, letters and
telephone calls).
Reflecting the personalization vs. privacy debate, this study set
out to answer the following research questions (RQ):
• RQ 1:
What are consumers’ general perceptions of personalized adver-
tising? Are their perceptions positive, negative or neutral?
• RQ 2:
How do consumers respond when they receive personalized
advertising?
• RQ 3:
What are consumers’ perceptions of the effect of personalized
advertising on their privacy?
• RQ 4:
How does personalized advertising affect consumers’ intentions
to purchase the advertised product?
The next research question examined possible differences
between the media used to deliver personalized advertising.
Chaudhuri and Buck (1995) indicated that media differences are
one of the key determinants of consumers’ emotional and rational
responses to advertising. According to their study, media differ-
ences were the best predictor of consumers’ responses to adver-
tising. Several other researchers also have documented the
relationship between media type and attitudes towards advertising
(e.g. Krugman, 1965; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Cutler and
Thomas, 2000; Chachko, 2004). More specifically, Trollinger
(2006) recently suggested media balance in using personalized
advertising, suggesting that e-mail and traditional offline mail
together achieve a better result than e-mail alone. He recom-
mended the combination based upon the notion that consumers
generally respond differently to the two types of media.
505
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising
Thus, Research Question 5 asked:
• RQ 5:
How do the different media used to deliver personalized adver-
tising affect general perceptions of personalized advertising,
self-reported response to personalized advertising, perceptions
of the interaction of personalized advertising with privacy, and
consumers’ purchase intentions?
The next question dealt with the effect of gender differences on
consumers’ opinions about personalized advertising through the
three types of media. Sheehan (1999) and Wolin and Korgaonkar
(2005) have identified gender as a significant factor in the level of
privacy concern experienced when exposed to personalized adver-
tising. Thus, the sixth research question was:
• RQ 6:
How does gender affect general perceptions of personalized
advertising, self-reported response to personalized advertising,
perceptions of the interaction of personalized advertising with
privacy, and consumers’ intentions to purchase the product
advertised?
Lastly, the possible relationships between consumers’ inten-
tions to purchase the advertised product and the three independ-
ent variables (general perceptions of personalized advertising,
self-reported responses to personalized advertising and privacy
concerns) were examined. The three variables’ influence on con-
sumers’ purchase intentions has been an important topic in con-
sumer marketing literature for a long time (e.g. Phelps et al., 2001;
Tsang et al., 2004). Research Question 7 specifically dealt with an
implication of the relationships above in a personalized advertis-
ing context:
• RQ 7:
How do general perceptions about personalized advertising,
self-reported responses to personalized advertising and privacy
concerns influence consumers’ intentions to purchase the
product in personalized advertising delivered via three different
types of media (online, letter and telephone calls)?
Method
Sample
A total of 231 young adults (college students, between the ages of
19 and 24) were recruited as the participants for the survey. Young
adults in this age range are one of the major consumer groups
for diverse products not only in the US but also in many other
countries (Huang, 1998; Sheehan, 1999; Tsang et al., 2004; Paek,
2005). To recruit a convenience sample, the researchers selected
an introductory journalism class at a state university in the south-
eastern part of the US. With the professor’s authorization, one of
the authors visited the class and briefly explained the nature of the
survey. Only the title and topic of the study were made known to
the participants. The online survey was conducted using Survey
Monkey website (http://www.surveymonkey.com).
An author sent e-mails to all 231 students in the class to invite
them to participate in the survey; the e-mail provided the link to
the survey questionnaire. Among the 231 participants, 195 partici-
pants responded to the survey (84.4%), and all but three provided
complete responses. Consequently, 192 completed surveys were
used for the analysis. The survey was conducted over a period of
506
H.J. Yu and B. Cude
5 days. In addition to receiving extra credit from their professors,
the participants were entered in a drawing for a $50 gift card to the
campus bookstore.
The questionnaire included four major sections reflecting the
first four research questions (see Table 1–4). As indicated above,
the four topics have been a main focus in discussions related to
personalized (customized) advertising and one-to-one marketing:
(1) general perceptions of personalized advertising (Nowak et al.,
1999; Pavlou and Stewart, 2000); (2) actual behaviours in
response to personalized advertising (Sheehan and Hoy, 1999;
Howard and Kerin, 2004); (3) consumers’ privacy concerns
regarding personalized advertising (Sacirbey, 2000; Phelps et al.,
2001); and (4) consumers’ intentions to purchase the product
advertised (Chachko, 2004; Sundar and Kim, 2005). Each section
of the survey included five specific statements asking for con-
sumers’ opinions using an agree–disagree 5-point scale, with ‘5’
representing agreement. In each section, the same questions were
asked three times about the three different media: (1) online
(e-mail), (2) offline mail (letter), and (3) offline (phone call).
The participants were given the researchers’ definition of per-
sonalized advertising prior to taking the survey (‘Personalized
advertising is defined as advertising that is created for an individual
using information about the individual, either personally identify-
ing information such as one’s e-mail address, name, or residence,
and/or personal information such as shopping history, preference of
a specific product or hobby. Also, personalized advertising in this
study is limited to advertising delivered without the individual’s
prior permission’). All of the items in the survey questionnaire were
pre-tested with 30 randomly selected consumers who had charac-
teristics similar to those of the actual participants.
Each set of questions regarding the three different types of
media was preceded by one of the following statements to put the
questions in context:
• Have you ever received an e-mail that had your name (or your
online name) in the title such as ‘Hello, Sarah’ or ‘Hello, Shopgirl
501’ from advertisers you don’t know?
• Have you ever received mail (offline, letter) that had your name
(or your address) in the title such as ‘Mr. Douglas, Mrs. Jones’
from advertisers (company, store, brand, people) you don’t know?
• Have you ever received a phone call that indicated your name (or
your other personal information) such as, ‘Hello, Mr. Geller’ or
‘Hello, Mrs. Jones’ from advertisers (people, company, brand,
store) you don’t know?’
Participants responded to a total of 60 statements (20 per each
media type). In addition, they also indicated their gender and age
as well as their e-mail address to contact them regarding compen-
sation for participation in the survey.
Results
(RQ1) General perceptions regarding three
types of personalized advertising
Overall, the consumers’ general perceptions of personalized
advertising were negative (see Table 1). However, they were less
likely to take personalized advertising seriously if it was delivered
online (mean 4.1) rather than offline by mail (mean 3.6) or tele-
phone (mean 3.97). All differences by media type were significant
in the t-tests at the P < 0.01 level. The typical response to the
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
H.J. Yu and B. Cude Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising

Table 1 General perceptions of personalised advertising

Gender Media
Statement Mean difference difference

When I receive personalized advertising that has my name on the title from an advertiser P < 0.01
(company, brand, people) who I don’t know, I don’t generally take it seriously.
Online mail 4.10
Offline mail 3.60
Telephone call 3.97
When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I feel curious and uncomfortable because P < 0.01
the advertisers got my personal information without letting me know.
Online mail 3.92 P < 0.01 (female)
Offline mail 3.08
Telephone call 3.63
When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, even though it is an unfamiliar advertiser, P < 0.01
I will be interested if it is about a product I like.
Online mail 2.06
Offline mail 3.07
Telephone call 1.84
When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I feel I am being treated with special care. P < 0.01
Online mail 1.45 P < 0.05 (female)
Offline mail 2.09
Telephone call 1.63
When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I am upset because my e-mail address P < 0.01
(address, telephone number) is my important personal information.
Online mail 3.68
Offline mail 3.09
Telephone call 3.79

statement, ‘When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I
feel curious and uncomfortable because the advertisers got my
personal information without letting me know’ was general agree-
ment – means of 3.92 for online personalized advertising, 3.08 for
offline mail, and 3.63 for a telephone call.
The responses to a somewhat stronger reaction (‘being upset’)
to personalized advertising were similar with the most negative
response being to a telephone call. The two statements that
described potential benefits of personalized advertising to con-
sumers were met with the strongest levels of disagreement. Con-
sumers generally were not very interested in the products in
personalized advertising; interest was strongest for products in
personalized advertisements delivered via offline mail (3.07) and
weakest if the advertisement was delivered via a telephone call
(1.84). The strongest level of disagreement was for the statement
‘When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I feel I am
being treated with special care’. Respondents were more negative
about a telephone call (mean 1.63) than online mail (1.45) or
offline mail (2.09).
(RQ2) Self-reported responses to personalized
advertising
Regarding the consumers’ typical response to personalized adver-
tising, many participants agreed that they reject it immediately
(mean 4.18 online mail; 3.04 offline mail; 3.72 telephone call) (see
Table 2). The differences by media type were significant in the
t-tests at the P < 0.01 level. Also, most participants answered that
they were not willing to open unsolicited e-mail or mail or to listen
to a phone call even if it was personalized (mean 1.95 online mail;
3.32 offline mail; 1.81 telephone call). They were more likely to
open offline mail than to open an e-mail or take a telephone call.
Although respondents answered that they tended not to read or
listen to personalized advertising, they also did not complain to
marketers about the advertising or seek more information about
the advertised products. Respondents generally did not demand to
know how the advertiser got their personal information (mean 1.6
online mail; 1.62 offline mail; 2.23 telephone call) or to ask not to
receive future advertisements (mean 2.43 online mail; 1.72 offline
mail, 3.53 telephone call). Nor did they request more information
about the product being advertised (mean 1.35 online mail; 1.74
offline mail; 1.81 telephone call).
(RQ3) Perceptions about privacy and
personalized advertising
The scores for all of the statements concerning privacy and per-
sonalized advertising were greater than 3.0, indicating an overall
negative relationship between personal privacy and personalized
advertising (see Table 3). Answers to three of the five statements
were significantly different at the P < 0.01 or the P < 0.05 level.
Respondents generally thought that advertisers were violating
their privacy (mean 3.65 online mail; 2.99 offline mail; 3.63 tele-
phone call) by delivering personalized messages. Also, they
worried about what other personal information advertisers might
have (mean 3.70 online mail; 3.46 offline mail; 3.58 telephone
call). Participants generally agreed that acquiring their e-mail
addresses/mailing addresses/telephone numbers without any

International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514 507

Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising H.J. Yu and B. Cude

Table 2 Actual response to personalized advertising

Gender Media
Statement Mean difference difference

When I receive personalized advertising that has my name in the title from an advertiser (company, P < 0.01
brand, store, people) who I don’t know, I am willing to open it and read it (listen to it).
Online mail 1.95
Offline mail 3.32
Telephone call 1.81
When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I delete it (throw away, hang up) immediately. P < 0.01
Online mail 4.18
Offline mail 3.04 P < 0.05 (male)
Telephone call 3.72
When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I have sent an email (mail, called back) to an P < 0.01
advertiser demanding to know how they got my personal information.
Online mail 1.60
Offline mail 1.62 P < 0.05 (male)
Telephone call 2.23
When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I have sent an e-mail (mail, called back) to an P < 0.01
advertiser asking them not to send (call) advertisements to me anymore.
Online mail 2.43 P < 0.05 (female)
Offline mail 1.72
Telephone call 3.53
When I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I have sent an e-mail (mail, called back) to an P < 0.01
advertiser asking for more information about the product being advertised.
Online mail 1.35 P < 0.01 (male)
Offline mail 1.74
Telephone call 1.81

Table 3 Privacy concerns and personalized advertising

Gender Media
Statement Mean difference difference

When I receive personalized advertising that includes my name from an advertiser (company,
brand, store, people) who I don’t know, I believe my information can be accessed by all
advertisers if they want it.
Online mail 3.64
Offline mail 3.62
Telephone calls 3.65 P < 0.05 (female)
When I receive personalized advertising, I feel my privacy has been violated. P < 0.01
Online mail 3.65
Offline mail 2.99
Telephone calls 3.63 P < 0.05 (female)
When I receive personalized advertising, I don’t consider my e-mail address (address,
telephone number) to be private.
Online mail 3.45
Offline mail 3.38
Telephone calls 3.42
When I receive the personalized advertising, I am worried about what other information P < 0.05
about me they also have.
Online mail 3.70 P < 0.05 (female)
Offline mail 3.46
Telephone calls 3.58
When I receive the personalized advertising, I think getting e-mail addresses (address, P < 0.05
telephone number) without any authorization is a type of crime.
Online mail 3.07
Offline mail 2.79
Telephone calls 3.02

508 International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514

Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
H.J. Yu and B. Cude
Table 4 Attitude towards advertiser in personalized advertising and purchase intentions
Statement
When I receive personalized advertising including my name from an advertiser (company,
brand, store, people) who I don’t know, I feel terrible about this advertiser.
Online mail
Offline mail
Telephone calls
After I receive personalized advertising, I have made purchases from the advertiser who sent
me the e-mail (direct mail, calling).
Online mail
Offline mail
Telephone calls
When I have received personalized advertising, I have told my friends or family not to buy
products from the advertiser.
Online mail
Offline mail
Telephone calls
After getting this kind of personalized advertising, I am likely to buy from this advertiser.
Online mail
Offline mail
Telephone calls
After getting this kind of personalized advertising, I don’t trust the advertiser and its products,
because they got my e-mail address (address, telephone number) without my knowledge.
Online mail
Offline mail
Telephone calls
authorization is a type of crime (mean 3.07 online mail; 2.79
offline mail; 3.02 telephone call). In general, their concern about
privacy was stronger for online mail and telephone calls than for
offline mail.
(RQ4) Consumers’ intentions to purchase the
product advertised
Overall, consumers’ intentions to purchase the products in person-
alized advertising were low (see Table 4). The mean scores
indicated that personalized advertisements generated negative atti-
tudes towards the advertisers (mean 3.42 online mail; 2.91 offline
mail; 3.43 telephone call) and caused mistrust in the advertisers
(mean 3.52 for online mail; 2.88 offline mail; 3.55 telephone call).
All differences by media type were significant at the P < 0.01
level. In addition, mean scores were very low for having purchased
a product advertised in personalized advertisements (mean
ranging from 1.71 for online mail to 2.60 for offline mail) and
intentions to buy advertised products in this way (1.84 for online
mail to 2.40 for offline mail). Respondents were generally unlikely
to recommend products promoted via personalized advertisements
to others (means of 2.13 to 2.50 across the three media types).
(RQ5) Different attitudes towards personalized
advertising among the three media types
To examine differences in participants’ answers by type of media,
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used. Nega-
tively worded items were re-coded before conducting the
ANOVAs. After the reverse coding, all the answers could be
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising
Gender Media
Mean difference difference
P < 0.01
3.52
2.88
3.55
P < 0.01
1.71
2.60
1.83
P < 0.01
2.20
2.13
2.50 P < 0.05 (male)
P < 0.01
1.84
2.40
1.92
P < 0.01
3.42
2.91
3.43
polarised into (1) favourable to personalized advertising, and (2)
not favourable to personalized advertising.
As seen in the fourth column of Tables 1–4, there were sig-
nificant differences among 18 of the 20 questions by type of
media used to deliver the advertising, and 16 out of 18 were
significant at the P < 0.01 level. Based on the results from the
one-way anovas, the Post hoc (Bonferroni) test was conducted to
learn more detailed information about the differences among the
three different types of personalized advertising. In general, par-
ticipants were less negative about personalized advertising deliv-
ered via offline mail than about advertising delivered via either
of the other two types of media (Table 1–4). Differences were
significant at the P < 0.01 level. For example, the participants
strongly agreed with the statements, ‘When I receive that kind of
personalized advertising, even though it is an unfamiliar adver-
tiser, I will be interested if it is about a product I like’ and ‘When
I receive that kind of personalized advertising, I feel I am being
treated with special care’ if the media were offline mail. On the
other hand, the answers to these statements were more negative
if the medium used to deliver the advertising was an e-mail or
a phone call. Participants were also significantly more likely to
read personalized advertising in a letter than to read an e-mail or
listen to a phone call.
However, there were fewer differences by media type among
participants’ answers to the questions dealing with privacy issues
(see Table 3). The three items that were significantly different
indicated that respondents were somewhat less concerned about
their privacy when personalized advertising was delivered via
offline mail compared to e-mail or a phone call.
509
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising
(RQ6) Gender differences and attitudes
towards personalized advertising
There were significant differences between the answers of males
and females in only 10 of the 60 statements (see Tables 1–4).
T-tests indicated that women felt more uncomfortable about per-
sonalized advertising than males (see Table 1, P < 0.01). However,
women were more likely to agree with the statement, ‘When I
receive that kind of e-mail, I feel I am being treated with special
care’ (see Table 1, P < 0.05). Women were also more likely than
men to say they respond to a personalized advertisement by asking
not to receive the advertising in the future (see Table 2, P < 0.05).
Females were more concerned than males about the possibility
that the advertiser might have other personal information about
them (see Table 3, P < 0.05) and to feel that personalized adver-
tising violates their privacy (see Table 3, P < 0.05).
Male respondents were more likely than females to say they
immediately reject a personalized advertisement and to demand to
know how the advertiser got their personalized information (see
Table 2, P < 0.05). Interestingly, males were more likely to say
they request information about the product being advertised (see
Table 2, P < 0.01). In a contradictory finding, males also were
more likely than females to say they tell family or friends not to
buy from the advertiser involved in a personalized advertisement
(see Table 4, P < 0.05).
(RQ7) Influence of general perceptions of
personalized advertising, actual responses
to personalized advertising and privacy
concerns on the purchase intentions of the
product advertised
To answer this research question, a series of hierarchical logistic
regression analyses was performed using the three independent
variables (general perceptions of personalized advertising, actual
responses to personalized advertising, and privacy concerns). The
dependent variable was the participants’ intentions to purchase the
product advertised. Each of the independent variables significantly
influenced consumers’ intentions to purchase the product adver-
tised when personalized advertising was delivered online (see
Table 5).
Table 5 Online personalized advertising
Predictors
Model 1 General perceptions about personalized advertising
Adjusted R square
d.f. = 1, MS = 15.420, F = 65.076, P = 0.000
Model 2 General perceptions about personalized advertising and responses to the personalized advertising
Adjusted R square
d.f. = 1, MS = 9.045, F = 40.316, P = 0.000
Model 3 General perceptions about personalized advertising, responses to the personalized advertising, and
consumers’ privacy concerns
Adjusted R square
d.f. = 1, MS = 6.985, F = 33.167, P = 0.000
Hierarchical regression for predicting consumers’ attitude towards the advertisers/purchase intention using three variables (general perceptions about
personalized ads, actual responses and privacy concerns).
DV, Consumers’ attitude towards the advertisers/purchase intention, *P < 0.01.
510
H.J. Yu and B. Cude
The significant influences of the three independent variables
(general perceptions of personalized advertising, actual responses
to personalized advertising and privacy concerns) on the partici-
pants’ purchase intentions of the product advertised also were
found for offline personalized advertising (Table 6) and telephone
calls (Table 7). In other words, the results of the regression analy-
ses clearly showed that there were not meaningful differences
among the three types of personalized advertising in terms of the
relationship between intentions to purchase the product advertised
and the three independent variables (general perceptions of per-
sonalized advertising, actual responses to personalized advertising
and privacy concerns).
Discussion
Rethinking personalized advertising
Marketers worldwide have spent large sums of money to create
and deliver personalized advertising (Low, 2000; Kim et al., 2001;
Pramataris et al., 2001; Gurau et al., 2003) with the general belief
that the advertisement will be more effective because it is person-
alized (Roehm and Haugtvedt, 1999; Pavlou and Stewart, 2000).
However, this study revealed that personalized advertising deliv-
ered via all three types of media generated more negative than
positive effects among the respondents. Although there were some
exceptions, participants tended to not like receiving personalized
advertising. The results clearly suggested that all marketers should
think seriously about the possible negative effects of personalized
advertising before using it. In the case of online personalized
advertising, the most typical response from participants was to
delete the advertisement before even opening it. Therefore,
smarter ways to create and send customized messages online
require special effort on the part of the company, as the targeted
consumer may see it as junk e-mail and delete it without even
reading it.
Actually, consumers’ general avoidance of online advertising
is evident in the current literature (Jin and Villegas, 2007) and is
a worldwide trend (Hoeken et al., 2003). For example, Cho and
Cheon (2004) found that consumers from both western and eastern
countries generally avoid online advertising messages. They sug-
gested three important variables that cause advertising avoidance
B
0.501*
0.247
0.444*
0.287
0.303*
0.331
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
H.J. Yu and B. Cude Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising

Table 6 Letter/package personalized advertising

Predictors B

Model 1 General perceptions about personalized advertising 0.559

Adjusted R square 0.308
d.f. = 1, MS = 19.878, F = 87.539, P = 0.000
Model 2 General perceptions about personalized advertising and responses to the personalized advertising 0.531
Adjusted R square 0.364
d.f. = 1, MS = 11.799, F = 56.490, P = 0.000
Model 3 General perceptions about personalized advertising, responses to the personalized advertising, 0.389
and consumers’ privacy concerns
Adjusted R square 0.404
d.f. = 1, MS = 8.765, F = 44.750, P = 0.000

Hierarchical regression for predicting consumers’ attitude towards the advertisers/purchase intention using three variables (general perceptions about
personalized ads, actual responses and privacy concerns).

Table 7 Telephone personalized advertising

Predictors B

Model 1 General perceptions about personalized advertising 0.583

Adjusted R square 0.336
d.f. = 1, MS = 23.493, F = 98.298, P = 0.000
Model 2 General perceptions about personalized advertising and responses to the personalized advertising 0.523
Adjusted R square 0.381
d.f. = 1, MS = 13.407, F = 60.179, P = 0.000
Model 3 General perceptions about personalized advertising, responses to the personalized advertising, 0.373
and consumers’ privacy concerns
Adjusted R square 0.421
d.f. = 1, MS = 9.916, F = 47.577, P = 0.000

Hierarchical regression for predicting consumers’ attitude towards the advertisers/purchase intention using three variables (general perceptions about
personalized ads, actual responses and privacy concerns).

through their cross-cultural survey: (1) perceived goal impedi-
ment, (2) perceived ad clutter, and (3) prior negative experience.
Among those, the authors found that perceived goal impediment
was the most significant reason people generally wanted to avoid
online advertising. In many cases, online users have their own
goals when they access the Internet. Therefore, they pay little or no
attention to online advertising that is not related to their task. In
addition, a fourth negative influence is present for those who view
the advertising as an invasion of their privacy (Sheehan, 1999).
This study presents the dilemma posed by personalized adver-
tising for both marketers and consumers. How can marketers
convey personalized advertising messages without giving the
offensive impression of violating their customers’ privacy? How
can consumers take advantage of advertising tailored to their inter-
ests and still protect their privacy? It is the right time for a more
comprehensive discussion about how to deliver personalized
advertising for a net positive effect. Future research could explore
various avenues including copy testing, creating less intimidating
titles for e-mails, or asking for pre-consent before sending person-
alized advertising to consumers.
The differences among the three media and
gender’s influence
Among the three types of media used to deliver personalized
advertising, this study’s respondents showed comparably more
favourable responses towards delivery via offline mail than the
other two types of media. They were less likely to reject the mail
immediately, more likely to take it seriously, less threatened by the
personalized advertisement as a violation of their privacy, and
somewhat more likely to view it as personal attention. Actually,
these results support the conclusions of some researchers (e.g.
Trollinger, 2006) who have suggested that companies need to
balance online personalized advertising with traditional personal-
ized advertising in their marketing efforts. Consumers may find
traditional mail less threatening because if one opens it and finds
it uninteresting, it can be thrown away and no harm is done.
However, it may not be as easy to end a phone call with a telemar-
keter or to deal with the after effects of opening an e-mail that
potentially contains a harmful virus or worm.
In general, personalized advertising delivered via a phone call
generated the most negative response, as well as privacy concerns
equal to those about online advertising. Approximately 100
million telephone numbers are registered in the US ‘Do Not Call
Registry’, and more than half of the states in the US have with-
drawn their Motor Vehicle Registry data from marketing use
(Marketing News, 2006). Researchers in multiple countries have
concluded that phone calls no longer seem to be an effective
delivery option for personalized advertising (Hoeken et al., 2003).
The results also confirmed the findings of previous researchers
(Sheehan, 1999; Wolin and Korgaonkar, 2005) that females are
more concerned about privacy than males. However, it is unclear

International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514 511

Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising
why this is the case. Do the differences actually reflect differences
in experience, especially online? Or do they reflect differences in
willingness to trust or other psychographic variables? This area is
one for further exploration.
Public policy and personalized advertising
Many of the US consumers who completed the survey agreed that
using one’s personal contact information to deliver personalized
advertising without any authorization ‘is a type of crime’. In fact,
in the US, there are few legal restrictions on businesses’ ability to
collect and use or even sell personal information. An exception
is the US Do Not Call Registry; there are significant fines for
telemarketers who call consumers who have registered their tele-
phone numbers with this list. The FTC’s proposed guidelines for
self-regulation when conducting personalized advertising include
an expectation that any company collecting or storing consumers’
private information should provide reasonable security for that
information, and should retain the data only as long as is necessary
to fulfil a legitimate business or law enforcement need (The Com-
puter & Internet Lawyer, 2008). The FTC also has recommended
that companies only collect an individual’s information for per-
sonalized advertising if they obtain affirmative, expressed consent
from the consumer to receive such advertising.
In contrast to the US approach of no national policy on privacy,
the European Union (EU) has adopted strict rules, with mecha-
nisms for global enforcement. The EU rules require retailers to
seek consumers’ permission before they collect and use personal
data in their own marketing, trade it to partners or sell it. In the EU,
how much information and how long it can be kept is restricted
and consumers have open access to data about themselves and the
right to collect any inaccuracies. Privacy laws modelled after those
in the EU are now in place in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and
parts of Asia and Latin America (Stephens, 2007).
Limitations and suggestions for
future research
Because the subjects in this study were US college students living
in the southeast, the generalizability of the results to other popu-
lations with different demographics could be relatively limited.
Even though young adults are considered a major consumer group
for diverse product categories not only in the US but also in many
other countries (Huang, 1998; Sheehan, 1999; Tsang et al., 2004;
Paek, 2005), other consumer groups might respond to personal-
ized advertisements differently. For example, young adults likely
use the Internet and cell phones more than other generations, thus
influencing their perceptions positively or negatively about per-
sonalized advertising delivered via e-mail and telephone. In addi-
tion, consumers in European or Asian countries where policies
about protecting one’s personal privacy are different than in the
US could have different opinions about personalized advertising.
Therefore, future studies should consider using a more diverse
sample of consumers with different demographic characteristics
and/or different nationalities.
Regarding the measurements, the researchers developed the
questionnaire for this exploratory study because a single scale to
investigate responses to personalized advertising was unavailable.
Thus, measurement validity may be a limitation of this research.
512
H.J. Yu and B. Cude
Using the findings of this research as a springboard, one of the
next steps could be to establish a scale to more accurately reflect
consumers’ different insights on diverse types of personalized
advertising. In addition, the questionnaire used in this study did
not include questions about personalized advertising delivered as a
text-message through mobile phones which have been a popular
type of personalized ads (Nantel and Sekhavat, 2008). Thus, future
studies about personalized advertising should include new and
popular styles of personalized advertising.
Lastly, additional research is needed to explore ways in which
companies can use personalized advertising without alienating
consumers who feel that the advertising violates their privacy.
Because the current study did not explore what consumers like
and do not like about personalized advertising, the results could
not provide useful information about how marketers could design
personalized advertising to be less offensive style to those con-
cerned about personal privacy. Thus, an alternative approach for
future researchers would be to use an experimental design to
better understand what personalized advertisements communicate
to consumers. Personalized advertisements in the experiments
should be diverse in terms of types of media used to deliver them,
the message style, the e-mail subject line and so forth. In addi-
tion, it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of an
explicitly personalized advertisement (‘Dear Mr. Smith: Look at
this option for your new Toyota Camry!’) vs. one that matches
the consumer’s personal interests but is not explicitly personal-
ized (‘Look at this option for a new Toyota Camry’). Creating
personalized advertising without violating privacy may not
be easy; however, the efforts could pay off for marketers and
consumers.
References
Adler, R., Rosenfeld, L., Proctor, II & R. (2004) Interplay: The Process
of Interpersonal communication, 9th edn. Harcourt, Fort Worth, TX.
Alexander, R. & the Committee on Definitions of the American Market-
ing Association. (1960) A Glossary of Marketing Terms. American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P. (2000) Marketing: An Introduction. Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bozios, T., Lekakos, G., Skoularidou, V. & Chorianopoulos, K. (2001)
Advanced Techniques for Personalized Advertising in a Digital Envi-
ronment: The iMedia System. Proceedings of the eBusiness and
eWork Conference. [WWW document]. URL http://istlab.dmst.aueb.
gr/~vsko/pubs/confs/ebew2002_paper2.html (accessed on 2 October
2006).
Bulander, R., Decker, M., Schiefer, G. & Kolmel, B. (2005) Compari-
son of Different Approaches for Mobile Advertising. Proceedings of
the 2005 Second IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Commerce
and Services.
Caudill, E.M. & Murphy, P.E. (2000) Consumer online privacy: legal
and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy And Marketing, 19, 7–19.
Chachko, P. (2004) Reaching out to customers through e-mail and data-
base marketing. Franchising World, 36, 16–17.
Chaudhuri, A. & Buck, R. (1995) Media differences in rational and
emotional responses to advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Elec-
tronic Media, 39, 109–126.
Cho, C.-H. & Cheon, H.J. (2004) Why do people avoid advertising on
the Internet? The Journal of Advertising, 33, 89–97.
Chorianopoulos, K., Lekakos, G. & Spinellis, D. (2004) The Virtual
Channel Model for Personalized Television. Proceedings of the
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
H.J. Yu and B. Cude
EuroiTV2003, UK, Brighton. [WWW document]. URL http://www.
brighton.ac.uk/interactive/euroitv/euroitv03/Papers/Paper7.pdf
(accessed on 10 October 2006).
Consumers International (2002) Credibility on the Web: An International
Study of the Credibility of Consumer Information on the Internet.
Office for Developed and Transition Economies.
Cutler, Bob D. & Thomas, Edward D. (2000) Informational/
transformational advertising: differences in usage across media types,
product categories; and national cultures. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 12, 69–84.
Foxman, E. & Kilcoyne, P. (1993) Information technology, marketing
practice, and consumer privacy: ethical issues. Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, 12, 106–119.
Friedman, B. & Vincent, S. (2005) Growing with web-based one-to-one
marketing. CPA Practice Management Forum, 1, 10–23.
Gal-Or, E. & Gal-Or, M. (2005) Customized advertising via a common
media distributor. Marketing Science, 24, 241–253.
Gao, Z. (2005) Harmonious regional advertising regulation? A compara-
tive examination of government advertising regulation in China, Hong
Kong, and Taiwan. Journal of Advertising, 34, 75–87.
Gurau, C., Rachhod, A. & Gauzente, C. (2003) To legislate or not to
legislate: a comparative exploratory study of privacy/personalization
factors affecting French, UK and US websites. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 20, 652–664.
Hoeken, H., van den Brandt, C., Crijns, R., Dominguez, N., Hendriks,
B., Planken, B. & Starren, M. (2003) International advertising
in western europe: should differences in uncertainty avoidance be
considered when advertising in Belgium, France, The Netherlands
and Spain? Journal of Business Communication, 40, 195–
218.
Howard, D. & Kerin, Roger A. (2004) The effects of personalized
product recommendations on advertisement response rates: the ‘Try
This. It Works!’ technique. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14,
271–279.
Huang, M.-H. (1998) Exploring new appeals: basic, versus social, emo-
tional advertising on a global setting. International Journal of Adver-
tising, 17, 145–169.
Jin, C.H. & Villegas, J. (2007) Consumer responses to advertising on the
Internet: the effect of individual difference on ambivalence and avoid-
ance. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10, 258–266.
Kazienko, P. & Adamski, M. (2007) AdROSA-adaptive personalization
of web advertising. Information Sciences, 177, 2269–2295.
Kim, J.W., Lee, B.H., Shaw, M.J., Chang, H.-L. & Nelson, M. (2001)
Application of decision-tree induction techniques to personalized
advertisements on Internet storefronts. International Journal of Elec-
tronic Commerce, 5, 45–62.
Kim, J.K. & Pasadeos, Y. (2007) Ad Avoidance by Audiences across
Media: Modeling Beliefs, Attitudes and Behavior toward Advertising.
American Academy of Advertising, Annual Conference, Burlington,
Vermont.
King, N. (2008) Direct marketing, mobile phones, and consumer
privacy: ensuring adequate disclosure and consent mechanisms for
emerging mobile advertising practices. Federal Communications Law
Journal, 60, 229–324.
Krugman, H.E. (1965) The impact of television advertising:
learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 349–
356.
Lekakos, G. & Giaglis, G.M. (2004) A lifestyle-based approach for
delivering personalized advertisements in digital interactive television.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9, No Pagination
Specified.
Li, H., Daugherty, T. & Biocca, F. (2002) Impact of 3-D advertising on
product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: the medi-
ating role of presence. Journal of Advertising, 31, 43–57.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising
Long, G., Hogg, M.K., Hartley, M. & Angold, S.J. (1999) Relationship
marketing and privacy: exploring the thresholds. Journal of Marketing
Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5, 4–20.
Low, G.S. (2000) Correlates of integrated marketing communications.
Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 27–39.
M2PressWIRE (2006) Direct Mail Advertising in the US by IBIS World,
Feb 14, 2006. [WWW document]. URL http://www.mindbranch.com/
products/R538 (accessed on 2 Oct 2006).
Mabley, K. (2000) Privacy vs. personalization. Cyber Dialogue. [WWW
document]. URL http://www.cyberdialogue.com/library/pdfs/wp-cd-
2000-privacy.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2006).
McKeen, J.D., Gulmaraes, T. & Wetherbe, J.C. (1994) The relationship
between user participation and user satisfaction: an investigation of
four contingency factors. MIS Quarterly, 18, 427–451.
Marketing News (2006) Outlook 2006. January 15, 16.
Miyazaki, A.D. & Fernandez, A. (2000) Internet privacy and security:
an examination of online retailer disclosures. Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, 19, 54–61.
Morimoto, M. & Chang, S. (2006) Consumers’ attitude toward unsolic-
ited commercial e-mail and postal direct mail marketing methods:
intrusiveness, perceived loss of control, and irritation. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 7, 8–20.
Moschis, G.P. & Moore, R.L. (1979) Family communication and con-
sumer socialization. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 359–363.
Nantel, J. & Sekhavat, Y. (2008) The impact of SMS advertising on
members of a virtual community. Journal of Advertising Research,
September, 363–374.
Nathanson, A.I. (1999) Identifying and explaining the relationship
between parental mediation and children’s aggression. Communica-
tion Research, 26, 124–143.
Nowak, G.J., Shamp, S., Hollander, B. & Cameron, G.T. (1999) Interac-
tive media: a means for more meaningful advertising? In Advertising
and the World Wide Web (ed. by D.W. Schumann & E. Thorson), pp.
99–117. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
O’Leary, C., Rao, S. & Perry, C. (2004) Improving customer relationship
management through database/Internet marketing: a theory-building
action research project. European Journal of Marketing, 38, 338–354.
Paek, H.-J. (2005) Understanding celebrity endorsers in cross-cultural
contexts: a content analysis of South Korean and U.S. newspaper
advertising. Asian Journal of Communication, 15, 133–153.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. & Evans, K.R. (2006) Factors
influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-
analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136–153.
Pavlou, P.A. & Stewart, D.W. (2000) Measuring the effects and effec-
tiveness of interactive advertising: a research agenda. Journal of Inter-
active Advertising, 1, 1–27.
Pereira, M.A., Kartashov, A.I., Ebbeling, C.B., Van Horn, L., Slattery,
M.L., Jacobs, D.R., Jr. & Ludwig, D.S. (2005) Fast-food habits,
weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year pro-
spective analysis. Lancet, 365, 36–42.
Perreault, W.D., Jr. & McCarthy E.J. (1999) Basic Marketing: A Global-
Managerial Approach, 13th edn. McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York.
Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion:
Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Phelps, J.E., D’Souza, G. & Nowak, G.J. (2001) Antecedents and conse-
quences of consumer privacy concerns: an empirical investigation.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 2–17.
Poon, S. & Jevons, C. (1997) Internet-enabled international marketing: a
small business network perspective. Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment, 13, 29–41.
Pramataris, K., Papakyriakopoulos, D.A., Lekakos, G. & Mylonopoulos,
N.A. (2001) Personalized interactive TV advertising: the iMedia busi-
ness model. Electronic Markets, 11, 17–25.
513
Consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising
Rodgers, S. & Thorson, E. (2000) The interactive advertising model:
how users perceive and process online ads. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 1, [WWW document]. URL http://www.jiad.org/vol1/
no1/rodgers/index.htm (accessed on 6 October 2006)
Roehm, H. & Haugtvedt, C. (1999) Understanding interactivity of cyber-
space advertising. In Advertising and the World Wide Web (ed. by
D.W. Schumann & E. Thorson), pp. 27–39. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Rosenberg, J.M. (1995) Reinventing Advertising. Speech presented at
the Groupe d’Ouchy (22 June).
Rotfeld, H.J. (2006) Understanding advertising clutter and the real solu-
tion to declining audience to mass media commercial messages.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23, 180–181.
Sacirbey, O. (2000) Privacy concerns, advertising hamper E-commerce.
IPO Reporter, 24, 11.
Sasser, S.L., Koslow, S. & Riordan, E.A. (2007) Creative and interactive
media use by agencies: engaging an IMC media palette for imple-
menting advertising campaigns. Journal of Advertising Research,
September, 237–256.
Sheehan, K.B. (1999) An investigation of gender differences in on-line
privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Mar-
keting, 13, 24–38.
Sheehan, K.B. (2005) In poor health: an assessment of privacy policies
at direct-to-consumer web sites. Journal of Public Policy & Market-
ing, 24, 273–283.
Sheehan, K.B. & Hoy M.G. (1999) Flaming, complaining, abstaining:
how online users respond to privacy concerns. Journal of Advertising,
28, 37–52.
Sheehan, K.B. & Gleason, T.W. (2001) Online privacy: Internet advertis-
ing practitioners’ knowledge and practices. Journal of Current Issues
and Research in Advertising, 23, 31–41.
Stephens, D.O. (2007) Protecting personal privacy in the global business
environment. The Information Management Journal, 41, 56–59.
Stewart, D.W. & Ward, S. (1994) Media effects on advertising. In Media
Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (ed. by J. Bryant & D.
Zillmann), pp. 315–363. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Sundar, S.S. & Kim, J. (2005) Interactivity and persuasion: influencing
attitudes with information and involvement. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 5, [WWW document]. URL http://www.allacademic.com/
meta/p113152_index.html (accessed on 15 October 2006).
514
H.J. Yu and B. Cude
Trollinger, S. (2006) Striking a balance between e-mail and traditional
direct marketing. Ingram’s, 32, 57.
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.
UPI-Zogby International Poll (2007) UPI Poll: Don’t suspend privacy
rights – Zogby/UPI Polls. [WWW document].
URL http://www.zogby.com/index.cfm (accessed on 6 April 2008).
U.S. Federal Trade Commission (2000) Privacy Online: Fair Informa-
tion Practices in the Electronic Marketplace. A Report to Congress,
May.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission (2009) Self-regulatory Principles for
Online Behavioral Advertising. Tracking, Targeting, & Technology.
FTC Staff Report, February.
Ward, S. & Wackman, D. (1973) Children’s information processing of
television advertising. In New Models for Mass Communication
Research (ed. by P. Clarke). Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Wehmeyer, K. (2005) Aligning IT and marketing – the impact of data-
base marketing and CRM. Journal of Database Marketing & Cus-
tomer Strategy Management, 12, 243–256.
Wolburg, J. & Kim, H. (1998) Messages of individualism and collectiv-
ism in Korean and American magazine advertising: a cross cultural
study of values. 1998 American Academy of Advertising Proceedings,
147–154.
Wolin, L. & Korgaonkar, P. (2005) Web advertising: gender differences
in beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Interactive Advertising,
6, 125–136.
Wu, S.-I. (2006) The impact of feeling, judgment and attitude on
purchase intention as online advertising performance measure.
Journal of International Marketing & Marketing Research, 31,
89–108.
Xu, D.J., Liao S.S. & Li, Q. (2008) Combining empirical experimenta-
tion and modeling techniques: a design research approach for person-
alized mobile advertising applications. Decision Support Systems, 44,
710–724.
Yu, J.H., Paek, H.-J. & Bae B. (2008) Cross-cultural comparison of
interactivity and promotional appeals in the U.S. and South Korean
antismoking websites. The Journal of Internet Research, 18, 454–476.
Yuan, S.-T. & Tsao, Y.W. (2003) A recommendation mechanism for con-
textualized mobile advertising. Expert Systems with Applications, 24,
399–414.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 503–514
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd