In 2005, marketers spent over $52.2 million on direct marketing efforts (Advertising Age 2006). In comparison to other media, more than $26.7 million was spent on network television and approximately $29 million on newspapers (Advertising Age 2006). Direct marketing, particularly traditional postal direct mail and telemarketing, has been a popular technique for advertisers. The introduction of communication technologies, especially the Internet, has dramatically changed the communication strategies of direct marketers. In particular, the use of unsolicited commercial e-mail (“spam”) is becoming extremely popular due to its cost effectiveness (Verity et al. 1994) and its high potential for interactivity with target consumers (Mehta and Sivadas 1995).

According to Spam Filter Review (2003), among the 31 billion e-mail messages that are sent daily, 40% is spam. In fact, 66% of direct marketers indicated that their e-mail frequency has increased (Direct Marketing Association 2005). Still, the more important question lies in the audience’s reaction to this type of marketing communication. The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that approximately 52% of their participants considered spam a big problem (Pew Research Center 2005). In comparison, 45% named pop-up ads and 31% listed computer viruses as being an issue. Furthermore, 67% said that spam has made their online experience more unpleasant or annoying (Pew Research Center 2005).

These statistics seem to suggest that the number of spam messages will continue to grow in the future. Unsolicited commercial e-mail has potentially become a significant problem in direct marketing that can negatively influence consumers’ attitudes and potentially create the type of backlash predicted by Psychological Reactance. Thus, to avoid this reaction, it is important that direct marketers carefully consider their use of the Internet when communicating to potential customers.

Although it may appear that the continuous growth of spam has the potential to replace traditional direct marketing communication channels such as postal direct mail (“direct mail”), this does not indicate that marketers should neglect traditional direct marketing communication methods such as postal direct mail. A survey conducted by The Direct Marketing Association in 2005 indicated that 59% of direct marketers have increased their postal mailing quantities in 2003; a 43% increase from 2002. Furthermore, 42% of practitioners reported that between 2003 and 2004, their use of direct mail has risen (Direct Marketing Association 2005). Although many marketers consider using new technologies to reach wider audiences in a more cost efficient manner, traditional direct mail is still regarded as an efficient way to reach consumers. As these examples demonstrate, the decision to be made by marketers is not between the two methods, but to determine the most effective and efficient mix of direct marketing communication methods to reach the target groups.

To identify the most cost efficient mix of direct marketing communication channels to effectively reach its target audiences, it is essential for marketers to understand the potential effects of each communication method. This is especially important for consumer evaluations because consumer attitudes towards advertised brands and purchase intentions are believed to be influenced by their advertising evaluations (Batra and Ray 1986; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). Although both direct mail and spam have been a major force in recent direct marketing practices, there have been very few quantitative studies that compare the effects of both direct mail and spam on consumer attitudes toward these direct marketing communication channels. Because it seems that traditional direct mail and spam are likely to remain the predominant communication methods for direct marketers, studies that investigate and compare consumers’ attitudes towards these two popular direct marketing communication methods are called for. This study compares audience perceptions of advertising intrusiveness, loss of control, and irritation for direct marketing and spam that could lead to the backlash predicted by Psychological Reactance.

Before the discussion of potential links between constructs is presented, it is necessary to define spam and direct mail for the current study. Direct mail is identified as an unsolicited postal mail piece in which the sender has the intent of selling products and/or services to the recipient (Chang and Morimoto 2003). Solicited direct mail pieces, such as catalogues, that are sent to consumers who knowingly agreed to be added to mailing lists are not considered direct mail for the purpose of this study because audience perceptions between marketing communications that are sought differ in comparison to those that are not welcomed.

Spam is characterized as any commercial electronic communication from marketers that consumers did not ask for (Chang and Morimoto 2003). Similar to the definition of direct mail, commercial e-mail messages sent by marketers with the prior consent from consumers are not considered spam in this study. This study will use these definitions to refer to the two methods of direct marketing communication channels.

Factors Influencing Consumer Attitudes toward Direct Marketing Channels

This study outlines three factors that may predict consumer attitudes toward direct marketing communication channels regarding the use of direct mail and spam: (1) perceived advertising intrusiveness; (2) perceived loss of control as a function of Psychological Reactance; and (3) irritation caused by these marketing communication techniques.

Perceived Advertising Intrusiveness. One construct that could influence consumer attitudes is perceived ad intrusiveness. Previous studies have indicated that perceived ad intrusiveness consists of the following dimensions: interference with one’s privacy (Sipior and Ward 1995; Teeter and Loving 2001), cognitive process and/or task performance (Li, Edwards, and Lee 2002), and/or media content (Ha 1996). Based on these dimensions, perceived ad intrusiveness can be defined as the degree to which an unwanted marketing communication interferes with an individual’s cognitive process and tasks, as well as the interference with media contents including offensive materials.

From the perspective of consumer privacy, intrusion can be defined as invading an individual’s solitude, including intrusion of one’s private affairs (Sipior and Ward 1995; Teeter and Loving 2001). Sturges (2002) defines solitude as a space around an individual that is “to be left alone” (p. 211). While these definitions suggest a more legal aspect of consumer privacy, they are applicable to advertising since ads may intrude upon one’s personal space (the mailbox, computer hard drives) and the time that it takes to answer phone calls from telemarketers.

Read the rest at:      http://www.jiad.org/vol7/no1/morimoto/index.htm