Anssi Mattila, InBCT 4.2

The Effect of Demographics on Seamless Mobile Service Interface[1]

 

 

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the effect of demographic variables on choice of a service delivery channel and on the factors affecting the seamless user experience related in different electronic channels. Profession proved to have the most diverse effect in this study as it affects the usage of all the other channels except the option of personal service. To elaborate the relationship between demographics and dimensions of seamless use experience further, we conducted ANOVA for all the user segments – Fixel-line, Mobile and Combined users. The results are based on a large consumer survey conducted among mobile and fixed-line Internet users in Finland during summer 2003.

 

Keywords: demographical variables, seamless, service interface

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    Introduction

Adding digital channels such as mobile and developing more and more commoditized products will clearly help to shift further tasks towards the customer through self-provisioning and thus, will help cutting additional costs (Durlacher Report 2001). For the sake of successful business models, the service providers and equipment manufacturers must observe the needs of mobile service customers and more importantly, study their willingness to pay. The mobile Internet access must be available and in function for customers to be able to access mobile Internet services effortlessly. Therefore, the operators are required to build up an infrastructure with the necessary availability and reliability. Gleiss (2001) has found that some mobile phones are judged to be more simple and acceptable to use than others even if their performance is actually worse. Further, he states that weight which individual users put on performance in relation to their perception of simplicity and acceptability, may not only be very different but may also change over tasks and situations.

 

The number of mobile Internet users is expected to grow up to 730 million to year 2005 (Jüptner 2002). Such a large number of users is bound to consist of a very heterogeneous mass of customers with differing demographic profiles. Lee et al. (2003) propose that mobile Internet services can be categorized under utilitarian services, which offer instrumental benefits, and hedonic services, which offer experiential benefits. Phau et al. (2000) found that expensive physical goods with low outlay and differentiation potential, are unsuitable for selling through the Internet. Amenable products to be purchased via Internet were products with intangible value proposition and were relatively high on differentiation. European IT consultants International Data Corp. expect mobile banking to be the fastest growing sector of total information technology spending on electronic banking, with a 1999 to 2003 compound annual growth rate of 129% (West 2001).

 

The landscape of wireless services is presently changing and the expected improvements in 3G and 4G devices and networks will encourage the uptake of mobile services. Although the densities of fixed and mobile connections are high in all the Nordic countries, the number of advanced Internet-enabled mobile phones is low; in Finland, for example, only every fifth owns an Internet-enabled device. Education and age seem to have significant effect on owning an Internet-enabled mobile phone. Gender has a smaller impact, as Internet-enabled mobile devices are somewhat more common among males than females (Statistics Finland 2002).

 

2.    Usage and current mobile service users

Customers have been slow to adopt mobile Internet services. According to Kim (2001), users prefer fixed-line Internet for communication purposes and content application usage over mobile Internet whereas commerce applications are used via mobile Internet. In Finland, for example, only 15 percent of customers with a GPRS / WAP-enabled mobile phone use mobile Internet services consistently (Accenture 2002). Also Kim et al. (2003) have found that only half of the customers, who have tried mobile Internet services, continue using them. Continuers may regard the current mobile Internet services as more usable than discontinuers may, because they have used the services enough to overcome frequently occurring usability problems (Kim et al, 2003). Flowers et al. (1999) found that 73 percent of Web sites studied had at least one accessibility error. According to Schmetzke (2001) only 15 percent of Web sites are free of accessibility errors. This research finding was based on analyses of 219 home pages.

 

Karahanna et al. (1999) have found that the actual users are more susceptible to the benefits resulting from the adoption of a new information system while potential users are more vulnerable in terms of usability. This finding is in line with results presented in Mattila et al. (2002). Elder et al. (1987) have found that females are more likely to experience technostress in using computers compared with males. Kaplan (1994) has reported that males are more likely than females to perceive computer usage as fun. Teo et al. (1996) examined whether there exists a gender differences between ease of use and complexity of computer usage. They chose age as a covariate. Igbaria et al. (1989; 1990) have found age to be associated with unfavorable perceived usefulness and a decreased attitude towards using computers as well as adoption.

 

Some studies have specifically examined demographical issues as influencing factors in computer usage while others have done so in the context of other research variables. Mattila M. (2003) has found a typical mobile service user to be 25-34 years old married male blue-collar worker with a vocational school education with an average income. In that study the age (r = -0.057, p<0.05), gender (r = 0.107, p<0.01) and education (r = 0.116, p<0.01) had effect on mobile service usage. According to Teo (2001), females are more likely to engage in messaging activities while males are more likely to use the Internet for downloading and purchasing activities. Suoranta et al. (2002) have found a significant correlation between age and ordering logos and ringing tones via mobile Internet. In that same study, a household annual income was found to correlate positively with ordering logos and accepting advertising messages via mobile Internet. Gender was found to correlate positively with using mobile news and weather services and making ticket reservation via mobile Internet. Schoenbachler et al. (2002) have found that demographics such as age, education, income, occupation, and household size are predictors of Internet use, online shopping, and catalog shopping and are likely to influence single and multiple channel shopping behavior.

 

3.    Methodology and data collection

The usability attributes by Nielsen (Nielsen 1993, 26-37) were chosen as the starting point for our seamless use experience investigation as they constitute a generic model and fit in the service context too. The relation between usability and seamless use experience has been described in detail in Mattila A. (2003). Before the actual data collection, focus group interviews among expert users were conducted. The meaning of these interviews was to map the possible options for survey questions. The questionnaire was pre-tested on a group of 60 students and modified accordingly. A postal survey was conducted in May 2003. The sample was drawn from TeliaSonera[2] Finland’s customer database.  The sample was stratified in three active user segments of mobile users, fixed-line users and combined users equal in size depending on the main electronic service delivery channel in their use. The questionnaires were tailored respectively. We call the customers, who did not own according to the database a private fixed-line connection at home, the Mobile users. The customers collected under this sample had the highest volume of mobile data transfers (GPRS, high-speed data) during the last six months in comparison to other customers in the database. They represented in every way the most active mobile Internet users the database had. The Combined users had a private fixed-line Internet connection in use at home. Further, their customer record showed active usage of mobile Internet (GPRS, high-speed data) connection and WAP-services during the last six months. The Fixed-line users owned a mobile phone and they were using regular mobile phone services such as SMS. There was no sign of Internet related activities during the last six months in their customer record. They had a private fixed-line Internet connection (mainly ADSL) in use at home.

FIGURE 1          The division of response rate among the different user segments of customers

 

After a second follow-up, 778 responses were accepted under further analyses. The final response rate was 25.9%, which is acceptable according to economic science standards. The distribution of the responses in different user segments is presented in figure 1. A small minority of respondents reported using mobile phone (GRPS or high-speed data connection) as a modem in connection with a laptop as their primary electronic delivery channel. Among the Mobile users there were 16 such a customers and among both the Fixed-line users and the Combined users two in each segment.  

 

The respondents were asked to fill out a structured questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale concerning their preferences, experiences and beliefs towards usage of mobile and Internet services. Literature (Cooper et al. 1995; Järvenpää et al. 1997; Crisp et al. 1997) as well as prior conducted surveys guided us in defining the scales to measure the customers’ perceived seamless use experience. There were up to 27 questions in each tailored questionnaire. The Mobile users were answering mobile Internet specific questions whereas the Fixed-line users were answering fixed-line Internet specific questions. As the Combined users segment had knowledge on both types of electronic services and delivery channels, half of them received a questionnaire regarding the mobile Internet seamless use experience and the other half was answering to questions concerning the fixed-line services.

 

The survey questionnaire included questions concerning the respondent’s basic demographic variables, psychological determinants such as level of innovativeness and mobile Internet usage, which was further categorized under for main themes: usage context, service content, seamless interface dimensions and use experience. To get a more accurate and objective results, the mean value of the respondents’ subjective responses were calculated and used as the basis of our evaluation. Statistical methods such as ANOVA, crosstabulation, correlation coefficients, rotated factor analyses, Chi squares and finally structural modeling (AMOS) were applied to our data. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the reliability of the results. Only results relevant to this paper are presented in here.

 

4.    Results

The demographic profile of the respondents is presented in table 1. One third (33.9%) of the respondents were women and two thirds (64.8%) were men. The majority (59.8%) of the respondents were 25-49 years old and their annual household income (28.1%) before taxes fell within the range of 20 000 – 30 000 euros, which matches with the average annual income of two adults family in Finland (Statistics Finland 2003). Only every fifth (18.2%) of the respondents had two or more children living at home. The majority of all the respondents were workers (40.6%). This result is compatible with the result of the educational background of the respondents, which was in most cases (29.0%) vocational school. Obviously, Internet and its services are becoming available for all the consumer segments regardless of their annual household income or educational background.

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1             Profile of respondents

 

Demographic characteristics	Mobile users		Combined users		Fixed-line users		Total
	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%
Total	211	100.0	257	100.0	310	100.0	778	100.0
Gender
Male	157	74.4	192	74.7	155	50.0	504	64.8
Female	54	25.6	55	21.4	155	50.0	263	33.9
Missing	0	0	10	3.9	0	0	10	1.3
s.d.	0.437		0.417		0.501
Age
Under 24 years of age	64	30.3	33	12.9	43	13.9	140	18.0
25-34 years	81	38.4	96	37.4	62	20.0	239	30.7
35-49 years	43	20.4	83	32.3	100	32.3	226	29.1
Over 50 years of age	20	9.5	41	15.9	104	24.5	129	16.6
Missing	3	1.4	4	1.6	1	0.3	8	1.0
s.d.	0.998		0.974		1.196
Annual household income
Less than 10 000 euros	33	15.6	21	8.2	43	13.9	97	12.3
10 001 – 20 000 euros	54	25.6	48	18.7	82	26.5	184	23.7
20 001 – 30 000 euros	59	28.0	87	33.9	73	23.5	219	28.1
30 001 – 40 000 euros	25	11.8	37	14.4	40	12.9	102	13.1
More than 40 001 euros	29	13.8	53	20.5	60	19.3	142	18.3
Missing	11	5.2	11	4.3	12	3.9	34	4.5
s.d.	1.650		1.875		1.741
Marital status
Married	27	12.8	101	39.3	128	41.3	256	33.0
Cohabitation	60	28.4	69	26.8	58	18.7	187	24.0
Single (incl. widow, divorced)	115	54.5	80	31.1	116	37.5	311	39.9
Missing	9	4.3	7	2.7	8	2.6	24	3.1
s.d.	0.940		1.154		1.397
Number of children living at home
0	165	78.2	152	59.1	176	57.0	493	63.4
1	21	10.0	45	17.5	71	23.0	137	17.6
2	14	6.6	29	11.3	42	13.6	85	11.0
3 or more	8	3.8	28	10.9	20	6.5	56	7.2
Missing	3	1.4	3	1.2	1	0.3	7	0.8
s.d.	0.791		1.074		1.019
Education
Elementary school	24	11.4	31	12.1	48	15.5	103	13.2
Secondary education	34	16.1	63	24.5	64	20.7	161	20.7
Vocational school	69	32.7	85	33.1	72	23.2	226	29.0
University degree	48	22.8	39	15.2	82	26.4	169	21.7
Other	33	15.6	36	14.1	41	13.2	110	14.2
Missing	3	1.4	3	1.2	3	1.0	9	1.2
s.d.	1.952		1.916		2.063
Profession
Leading position	10	4.7	20	7.8	20	6.5	50	6.4
Worker	96	45.5	116	45.1	104	33.5	316	40.6
Public servant	28	13.3	31	12.1	40	12.9	99	12.7
Other	71	33.6	85	33.0	144	46.3	300	38.5
Missing	6	2.8	5	1.9	2	0.6	13	1.8
s.d.	2.367		2.526		2.547

Over third (37.3%) of the Mobile users use mobile services weekly and four out of five (83.8%) Fixed-line users use fixed-line electronic services weekly. The Mobile users report of using mainly five services. The Fixed-line users suppose that they needed a bundle of two services, if they would be daily using mobile services. The most commonly used mobile services used are related to home and family, hobbies and leisure time, and making reservation. Over the fixed-line Internet connection customers access mostly search engine, communication and financial services. Among the customers who are not currently using mobile services, the most tempting service bundle comprises of gender specific services (e.g. www.soneraplaza.net/ellit), search engine and using mobile service for remote control purposes (e.g. activating burglar alarm). 

 

Besides pure demographic variables, the respondents’ level of innovativeness was measured using ethnographic arguments on a scale of -3 (totally disagree) to 3 (totally agree). Figure 2 shows somewhat surprisingly, the Fixed-line users (mean 1.84, s.d. 1.877) appear to value technical improvements over personal service more than the Mobile users (mean 0.53, s.d. 1.873).

 

In overall, the Fixed-line users have more positive perceptions about technology and use of technology than the Mobile users. This might be due to the negative beliefs the Mobile users may have towards WAP-enabled services. Controversially, the Mobile users seem to be more favorable towards automated services (s.d. 1.861) and adapting to changes (s.d. 2.082) more easily than the Fixed-line users. The standard deviations were moderate or high for all arguments.

FIGURE 2          Innovativeness of the respondents

 

The effect of demographic variables on the choice of a service delivery channel among different user segments are presented in table 2. Only the significant correlation coefficients are visible on the table to increase its readability. The values for the Mobile users are bolded, for the Combined users on italic and for the Fixed-line users underlined. We can see from the table that all the demographics correlated with one or more service delivery channels. Gender is a significant factor for the Combined (men) and Fixed-line users (female) when choosing mobile phone as a modem via PC as their primary electronic service delivery channel. Age affects the choice of mobile (younger) and fixed-line Internet (younger) and the usage of mobile phone as a modem to connect on the Internet (older). Profession proved to have the most diverse effect in this study as it affects the usage of all the other channels except the option of personal service. There is also a correlation between personal service and marital status, which might be partially also due to the number of children married people may have and children’s needs in regard with the service delivery channel choice. Line of business did not correlate with any of the distribution channels.

 

TABLE 2             Correlation matrix on the effect of demographic variables on service delivery channel choice: MOBILE USERS, COMBINED USERS AND FIXED-LINE USERS

 

CORRELATION MATRIX Service delivery channel usage Þ Demographic variables ß	Mobile Internet services α=.68	Fixed-line Internet services α=.64	Mobile phone as a modem (via PC) α=.71	Mobile service usage via PDA α=.62	Self-service, automated services α=.78	Personal service α=.81
Gender			-.141*, .675**
Age	-.170**	-.227**, -.349**	.282**
Marital status		.124*				.274*
Education		.236**, .317*	.209**, .131*
Income		.147*	.213**, .276**	.163*
Profession	.355*	-.198**	.224**,	.143*	-.165*
Line of Business

**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*    Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

 

There are dependencies between all the demographic variables and factors affecting the seamless user experience (see table 3). Mobile users, who perceive mobile service delivery channel as seamless, have a lower level of education. It is usual that as the education level rises, one becomes more critical and analytical towards phenomenon. Married Fixed-line users perceive their primary electronic service delivery channel prone to errors. Females seem to be more affluent to errors than male when they are Mobile or Combined users. The younger and less educated respondents in all the user segments are the most likely to perceive electronic channels as independent from time and place.

 

TABLE 3             Correlation matrix on the effect of demographic variables on the factors affecting the seamless user experience related in different electronic channels: MOBILE USERS, COMBINED USERS AND FIXED-LINE USERS

 

CORRELATION MATRIX Demographic variables  Þ To which channel you related the following statements  ß	Gender α=.65	Age α=.75	Marital status α=.72	Education α=.68	Income Α=.71	Profession α=.68	Line of Business α=.64
Seamless				-.150*
Easy to learn		.137*			.132*
Difficult to remember				.206*			-.181*
Inefficient	.175** -.219*	.228**		-.188**		-.231*
Prone to erros	.186* .184**		-.234*
Satisfies my needs	.155*	.156*
Easy to use when traveling				-.192**
Easy flowing when I’m busy				-.398**		-.151*
Popular among my peers		.164*		-.201**
Independent from time and place		-.226**		-.164* -.383*

**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*    Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

 

To elaborate the relationship between demographics and dimensions of seamless use experience further, we conducted ANOVA for all the user segments. All the users were asked to visualize the mobile service customer-technology interface in use. Therefore, the results from the Mobile users and Combined users represent the actual user experience whereas the results from the Fixed-line user segment are merely their perceptions about dimensions of seamless mobile service interface. However, as the Fixed-line users may be the potential mobile service users and at least they are used to technology-based services in general, their perceptions and beliefs were thought to be valuable to map.

 

The determinants, which during the exceeding analyses showed significant correlation coefficients, were chosen under closer examination. As a result, we are now able to conclude that despite the results of a preliminary testing of interdependence, education does not affect how customers belonging in the segment of the Mobile users view the memorability of mobile services as part of seamless use experience (see table 4). Line of business was not found to affect the perceived efficiency of use either in this user segment. Men find the memorability of mobile services more important dimension than females and the more educated one is, the less meaningful dimension memorability of mobile services becomes.       

 

TABLE 4             Dimensions of seamless use experience among the Mobile users: ANOVA on demographics

Learnability                        N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.72                                                                 between groups

1.      Line of business                                      2.801                    3.713     .002

Heavy industry                    51           4.9504  

Public administration         11           4.9798  

Transportation                    25           4.3450  

Services sector                   48           4.7535  

Computing and

Telecommunications         10           4.7444  

Commerce                          16           4.6597  

Other                                   7             3.5397  

Total                                    168        4.7073  

Efficiency of use                                N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.72                                                                 between groups

1.    Line of business                                      1.675                    1.988     .070

Heavy industry                    51           4.4575  

Public administration         11           4.4621  

Transportation                    24           4.3148  

Services sector                   48           4.1780  

Computing

and Telecommunications   10           3.7778  

Commerce                          16           3.9306  

Other                                   7             3.5714  

Total                                    167        4.2286  

Memorability                     N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.88                                                                 between groups

1.    Gender                                                      6.154                    6.635     .011

Male                                    148        3.8790  

Female                                 48           4.2911  

Total                                    196        3.9799

1.      Education                                                 1.549                    1.665     .120

Elementary school             21           4.4101  

Business school                 16           4.3194  

Vocational school              63           4.0071  

Technical school                18           4.0123  

Polytechnic institution      21           3.8803  

University degree                              24           3.5451  

High school graduate         30           3.8852  

Other                                   2             3.8333  

Total                                    195        3.9855  

2.      Line of business                                      1.891                    2.177     .048

Heavy industry                    51           4.0784  

Public administration         11           4.3712  

Transportation                    25           3.7000  

Services sector                   48           4.0463  

Computing

and Telecommunications   8             3.7500                 

Commerce                          16           3.6484                 

Other                                   6             3.0556  

Total                                    165        3.9364  

 

Satisfaction                         N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.64                                                                 between groups

1.    Income                                                      5.183                    4.046     .002

Less than 10.000 euros     28           4.2901  

10.001-20.000 euros         52           3.5474  

20.001-30.000 euros         57           4.0750  

30.001-40.000 euros         23           3.8614  

40.001-50.000 euros         12           2.8500  

Over 50.001 euros             14           3.5770  

Total                                    186        3.8170  

Errors                                N            Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.67                                                                 between groups

1.    Education                                                 1.834                    2.132     .042

Elementary school             21           4.9869  

Business school                 16           4.9938  

Vocational school              63           4.8501  

Technical school                17           4.8235  

Polytechnic institution      21           4.3762  

University degree                              26           4.5068  

High school graduate         29           4.2974  

Other                                   2             5.0000  

Total                                    195        4.6968  

Notice Scale between 0 (not at all important) … 6 (very important)

 

In the user segment of Combined users, the dimension of seamless use experience labeled learnability was affected by marital status, gender and age (see table 5). The single people find easy learnability of mobile services more important than the married ones. The older respondents perceived the importance of service’s learnability as part of seamless use experience higher. In this user segment, females perceive efficiency of use as well as memorability of electronic service more important than males. The importance of errors lowers as the annual household income level rises. Income as a determinant of efficiency of use and memorability was not found significant. All dimensions of seamless use experience had different influence by demographics than in a segment of Mobile users although they were both asked to describe the seamless use experience of mobile services.    

 

TABLE 5             Dimensions of seamless use experience among the Combined users: ANOVA on demographics

 

Learnability                        N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.77                                                                 between groups

1.    Marital status                                          2.253                    5.334     .004

Married                               9             4.0988                                

Cohabitation                       10           4.0000                 

Single                                  12           4.3704                 

Divorced                             6             5.2593                 

Total                                    37           4.3483  

2.      Gender                                                      4.110                    5.932     .016

Male                                    179         4.5171  

Female                                 44          4.8583

Total                                    223        4.5845

3.      Age                                                             4.167                    6.091     .001

Less than 18-24                  31           4.3692                 

25-34                                   92           4.4565  

35-49                                   71           4.6244  

50-65 or over                     35           5.1048  

Total                                    229        4.5958                 

Efficiency of use                                N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.79                                                                 between groups

1.    Gender                                                      5.643                    7.583     .006

Male                                    178        4.1740  

Female                                 45           4.5704

Total                                    223        4.2540

2.    Marital status                                          3.969                    3.478     .026

Married                               12           4.1620                 

Cohabitation                       10           3.4653  

Single                                  12           4.2407  

Divorced                             6             5.2407  

Total                                    40           4.1733  

4.      Income                                                      2.011                    2.050     .097

Less than 10.000 euros     4             4.2222  

10.001-20.000 euros         8             4.9288  

20.001-30.000 euros         12           4.5648  

30.001-40.000 euros         5             3.7556  

40.001-70.000 euros         4             3.4167  

70.001-100.000 euros      6             3.8056  

Total                                    39           4.2660  

                             

 

Memorability                     N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.72                                                                 between groups

1.    Gender                                                      6.813                    9.094     .005

Male                                    34           3.5850  

Female                                 6             4.7407  

Total                                    40           3.7583  

2.      Income                                                      2.180                    2.351     .025

Less than 10.000 euros     18           3.9954  

10.001-20.000 euros         41           4.1897  

20.001-30.000 euros         85           3.8533  

30.001-40.000 euros         31           3.7240  

40.001-50.000 euros         22           3.5758  

50.001-60.000 euros         8             2.9583  

60.001-80.000 euros         11           3.4798  

80.001-100.000 euros      10           3.6778

Total                                    226        3.8233

              

Satisfaction                         N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.61                                                                 between groups

1.    Marital status                                          4.723                    3.172     .025

Married                               86           3.5349                 

Cohabitation                       61           3.3590  

Single                                  56           3.6282  

Divorced                             18           4.3577  

Total                                    221        3.5770  

Errors                                N            Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=62                                                                  between groups

1.    Gender                                                      29.530                  18.551   .000

Male                                    175        3.9473  

Female                                 43           4.8722

Total                                    218        4.1297

2.    Education                                                 4.358                    2.622     .013

Elementary school             25           4.4493  

Business school                 29           4.3615

Vocational school              74           4.3366

Technical school                25           3.9553

Polytechnic institution      18           3.8373

University degree                              19           3.1211

High school graduate         30           3.8967

Other                                   4             4.2750

Total                                    224        4.1066

3.      Income                                                      3.571                    2.091     .046

Less than10.000 euros      18           4.4250

10.001-20.000 euros         40           4.3486

20.001-30.000 euros         82           4.2005

30.001-40.000 euros         31           4.1168

40.001-50.000 euros         22           3.9465

50.001-60.000 euros         8             3.5563

60.001-80.000 euros         10           2.8250

80.001-100.000 euros      8             3.8125

Total                                    219        4.1081

 

Notice Scale between 0 (not at all important)… 6 (very important)

 

The Fixed-line users presented their perceptions about what they would see as important for seamless mobile service user experience and in table 6 we present the results of the demographic effect for this segment. The learnability shares partially same demographic effect than in the Combined users segment. Only gender is found having significant effect as females find the learnability of mobile services more important than males. There are no significant determinants for the efficiency of use in the Fixed-line user segment and for the memorability, only education is found having significant effect. This finding is typical only for the Fixed-line users according to the data in use. Also, both dimensions of satisfaction and errors have distinctive features compared to other user segments: the older respondents placed higher importance on the satisfaction and the younger ones seemed to be more irritated with their belief of expected errors in mobile service usage.      

 

TABLE 6             Dimensions of seamless use experience among the Fixed-line users: ANOVA on demographics

Learnability                        N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.69                                                                 between groups

 

1.      Gender                                                      8.497                    8.901     .003

Male                                    138        4.4020

Female                                 133        4.7562

Total                                    271        4.5759                 

2.      Age                                                             0.734                    0.745     .562

Less than 18-24                  41           4.5274  

25-34                                   56           4.4341

35-49                                   86           4.5860

50-64                                   66           4.6244

Over 65 years of age          22           4.8414

Total                                    271        4.5759

3.      Education                                                 1.484                    1.579     .142

Elementary school             38           4.7675

Business school                 25           4.6129

Vocational school              64           4.7573

Technical school                32           4.3635

Polytechnic institution      26           4.3812

University degree               46           4.5000

High school graduate         28           4.3020

Other                                   10           5.0300

Total                                    269        4.5809

Efficiency of use                                N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.76                                                                 between groups

1.    Age                                                             0.363                    0.240     .915

Less than 18-24                  40           4.2333

25-34                                   55           4.3962

35-49                                   87           4.3286

50-64                                   58           4.4582

65 years of age                   18           4.2847

Total                                    258        4.3543

Memorability                     N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.74                                                                 between groups

1.    Marital status                                          2.702                    2.241     .065

Married                               95           3.9291  

Cohabitation                       52           3.7521

Single                                  60           3.7875

Leski                                    7             4.2608

Divorced                             246        3.7861

2.      Education                                                 2.857                    2.414     .021

Elementary school             33           4.1344  

Business school                 25           4.0210

Vocational school              58           3.9768

Technical school                31           3.5842

Polytechnic institution      25           3.6639

University degree                              42           3.3862

High school graduate         28           3.5857

Other                                   8             4.4028

Total                                    250        3.7927

3.      Income                                                      1.683                    1.412     .211

Less than 10.000 euros     34           3.7418

10.001-20.000 euros         68           4.0373

20.001-30.000 euros         57           3.7351

30.001-40.000 euros         37           3.6843

40.001-50.000 euros         23           3.5700

50.001-60.000 euros         11           3.7273

More than 60.001 euros    13           3.2201

Total                                    243        3.7693

 

Satisfaction                         N          Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.82                                                                 between groups

1.     Age                                                            4.091                    3.501     .008

Less than 18-24                  42           3.5548  

25-34                                   61           4.0086

35-49                                   86           3.9233

50-64                                   62           4.0129

Over 65 years of age          21           4.6159

Total                                    272        3.9594

2.      Profession                                                1.930                    1.622     .119

Leading position                 17           3.4876                 

Worker                                95           3.8124

Government official          20           4.1944

Public servant                     37           4.1568

Student                                27           3.7704

Pensioner                            37           4.3345

Entrepreneur                       16           3.9813

Unemployed                       14           4.1500

Other                                   9             3.7580

Total                                    272        3.9594

Errors                               N            Means   Mean square       F value  Sig.

α=.68                                                                 between groups

1.    Age                                                             3.8997                  3.321     .036

Less than 18-24                  47           4.8429

25-34                                   60           4.4148

35-49                                   66           3.2838

50-64                                   63           4.0719

Over 65 years of age          20           2.7248

Total                                    256        3.8676

Notice Scale between 0 (not at all important)… 6 (very important)

 

5.    Conclusions

Over four out of five Fixed-line users use electronic services on weekly basis, and normal services used are search engines, communication and financial services. In general, Fixed-line users have more positive perceptions about technology and its use than Mobile users. Demographic variables affecting the choice of a service delivery channel among Fixed-line users seem to be Gender, Age, Marital status and Profession. The Fixed-line users presented their perceptions about what they would see as important for seamless mobile service user experience. Gender seems to have significant effect as females find the learnability of mobile services more important. The older respondents place higher importance on the satisfaction and the younger ones seem to be more irritated with their belief of expected errors in mobile service usage.

 

Over one third of the Mobile users use mobile services at least once a week. On average, they use five services relating to home and family, hobbies, leisure time and making reservations. Surprisingly, the Fixed-line users appear to value technical improvements over personal service more than the Mobile users. On the other hand, Mobile users seem to adapt to changes more easily, and they are more favorable towards automated services. Demographic variables affecting the choice of a service delivery channel among Mobile users appears to be Age, Education, Income and Profession. Less educated Mobile users seem to perceive mobile service delivery channel as seamless, and independent from time and place. Female Mobile users seem to be more affluent to errors, and male value memorability of mobile services higher.

 

Gender is a significant factor for the Combined (men) users as they choose mobile phone as a modem via PC as their primary electronic service delivery channel. Females in the Combined group seem to be more affluent to errors than males. Profession proved to have the most diverse effect in this study as it affects the usage of all the other channels except the option of personal service. The older respondents perceive the importance of service’s learnability as part of seamless use experience higher.

 

The huge mass of potential mobile service customers will need an available and reliable infrastructure to access electronic services. The expected improvements in present and future generations of mobile phones will encourage the uptake of mobile services. Marketers need some directions of future customers’ perceptions and likings to be able to focus on right issues in marketing mobile services.

 

References

Accenture (2002). “Seven Myths about Japanese mCommerce”, available at www.accenture.com as on 16.12.2002.

Cooper, D. & Emory, C. (1995). “Business Research Methods”, 5^th edition, Richard D. Irwin Inc., USA

Crisp, B. & Järvenpää, S. & Todd, P. (1997). “Individual differences and Internet shopping attitude and intentions”, University of Texas, Austin, working paper

Durlacher Report (2001). UTMS Report. “An Investment Perspective”, available at www.durlacher.com/downloads/umtsreport.pdf as on 9.12.2002.  

Elder, V. & Gardner, E. & Ruth, S. (1987). “Gender and age in technostress: effects on white collar productivity“, Government Finance Review, Vol. 3, No. 6.

Flowers, C. & Bray, M. & Algozzine, R. (1999). “Accessibility of special education program home pages”, Journal of Special Education Technology, Vol. 14, No. 2.

Gleiss, N. (2001). “Human Factors and Usability Evaluation”, European Telecommunication Standardization and the Information Society – the State of the Art 1995”. Stockholm: Atalink. Ltd.

Igbaria, M. & Parasuraman, S. (1989). “A path analytic study of individual characteristics, computer anxiety and attitudes toward microcomputers”, Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 3.

Igbaria, M. & Nachman, S. (1990). “Correlates of user satisfaction with end user computing: an exploratory study”, Information and Management, Vol. 19.

Jüptner, O. (2002). “Wireless Web population to soar”, available at http://www.e-gateway.net/infoarena/news.cfm?nid=2131 as on 19.3.2003

Järvenpää, S. & Todd, P. (1997). “Is There a Future for Retailing on the Internet?” in Electronic Marketing and the Consumer, ed. Peterson, R. A. (1997), SAGE Publications Inc., California

Kaplan, R. (1994). “The gender gap at the PC keyboard”, American Demographics, Vol. 16, No. 1.

Karahanna, E. & Straub, D. & Chervany, N. (1999). ”Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2.

Kim, H. & Kim. J. & Lee, Y. & Lee, I. (2003). “Post-Adoption Behavior of Mobile Internet Users: An Empirical Validitation with a Structural Equation Model“, under review for publication

Kim, J. (2001). “Analyzing Mobile Internet Users: Results from a monitoring study, an experiment, and a survey study”, presented at the CHI 2001 workshop on mobile communications.

Lee, I. & Kim, Jaesoo & Kim, Jinwoo (2003). ”Use Contexts for Mobile Services: A Longitudinal Monitoring Study on Actual Use of Mobile Internet Services”, under review for publication.

Mattila, A. (2003). “The Different Dimensions of Seamless Use Experience in Electronic Environment”, in Proceedings of European Applied Business Conference, Venice, Italy.

Mattila, M. (2003). “Factors affecting the adoption of mobile banking services”, in Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, volume 8, number 2.

Mattila, M. & Pento, T. (2002). ”Modelling Internet Adoption”, International Quarterly Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 1-4.

Nielsen, J. (1993). “Usability Engineering”, Academic Press, San Diego, USA

Phau, I. & Poon, S. (2000). “Factors influencing the types of products and services purchasaed over the Internet”, Internet Research: Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2.

Schmetzke, A. (2001). “Distance education, Web-resources design, and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act”, in Proceedings of the 10^th National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries.

Schoenbachler, D. & Gordon, G. (2002). “Multi-channel shopping: understanding what drives channel choice”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 1.

Statistics Finland (2002), Nordic Information Society Statistics 2002. Available at www.stat.fi/tk/yr/tietoyhteiskunta/ as on 5.3.2003.

Statistics Finland (2003), Nordic Information Society Statistics 2002. Available at www.stat.fi as on 17.6.2003.

Suoranta, M. & Mattila, M. (2003). “Usage of Mobile Services: Empirical Findings from a Bank Customer Survey”, 2003 AMA Educators’ Proceedings, Vol. 14.

Teo, T. (2001). “Demographic and motivation variables”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 11, No. 2.

Teo, T. & Lim. V. (1996). “Factors influencing personal computer usage: the gender gap”, Women in Management review, Vol. 11, No. 8.

West, L. (2001). “SWIM Makes a Splash in Mobile Banking,” Bank Technology News, Vol. 12.