The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effects of Adopting and Using a Brand's Mobile Application on Customers’ Subsequent Purchase Behavior
Abstract
Mobile applications (apps) have become an important platform for brands to interact with customers, but few studies have tested their effects on app adopters’ subsequent brand purchase behavior. This paper investigates whether adopters’ spending levels will change after they use a brand's app. Using a unique dataset from a coalition loyalty program with implementations of propensity score matching and difference-in-difference-in-difference methods, we compare the spending levels of app adopters with those of non-adopters. Specifically, we examine whether the use of the app's two main interactive features—information lookups and check-ins—influences adopters’ spending levels. We find that app adoption and continued use of the branded app increase future spending. Furthermore, customers who adopt both features show the highest increase. However, we also observe “the recency effect” – when customers discontinue using the app, their spending levels decrease. Our findings suggest that sticky apps which attract continuing uses can be a persuasive marketing tool because they provide portable, convenient, and interactive engagement opportunities, allowing customers to interact with the brand on a habitual basis. We recommend that firms should prioritize launching a mobile app to communicate with their customers, but they should also keep in mind that a poorly designed app, which customers abandon after only a few uses, may in fact hurt their brand experience and company revenues.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159
Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward
Stuart, E. A. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/09-sts313 · Cited by 5,478
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051
Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction
Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139025751 · Cited by 4,210
Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable
Elwert, F., & Winship, C. (2014) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043455 · Cited by 1,168
Design of Observational Studies
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2010) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1213-8 · Cited by 1,150
Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research
Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2014) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107587991 · Cited by 1,037
Interactivity: a concept explication
Kiousis, S. (2002) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/146144480200400303 · Cited by 666
On the Go: how mobile shopping affects customer purchase behavior.
Wang, R. J.-H., Malthouse, E. C., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2015) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002 · Cited by 559
Self-citationMeasuring Mobile Phone Use: Self-Report Versus Log Data
Boase, J., & Ling, R. (2013) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12021 · Cited by 490 · cited 1×
“Given the issues of using self-reported measures of mobile phone use (Boase and Ling 2013) and purchase intentions (van Noort, Voorveld, and van Reijmersdal 2012), our study adds to the mobile marketing literature by incorporating behavioral measures of app use and purchase histories.”
Background
Cited by
Factors Influencing Behavioural Intention to Adopt the QR-Code Payment: Extending UTAUT2 Model
Suo, W.-J., Goi, C.-L., Goi, M.-T., & Sim, A. K. S. (2021) · International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management · doi:10.4018/ijabim.20220701.oa8 · Cited by 41
Chen, Y., Li, X., Li, Q., & Li, W. (2022) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-04-2022-0234 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, S. J., Wang, R. J.-H., & Malthouse, E. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Interactive Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 28-41
- ISSN
- 1094-9968 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6653
- OpenAlex
- W1170970399
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 49.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.