GENERAL RESEARCH Mobile advertising avoidance: exploring the role of ubiquity Shintaro Okazaki & Francisco José Molina & Morikazu Hirose Received: 29 July 2011 / Accepted: 5 January 2012 / Published online: 5 May 2012 # Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2012 Abstract Drawing upon prior research on Internet informa- tion privacy concerns, this study examines the effects of perceived ubiquity on consumers’ acceptance of mobile ad- vertising. We postulate that, due to increasing unethical infor- mation practice, ubiquity can be perceived both positively and negatively, exercising complex effects on trust, risk, attitude, and intention to delete the ad. With 510 Japanese general consumers, our findings indicate that perceived ubiquity sig- nificantly strengthens trust and attitude toward the ad, while none of the negative effects are confirmed. Perceived ubiquity is therefore generally accepted as a favorable utility of mobile communication, leading to more likely acceptance of the ad it delivers. In closing, theoretical and managerial implications are discussed, and important limitations are recognized. Keywords Advertising . Information privacy concerns . Mobile commerce . Risk . Trust . Ubiquity JEL classification M3 - Marketing and Advertising Introduction Mobile advertising has increasingly been recognized as an important component of firms’ holistic marketing strategies (Varnali and Toker 2010). A recent report by the United Nations indicates that mobile subscribers account for as much as 67 % of the world’ s population, far outweighing Internet access (Watch 2010). Global mobile advertising expenditure is estimated to grow from $2.7 billion in 2011 to $6.6 billion by 2016, with an average growth of 19.4 % each year (Magnaglobal 2011). Furthermore, the enhanced usability of mobile platforms, such as Apple’ s iPhone OS and Google’s Android OS, enables online marketers to facilitate their advertising capacity. A study in Japan shows that 58 % of mobile subscribers download mobile coupons and discounts from ads more than once a month (D2 Com- munications 2006). More recently, in the U.S., mobile phone service providers, including Cingular, Sprint, and Verizon, have started offering marketing programs for advertisers (Watch 2010). In Europe, O2, Vodafone, and Orange teamed up to launch a joint venture aimed at pro- moting mobile advertising with near-field communications- based mobile payments (MarketingWeek 2011). In this study, mobile advertising is defined as “any mar- keting communications that generate or support new cus- tomer acquisition, with textual or visual messages.” At present, there are two types of mobile advertising strategies: the push strategy and the pull strategy. The key difference between these two strategies is who—the marketer or the Responsible editor: Hans-Dieter Zimmermann S. Okazaki (*) Department of Finance and Marketing Research, College of Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain e-mail: shintaro.okazaki@uam.es F. J. Molina Department of Marketing College of Economics and Business Administration, University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain e-mail: fjmolina@um.es M. Hirose Faculty of Business Administration, Tokyo Fuji University, 3-8-1, Takadanobaba Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0075, Japan e-mail: morikazu.187@mba.nifty.ne.jp Electron Markets (2012) 22:169–183 DOI 10.1007/s12525-012-0087-1