The paper "How Personalized Advertisement Affect Consumer Behavior" is a great example of a Marketing Literature Review. This literature review concentrates on how personalized advertisement affects consumer behavior. Personalization can be described using different terms. According to the Personalization Consortium, personalization is the application of technology together with consumer data to generate electronic commerce dealings between a particular business and every consumer (Ansari & Mela, 2003). Utilizing the data either initially acquired or given in real-time regarding the consumer, the interaction between the two parties is specifically adjusted to suit the needs of both that client and those of the business as well, founded on the available client information.
This is just one of the several definitions of personalized marketing. There are other scholars and researchers who perceive personalized marketing as the basic form of targeted marketing and producing messages for each and every consumer. Examples of marketing campaigns that could be personalized include mobile advertising, direct mail, business-to-business (B2B) communications, and website interactions among others (Becker & Arnold, 2010). Effects of Personalization Personalization can produce benefits for both the marketer and the client.
For the client, it might indicate a better offer, communication, and even preference match; the consumer feels that he/she is personally important. According to Ansari and Mela (2003), a personalized email design could have an important effect on the probabilities of click-through. They discovered that there exists a lot of heterogeneity amidst their users in what they preferred and across emails and links in light of their effectiveness in both content and design. Through optimization of the design as well as the content of personalized emails, they were capable of having a 62% increase in the response rates.
In addition, personalization has been seen to increase consumer loyalty towards their retailer (Srinivasan et al. , 2002). In mail surveys, however, personalization’ s effect is not really positive. Researches evaluating the effect of a personal follow-up basically reveal limited effectiveness in the improvement of response rates. Pre-occupation with the effect of personal contacts on the rates of response has led to total disregard for the response quality issue (Ansari & Mela, 2003). If investigators personalize their contacts with probable respondents, the survey’ s impersonal nature is apparently minimized and respondents might offer partial answers together with distortion in replies to some of the personal questions.
Simply put, prejudice ascribed to telephone and personal interviews based on the reporting of personal data might actually be carried over to the email survey in case of personal contact usage (Srinivasan et al. , 2002). Though personalization provides the marketer with the chance of getting close to the client, it also creates a clash with the brand idea in accordance with Jiang’ s (2004). Whereas branding is amassing different attributes into a single specific badge, the idea of personalization and customization disaggregates a product (communication) into pieces for assembly into a modified product (message).
The study of Jiang’ (2004) implies that brands still have considerable influence in decision-making and thus establish the degree of the supposed preference match. The name of a brand is actually an essential decision variable for personalization (or customization) when it comes to obtaining a better preference match.
Ansari, A & Mela, C 2003, E-Customization, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XL, pp. 131-145.
Arora, N., Dreze, X., Ghose, A., Hess, J., Iyengar, R & Jing, B 2008, Putting one-to-one marketing to work: personalized email solicitations, Market Lett, vol. 19, no. 1, 305-321.
Becker, M & Arnold, J 2010, Mobile Marketing For Dummies, Wiley publishing Inc..
Bracket, L. K & Carr, B. N 2001, Cyberspace advertising vs. other media: Consumer vs. mature student attitudes (advertising attitudes), Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 41, no. 5, p. 23–32.
Drossos, D. et al. 2007, Determinants of effective SMS advertising, An Empirical Study, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 7, no. 2, pp.1-23.
Fermandez, K. V & Rosen, D 2005, The effectiveness of information and color in Yellow Page advertising, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29, no. 2, p. 61–73.
Godin, S 1999, Permission marketing: Turning strangers into friends and friends into customers, Simon&Schuster, New York.
Jiang, P 2004, The role of brand name in customisation decisions: a search vs experience perspective, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol 13, No. 2, pp. 73-83.
Kavassalis, P. et al. 2003, Mobile Permission Marketing, Framing the Market Inquiry, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 55-79.
Orgad, Shani 2006, This Box was made for walking: How will mobile television transform viewers’ experience and change advertising?, Nokia Mobile TV report.
Senecal, Sylvain and Nantel, Jaques 2004, The influence of online product recommendation on consumers' online choices, Journal of Retailing. Vol. 80 Issue 2, pp. 159-170.
Simonson, Itamar 2005, Determinants of Customers’ Responses to Customized Offers: Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp. 32-45.
Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R. and Ponnavolu, K 2002, Customer loyalty in E-commerce: An exploration of its antecedents an consequences, Journal of Retailing. Vol 78, Issue 1, pp. 41-50.
Tsang, M. M., S. Ho & T. Liang 2004, Consumer attitudes towards mobile advertising, An empirical study, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 65-78.
White, T. B., Zahay, D. L., Thorbjørnsen, H & Sharon, S 2008, Getting too personal: Reactance to highly, Marketing Letters, vol. 19, no. 1, 39-50.
Xu, D. J 2007, The influence of personalization in affecting consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising in China, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 47, no. 2, p. 9–19.