what is marketing research paper

What is a Marketing Research Report and How to Write It?

Table of contents

There is nothing more embarrassing for a marketer than to hear a client say “…this doesn’t quite address the business questions that we need to answer.” And unfortunately, this is a rather common occurrence in market research reporting that most marketers would care to admit.

So, why do most market research reports fail to meet client expectations? Well, in most cases, because there is more emphasis on methodology and analytic techniques used to craft the report rather than relying on data visualization, creative story-telling, and outlining actionable direction/steps.

Now, our next big question is, how do you avoid your client’s dreaded deer-in-the-headlights reaction when presenting such a report? This blog post will answer this and much more, as we go through the following:

What Is a Market Research Report?

Why is market research important, differences between primary and secondary market research, types of market research, market research reports advantages and disadvantages, how to do market research, how to prepare a market research report: 5 steps, marketing research report templates, marketing research reports best practices, bring your market research reports a step further with databox.

The purpose of creating a market research report is to make calculated decisions about business ideas. Market research is done to evaluate the feasibility of a new product or service, through research conducted with potential consumers. The information obtained from conducting market research is then documented in a formal report that should contain the following details:

• The characteristics of your ideal customers
• You customers buying habits
• The value your product or service can bring to those customers
• A list of your top competitors

Every business aims to provide the best possible product or service at the lowest cost possible. Simply said, market research is important because it helps you understand your customers and determine whether the product or service that you are about to launch is worth the effort.

Here is an example of a customer complaint that may result in more detailed market research:

Suppose you sell widgets, and you want your widget business to succeed over the long term. Over the years, you have developed many different ways of making widgets. But a couple of years ago, a customer complained that your widgets were made of a cheap kind of foam that fell apart after six months. You didn’t think at the time that this was a major problem, but now you know it.

The customer is someone you really want to keep. So, you decide to research this complaint. You set up a focus group of people who use widgets and ask them what they think about the specific problem. After the conducted survey you’ll get a better picture of customer opinions, so you can either decide to make the changes regarding widget design or just let it go.

PRO TIP: How Well Are Your Marketing KPIs Performing?

Like most marketers and marketing managers, you want to know how well your efforts are translating into results each month. How much traffic and new contact conversions do you get? How many new contacts do you get from organic sessions? How are your email campaigns performing? How well are your landing pages converting? You might have to scramble to put all of this together in a single report, but now you can have it all at your fingertips in a single Databox dashboard.

Our Marketing Overview Dashboard includes data from Google Analytics 4 and HubSpot Marketing with key performance metrics like:

• Sessions . The number of sessions can tell you how many times people are returning to your website. Obviously, the higher the better.
• New Contacts from Sessions . How well is your campaign driving new contacts and customers?
• Marketing Performance KPIs . Tracking the number of MQLs, SQLs, New Contacts and similar will help you identify how your marketing efforts contribute to sales.
• Email Performance . Measure the success of your email campaigns from HubSpot. Keep an eye on your most important email marketing metrics such as number of sent emails, number of opened emails, open rate, email click-through rate, and more.
• Blog Posts and Landing Pages . How many people have viewed your blog recently? How well are your landing pages performing?

Now you can benefit from the experience of our Google Analytics and HubSpot Marketing experts, who have put together a plug-and-play Databox template that contains all the essential metrics for monitoring your leads. It’s simple to implement and start using as a standalone dashboard or in marketing reports, and best of all, it’s free!

You can easily set it up in just a few clicks – no coding required.

To set up the dashboard, follow these 3 simple steps:

Step 1: Get the template 

Step 2: Connect your HubSpot and Google Analytics 4 accounts with Databox. 

Step 3: Watch your dashboard populate in seconds.

Marketing research requires both primary and secondary market research. But what does that mean and what are the main differences?

Primary market research takes in information directly from customers, usually as participants in surveys. Usually, it is consisted of:

• Exploratory Primary Research – This type of research helps to identify possible problem areas, and it’s not focused on discovering specific information about customers. As with any research, exploratory primary research should be conducted carefully. Researchers need to craft an interviewing or surveying plan, and gather enough respondents to ensure reasonable levels of statistical reliability.
• Specific Primary Research – This type of research is one of the best ways to approach a problem because it relies on existing customer data. Specific research provides a deeper, more thorough understanding of the problem and its potential solutions. The greatest advantage of specific research is that it lets you explore a very specific question, and focus on a specific problem or an opportunity.

Secondary market research collects information from other sources such as databases, trend reports, market or government statistics, industry content, etc. We can divide secondary market research into 3 categories:

• Public market data – Public sources range from academic journals and government reports to tax returns and court documents. These sources aren’t always easy to find. Many are available only in print in libraries and archives. You have to look beyond search engines like Google to find public source documents.
• Commercial data – Those are typically created by specialized agencies like Pew, Gartner or Forrester. the research agencies are quite expensive, but they provide a lot of useful information.
• Internal data – Your organization’s databases are gold mines for market research. In the best cases, your salespeople can tell you what they think about customers. Your salespeople are your direct sources of information about the market. Don’t underestimate your internal data.

In general, primary research is more reliable than secondary research, because researchers have to interview people directly. But primary research is expensive and time-consuming. Secondary research can be quicker and less expensive.

There are plenty of ways to conduct marketing research reports. Mostly, the type of research done will depend on your goals. Here are some types of market research often conducted by marketers.

Focus Groups

Product/service use research, observation-based research, buyer persona research, market segmentation research, pricing research, competitive analysis research, customer satisfaction and loyalty research, brand awareness research, campaign research.

An interview is an interactive process of asking and answering questions and observing your respondent’s responses. Interviews are one of the most commonly used tools in market research . An interview allows an organization to observe, in detail, how its consumers interact with its products and services. It also allows an organization to address specific questions.

A focus group is a group of people who get together to discuss a particular topic. A moderator leads the discussion and takes notes. The main benefit of focus groups is that they are quick and easy to conduct. You can gather a group of carefully-selected people, give them a product to try out, and get their feedback within a few hours/days.

Product or service use research helps you obtain useful information about your product or service such as:

• What your current customers do with the product/service
• Which features of the product/service are particularly important to your customers
• What they dislike about the product/service
• What they would change about the product/service

Observation-based research helps you to observe your target audience interacting with your product or service. You will see the interactions and which aspects work well and which could be improved. The main point is to directly experience the feedback from your target audience’s point of view.

Personas are an essential sales tool. By knowing your buyers’ pain points and the challenges they face, you can create better content, target messaging, and campaigns for them. Buyer persona research is based on market research, and it’s built around data that describes your customers’ demographics, behaviors, motivations, and concerns. Sales reporting software can significantly help you develop buyer personas when you gain insights after you collected all information.

Market segmentation research is carried out to better understand existing and potential market segments. The objective is to determine how to target different market segments and how they differ from each other. The three most important steps in writing a market segmentation research report are:

• Defining the problem
• Determining the solution [and]
• Defining the market

Related : 9 Customer Segmentation Tips to Personalize Ecommerce Marketing and Drive More Sales

A price that is too high, or too low, can kill a business. And without good market research, you don’t really know what is a good price for your product. Pricing research helps you define your pricing strategy.

In a competitive analysis, you define your “competition” as any other entity that competes with you in your market, whether you’re selling a widget or a piece of real estate. With competitive analysis research, you can find out things like:

• Who your competitors are
• What they’ve done in the past
• What’s working well for them
• Their weaknesses
• How they’re positioned in the market
• How they market themselves
• What they’re doing that you’re not

Related : How to Do an SEO Competitive Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide

In today’s marketplace, companies are increasingly focused on customer loyalty. What your customers want is your product, but, more importantly, they want it delivered with a service that exceeds their expectations. Successful companies listen to their customers and respond accordingly. That’s why customer satisfaction and loyalty research is a critical component of that basic equation.

Related : 11 Tactics for Effectively Measuring Your Customer Service ROI

Who you are, what you stand for, what you offer, what you believe in, and what your audience thinks of you is all wrapped up in brand. Brand awareness research tells what your target audience knows about your brand and what’s their experience like.

A campaign research report is a detailed account of how your marketing campaign performed. It includes all the elements that went into creating the campaign: planning, implementation, and measurement.

Here are some of the top advantages and disadvantages of doing market research and crafting market research reports.

• Identify business opportunities – A market research report can be used to analyze potential markets and new products. It can give information about customer needs, preferences, and attitudes. Also, it compare products and services.
• A clear understanding of your customers – A market report gives company’s marketing department an in-depth picture about customers’ needs and wants. This knowledge can be used to improve products, prices, and advertising.
• Mitigates risks – 30% of small businesses fail within the first two years. Why is this so? The answer is that entrepreneurs are risk takers. However, there are risks that could be avoided. A good marketing research will help you identify those risks and allow you to mitigate them.
• Clear data-driven insights – Market research encompasses a wide range of activities, from determining market size and segment to forecasting demand, and from identifying competitors to monitoring pricing. All of these are quantified and measurable which means that gives you a clear path for building unique decisions based on numbers.

Disadvantages

• It’s not cheap – Although market research can be done for as little as $500, large markets like the United States can run into millions of dollars. If a research is done for a specific product, the budget may be even much higher. The budget also depends on the quality of the research. The more expensive it is, the more time the research will take.
• Some insights could be false – For example, if you are conducting a survey, data may be inadequate or inaccurate because respondents can, well, simply be dishonest and lie.

Here are the essential steps you need to take when doing market research:

Define your buyer persona

Identify a persona group to engage, prepare research questions for your market research participants, list your primary competitors, summarize your findings.

The job of a marketing persona is to describe your ideal customer and to tell you what they want, what motivates them, what frustrates them, and what limits them. Finding out these things means you have a better chance of designing your products, services, marketing messages, and brand around real customers. There is no one right way to create a buyer persona, though.

For example, if you’re in an industry focused on education, you could include things like:

• Educational level
• Education background

It’s recommended that you create 3-5 buyer personas for your products, based on your ideal customer.

This should be a representative sample of your target customers so you can better understand their behavior. You want to find people who fit both your target personas and who represent the broader demographic of your market. People who recently made a purchase or purposefully decided not to make one are a good sample to start with.

The questions you use determine the quality of your results. Of course, the quality of your results also depends on the quality of your participants.

Don’t ask questions that imply a yes or no answer. Instead, use open questions. For example, if you are researching customers about yogurt products, you could ask them: „ What have you heard about yogurt ?” or “ What do you think of yogurt ?“.

Avoid questions that use numbers, such as “ How many times a week do you eat yogurt ?”

Avoid questions that suggest a set of mutually exclusive answers, such as “ Do you like yogurt for breakfast, lunch, or dinner ?”

Avoid questions that imply a scale, such as “ Do you like chocolate-flavored yogurt ?”

Market researchers sometimes call one company the top competitor, another middle competitor, and the third one small competitor. However you classify them, you want to identify at least three companies in each category. Now, for each business on your list, list its key characteristics. For example, if your business sells running shoes, a key characteristic might be the product’s quality.

Next, make a list of your small business’s competitive advantages. These include the unique qualities or features of your business that make it the best choice of customers for the products or services it offers. Make a list of these competitive advantages and list them next to the key characteristics you listed for your business.

You have just finished writing your marketing research report. Everything is out there quantified or qualified. You just have to sum it up and focus on the most important details that are going to make a big impact on your decisions. Clear summary leads to a winning strategy!

Related : How to Prepare a Complete Marketing Report: The KPIs, Analysis, & Action Plan You Need

Here’s how to prepare a market research report in 5 simple steps:

Step 1: Cluster the data

Step 2: prepare an outline, step 3: mention the research methods, step 4: include visuals with narrative explanations, step 5: conclude the report with recommendations.

Your first step is to cluster all the available information into a manageable set. Clustering is the process of grouping information together in a way that emphasizes commonalities and minimizes differences. So, in market research, this will help to organize all the information you have about a product, service, or target market and identify your focus areas.

A marketing research report should be written so that other people can understand it:

• Include background information at the beginning to explain who your audience is and what problem you are trying to solve for them.
• In the body of the report, include a description of the methodology – Explain to the reader how your research was done, what was involved, and why you selected the methodology you used.
• Also in the body of the report, include the results of your market research. These may be quantitative or qualitative, but either way they should answer the questions you posed at the beginning.
• Include the executive summary – A summary of the entire report.

The market research methodology section includes details on the type of research, sample size, any limitations of the studies, research design, sample selection, data collection procedures, and statistical analyses used.

Visuals are an essential part of the presentation. Even the best-written text can be difficult to understand. Charts and graphs are easier to understand than text alone, and they help the reader see how the numbers fit the bigger picture.

But visuals are not the whole story. They are only one part of the presentation. Visuals are a cue for the reader. The narrative gives the story, not just the numbers.

Recommendations tend to follow logically from conclusions and are a response to a certain problem. The recommendation should always be relevant to the research rationale, that is, the recommendation should be based on the results of the research reported in the body of the report.

Now, let’s take a look at some dashboard reporting templates you could use to enhance your market research:

• Semrush (Position Tracking) Report

Brand Awareness Report

Sales pipeline performance report, customer success overview report, stripe (mrr & churn) report, semrush (position tracking) report template.

This free SEMRush dashboard template will help you monitor how your website’s search visibility on search engines evolves on a monthly basis. This dashboard contains all of the information you need to make changes and improve the ranking results of your business in Google Search.

This Brand Awareness Report will help you to get a sense of your brand awareness performance in Google Analytics, Google Organic Search, and Facebook. Use this dashboard to track brand awareness the same way you track other marketing campaigns.

Are your sales and marketing funnel healthy and growing? How is your sales and marketing funnel performing? What are the key conversion rates between your lifecycle stages? With a pipeline performance dashboard , you’ll get all of the answers quickly.

This Customer Success Overview Dashboard allows you to analyze how your customer service team’s responsiveness impacts your business. Use this dashboard to assess the correlation between your customer service performance and churn rate. 

This Stripe dashboard tracks your churn rate and MRR growth in real-time and shows you which customers (and how many of them) you have at any given point in time. All you have to do to get started is to connect your Stripe account.

As we said earlier, there are no strict rules when it comes to writing marketing research reports. On the other hand, you must find your focus if you want to write a report that will make a difference. Here are some best practices you should keep in mind when writing a research report.

• Objectives – The objective of a market research report is to define the problems, identify key issues, and suggest recommendations for further research. If you answer them successfully, you’re on the right way.
• Don’t worry about the format – Be creative. The report could be in a form of a PowerPoint presentation, Excel sheet, interactive dashboard or even a video. Use the format that best fits your audience, but make sure to make it easy to read.
• Include an executive summary, scorecard , or a dashboard – This is really important because time is money, and most people don’t have time to waste. So, how to put everything important in a short role? Address all of the objectives and put them in a graphic dashboard or scorecard. Also, you can write an executive summary template (heart of the report) that can be easily updated and read by managers or CEOs.
• Use storytelling –  A good story always makes a great point because it’s so memorable. Your research report results can double the effect with a catchy story.
• Keep it short – It’s not a secret that we are reading so little in the digital era. Use a lot of white space and bullet points. Too much text on a page means less focus for the reader.
• Be organized – Maintain the order of information. It’s important for the reader to navigate through the report easily. If they want to find some details or specific information it would be great to divide all sections with appropriate references.
• Methodological information – Methodological details could be boring. Include only the most important details that the reader needs to know to understand the big picture.
• Use images (or other visualizations) whenever you can – A good picture speaks for 1.000 words! If you can communicate the point visually, don’t hesitate to do it. It would be a lot easier for those who don’t like a lot of text to understand your results. But don’t push them where you can’t.
• Create readable graphs – The crown of marketing research reports is a comprehensive graph. Make sure to design precise and attractive graphs that will power up and round your story.
• Use the Appendix  – You can include all secondary information such as methodological details and other miscellaneous data in the Appendix at the end of the report.

Market research reports are all about presenting your data in an easy-to-understand way and making calculated decisions about business ideas. But this is something easier said than done.

When busy stakeholders and executives grab a report, they need something that will give them an idea of the results – the big picture that addresses company wide-business goals.

Can a PowerPoint presentation or a PDF report meet those expectations? Most likely not. But a dashboard can.

Keep in mind that even with the best market analysis in the world, your market research report won’t be actionable if you don’t present the data efficiently and in a way that everyone understands what the next steps are. Databox is your key ally in the matter.

Databox dashboards are designed to help you present your market research data with clarity – from identifying what is influencing your business, and understanding where your brand is situated in the market, to gauging the temperature of your niche or industry before a new product/service launch.

Present your research results with efficient, interactive dashboards now by signing up for a free trial .

Do you want an All-in-One Analytics Platform?

Hey, we’re Databox. Our mission is to help businesses save time and grow faster. Click here to see our platform in action. 

• Databox Benchmarks
• Future Value Calculator
• ROI Calculator
• Return On Ads Calculator
• Percentage Growth Rate Calculator
• Report Automation
• Client Reporting
• What is a KPI?
• Google Sheets KPIs
• Sales Analysis Report
• Shopify Reports
• Data Analysis Report
• Google Sheets Dashboard
• Best Dashboard Examples
• Analysing Data
• Marketing Agency KPIs
• Automate Agency Google Ads Report
• Marketing Research Report
• Social Media Dashboard Examples
• Ecom Dashboard Examples

Does Your Performance Stack Up?

Are you maximizing your business potential? Stop guessing and start comparing with companies like yours.

A Message From Our CEO

At Databox, we’re obsessed with helping companies more easily monitor, analyze, and report their results. Whether it’s the resources we put into building and maintaining integrations with 100+ popular marketing tools, enabling customizability of charts, dashboards, and reports, or building functionality to make analysis, benchmarking, and forecasting easier, we’re constantly trying to find ways to help our customers save time and deliver better results.

Grew up as a Copywriter. Evolved into the Content creator. Somewhere in between, I fell in love with numbers that can portray the world as well as words or pictures. A naive thinker who believes that the creative economy is the most powerful force in the world!

Get practical strategies that drive consistent growth

12 Tips for Developing a Successful Data Analytics Strategy

What Is Data Reporting and How to Create Data Reports for Your Business

What Is KPI Reporting? KPI Report Examples, Tips, and Best Practices

Build your first dashboard in 5 minutes or less

Latest from our blog

• The Benefits of Hiring a Fractional Chief Marketing Officer (fCMO): Perspectives of Agencies, Buyers, and fCMOs April 18, 2024
• Playmaker Spotlight: Tory Ferrall, Director of Revenue Operations March 27, 2024
• Metrics & KPIs
• vs. Tableau
• vs. Looker Studio
• vs. Klipfolio
• vs. Power BI
• vs. Whatagraph
• vs. AgencyAnalytics
• Product & Engineering
• Inside Databox
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Talent Resources
• We're Hiring!
• Help Center
• API Documentation

What is a Marketing Research Report and How to Write It

In essence, a market research report is a document that reveals the characteristics of your ideal customers, their buying habits, the value your product or service can bring to them, and the list of your top competitors.

The marketing research report paints a picture of what kinds of new products or services may be the most profitable in today’s highly competitive landscape. For products or services already available, a marketing research report can provide detailed insights as to whether they are meeting their consumers’ needs and expectations. It helps understand the reasons why consumers buy a particular product by studying consumer behavior, including how economic, cultural, societal, and personal factors influence that behavior.

Furthermore, the purpose of writing a marketing research report is to make calculated decisions about business ideas – whether they’re worth pursuing or not. This requires one primary skill which is observing the pattern which is hidden in the User Generated Content (UGC) written in different tones and perspectives on the social web.

Simply put, writing a market research report is a vital part of planning business activities and serves as a neat way to assimilate all the information about your target market and prospective customers.

Now, there are two key varieties of marketing research report formats – primary and secondary.

Primary vs. Secondary Market Research

Let’s take a look at the main recipes of how to make a market research report in detail:

Primary Research

This method of marketing research involves gathering firsthand information about your market and prospective clients. You study your customers directly by conducting:

• Interviews (either by telephone or face-to-face)
• Surveys and polls (online or by email)
• Questionnaires (online or by email)
• Focus groups discussions with a sample of potential customers and getting their direct feedback

Some crucial questions that you need to ask your prospective customers in your primary research are:

• What are the factors that motivate you to purchase this product or service?
• What do you like or dislike about this type of product or service already available on the market?
• Are there any areas you’d like to suggest for improvement?
• What according to you is the appropriate price for this product or service?

Primary research also involves analyzing competitors’ strategies, so you can find gaps and weaknesses that you can turn into your strengths.

Secondary Research

The second method of writing a marketing research report is all about analyzing the data that has already been published and using the available information on the web. That is, secondary research is done from reliable reports and statistics found on the websites of other organizations or authority blogs in your industry.

Sources can be:

• Public: This includes all the free sources like social media and forums, Google Trends, YouGov, and government sources such as the United States Census Bureau.
• Commercial: This includes industry insights compiled by research agencies like Pew, Gartner, Forrester, and so on. Typically, these are paid.
• Internal: This is the historical market data your organization already has in-house, such as the Net Promoter Score, customer churn rate, and so on.

Secondary data can help you identify competitors, establish benchmarks, and determine target customer segments or demographics – people who live a certain lifestyle, their income and buying patterns, age group, location, etc.

Market Research Reports Advantages and Disadvantages

Before we discuss how to write a marketing research report, let’s quickly take a look at market research report benefits and also some of the limitations in marketing research reports.

Advantages of Market Research Report

Here are the top reasons why you should invest in creating a market research report.

1. Gives a Better Understanding of Your Customers

The answers to questions like who will buy your product, what are the customers’ pain points, what motivates their buying behavior, and so on will be effectively answered with a market research report. Essentially, it will help you map out the full profile of your ideal customer and consequently, allow you to create tailored products and marketing campaigns.

2. Helps Spot Business Opportunities

As already mentioned, market research will give you insights about your competitors’ strategies, so you can find gaps in their offerings that you can turn into your product’s strengths. You may also find other business opportunities such as potential partnerships with brands that sell complementary products, or an opportunity to better upsell or cross-sell your products. For example, a keyword research report from a SaaS SEO agency provides an opportunity to acquire organic search ranking by creating in-depth, high-converting, and funnel-oriented content.

3. Minimizes Risks

Starting or running a business is synonymous with risk. In fact, nearly half of all small businesses with employees don’t survive for more than five years. Conducting proper market research frequently will allow you to stay on top of trends, and not waste your efforts and resources in things that would likely be fruitless.

For instance, before you launch a new product, conducting market research gives you a much better idea of the demand for your product. Or if an existing product is seeing a big drop in sales, market research helps you determine the root cause of the issue.

4. Facilitates Data-Driven Decision Making

When it comes to business decisions – data over guesswork, always. So, based on your market research results, you can make more informed decisions regarding the pricing, distribution channels, and marketing budget of your products.

Disadvantages of Market Research Report

As with anything, there are a couple of downsides to conducting marketing research as well.

1. Could Be an Expensive Activity

Conducting a comprehensive, in-depth research is usually a costly activity in terms of both time and money. To research the right audience with the right questions requires you to invest a lot of time. If you wish to use data by commercial market research agencies or get help from one such agency in conducting primary research, be prepared to spend a substantial amount.

2. Insights Gathered Could Be Inadequate or Even Inaccurate

Another problem often faced in marketing research is a lack of respondents. While you can figure out who is your target audience, getting them to fill out surveys and questionnaires can indeed be challenging. Plus, you’re using data you collected for drawing conclusions, which may be unreliable.

For example, by the time you act on the data you collected, it may have become outdated. This translates into poor decision making and the whole process may become counterproductive.

How to Prepare Market Research Report

Now, here are some concrete steps and guidelines for writing a marketing research report.

Step 1: Cluster the Data

First off, compile all the relevant data you’ve accumulated from your primary and/or secondary research efforts. Survey results, interview answers, statistics from third-party sources – bring it all together and then analyze the information to sketch out the profile of your target market.

Step 2: Prepare an Outline

Next, create a skeleton of the report so that you understand what information will go where. An outline with sections and subsections will help you structure your marketing research report properly. A typical report includes an introduction, background and methodology, executive summary, results, and a conclusion with links to all references.

With an outline in front of you, start by writing the front matter of your report – an introduction that provides a brief overview of your business and the reason you conducted the market research. Include a summary of the market research process and the results you have analyzed. For instance, you might have been gauging the feasibility of a new product, so summarize that your market research report is for a new product launch.

Step 3: Mention the Research Methods

An important next step is to clearly mention the methods used to conduct the research. That is, if you conducted polls, specify the number of polls, the percentage of responses, the types of people or businesses targeted, and the questions included in the poll. Tag all the resources for demographic information, such as census data.

Step 4: Include Visuals With Narrative Explanation

Visuals such as charts and graphs are an important part of any research paper. They make sure that the findings are easy to comprehend.

So, create tables, graphs, and/or charts illustrating the results of the research. Accompany it with a narrative explanation of the visual data. Highlight the inferences you made based on this data.

Step 5: Conclude the Report With Recommendations

Finally, conclude your report with a section that lists actionable recommendations based on the research results to facilitate decision making. For example, all the numbers may point to the conclusion that your customers desire a particular feature that no other product on the market is currently offering. In this case, it is clear that it’s a good idea to invest your resources in providing that feature and gain a competitive edge.

At the very end of the report, include reference links to all the sources and an appendix for supplementary materials and further reading.

Marketing Research Report Templates

Before you go, check out some templates and samples you can use to better understand the marketing research report structure, and maybe even use them to kickstart your report instead of preparing one from scratch.

• Market Research Report for New Product Launch
• Market Research Report for Restaurant (competitor analysis)
• Social Media Market Research Report

Writing a marketing research report is a tried-and-true way to gain a solid understanding of your target audience and competitors while enabling you to make more informed decisions and minimize investment risks. Sure, it may take considerable time, effort, and even money to conduct thorough research and prepare a report, but when done well, the ROI of it all is well worth it.

Shahid Abbasi is a Senior SEO and Content Marketing Analyst at Growfusely, a SaaS content marketing agency specializing in content and data-driven SEO.

Ready for SaaS tronomical organic growth?

Let's find out if we're the SaaS content marketing company you’re looking for.

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Journal of Marketing Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

Mission The Journal of Marketing Research ( JMR ) is a bimonthly journal serving the scholarly and practitioner communities in the field of marketing.

Editorial Objectives JMR is a broad-based journal that aims to publish the highest-quality articles in the discipline of marketing. Published articles must make a significant contribution to the marketing discipline, provide a basis for stimulating additional research, and meet high standards of scholarship.

Nature of JMR Research JMR publishes articles representing the entire spectrum of topics in marketing. It welcomes diverse theoretical perspectives, and a wide variety of data and methodological approaches. JMR seeks papers that make methodological, substantive, and/or theoretical contributions. Empirical studies in papers that seek to make a theoretical and/or substantive contribution may involve experimental and/or observational designs and rely on primary data (including qualitative data) and/or secondary data (including meta-analytic data sets).

Methodological Contribution

Authors seeking to make a methodological contribution should compare their proposed new methods to established methods, indicating the circumstances under which the new methods are superior and why. The papers should also disclose limitations of the new methods. The papers should explain what the proposed methods might mean for understanding consumers, firms, or regulatory agencies. Papers that review methods to stimulate further research are also welcome.

Substantive Contribution

Authors seeking to make a substantive contribution should provide insights into marketing phenomena, and discuss their implications for practitioners, policy makers, and customers, among other stakeholders. Research in other disciplines such as economics, management, operations, or psychology may be used to generate insights into marketing phenomena. Papers that use analytical economic models should provide substantive insights into important marketing problems.

Theoretical Contribution

Authors seeking to make a theoretical contribution should build new theory in the field of marketing, and discuss its implications for practitioners, policy makers, customers and/or other stakeholders. Authors should highlight their theoretical contribution by briefly reviewing extant research and explaining how their work advances this research. To the extent they are relevant, authors should describe implications of their new theories for other disciplines.

Click here to subscribe to the American Marketing Association Bundle, where you can gain access to all SAGE published AMA content! Learn more about JMR at AMA.org .

JMR is a broad-based journal that aims to publish the highest-quality articles in the discipline of marketing. Published articles must make a significant contribution to the marketing discipline, provide a basis for stimulating additional research, and meet high standards of scholarship.

• Business Periodicals Index
• Clarivate Analytics: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
• Current Index to Statistics
• EBSCO: Business Source Alumni Edition
• EBSCO: Business Source Complete
• EBSCO: Business Source Elite
• EBSCO: Business Source Premier
• EBSCO: Communication & Mass Media Complete

Please read the guidelines on this page and the AMA Submission Guidelines page  before visiting the submission site!

This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics .

Please read the guidelines below the AMA Submission Guidelines page  , then visit the Journal of Marketing Research’ s submission site ( https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ama_jmr ) to upload your manuscript. Please note that manuscripts not conforming to these guidelines may be returned. Remember that you can log in to the submission site at any time to check on the progress of your paper through the peer review process.

Sage Publishing disseminates high-quality research and engaged scholarship globally, and we are committed to diversity and inclusion in publishing. We encourage submissions from a diverse range of authors from across all countries and backgrounds.

Only manuscripts of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of the Journal of Marketing Research will be reviewed.

There are no fees payable to submit or publish in this Journal. Open Access options are available - see section 3.3 below.

As part of the submission process, you will be required to warrant that you are submitting your original work, that you have the rights in the work, and that you have obtained and can supply all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyright works not owned by you. In addition, you must confirm that you are submitting the work for first publication in the journal and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere. Please see our guidelines on prior publication and note that the Journal of Marketing Research will consider submissions of papers that have been posted on preprint servers; please include the DOI for the preprint in your cover letter. Authors should not post an updated version of their paper on the preprint server while it is being peer reviewed for possible publication in the journal.  If your paper is accepted, you must include a link on your preprint to the final version of your paper.

If you have any questions about publishing with Sage, please visit the Sage Journal Solutions Portal .

1. What do we publish?

1.1 Aims and scope

1.2 Article types

1.3 Writing your paper

2. Editorial policies

2.1 Peer review policy

2.2 Authorship

2.3 Acknowledgments

2.4 Funding

2.5 Declaration of conflicting interests

2.6 Research data

2.7 Decision appeal policy

3. Publishing policies

3.1 Publication ethics

3.2 Contributor’s publishing agreement

3.3 Open access and author archiving

4. Preparing your manuscript

5. Submitting your manuscript

5.2 Information required for completing your submission

5.3 Permissions

6. On acceptance and publication

6.1 Accepted articles

6.2 Production

6.3 Online First publication

6.4 Access to your published article

6.5 Promoting your article

7. Further information

Before submitting your manuscript to the Journal of Marketing Research , please ensure that you have read the aims & scope .

• Research Article
• Special Issue Article

There is no limit to the number of references allowed.

The Journal of Marketing Research publishes articles representing the entire spectrum of topics in marketing. It welcomes diverse theoretical perspectives and a wide variety of data and methodological approaches.  JMR  seeks papers that make theoretical, substantive, and/or methodological contributions. Empirical studies in papers that seek to make a theoretical and/or substantive contribution may involve experimental and/or observational designs and rely on primary data (including qualitative data) and/or secondary data (including meta-analytic data sets).

1.2.1 Substantive contribution

Authors seeking to make a substantive contribution should provide insights into marketing phenomena and discuss their implications for practitioners, policy makers, and customers, among other stakeholders. Research in other disciplines such as economics, management, operations, or psychology may be used to generate insights into marketing phenomena. Papers that use analytical economic models should provide substantive insights into important marketing problems.

1.2.2 Methodological contribution

1.2.3 Theoretical contribution

Authors seeking to make a theoretical contribution should build new theory in the field of marketing, and discuss its implications for practitioners, policy makers, customers, and/or other stakeholders. Authors should highlight their theoretical contribution by briefly reviewing extant research and explaining how their work advances this research. To the extent they are relevant, authors should describe implications of their new theories for other disciplines.

For information about author anonymity, readability and language, copy editing and proofreading, and inclusive language, see the  AMA Submission Guidelines page .

In addition, the Sage Author Gateway has some general advice on  how to get published , plus links to further resources. Sage Author Services also offers authors a variety of ways to improve and enhance their article including English language editing, plagiarism detection, and video abstract and infographic preparation.

1.3.1 Make your article discoverable

For information and guidance on how to make your article more discoverable, visit the Sage Author Gateway page on How to Help Readers Find Your Article Online .

1.3.2 English language editing services

Authors seeking assistance with English language editing, translation, or figure and manuscript formatting to fit the Journal’s specifications should consider using Sage Language Services. Visit Sage Language Services  on the Journal Author Gateway for further information.

 Back to top

Reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Our policy is that reviewers should not be assigned to a paper if:

• The reviewer is based at the same institution as any of the co-authors.
• The reviewer is based at the funding body of the paper.
• The reviewer has provided a personal (e.g. Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail) email account and an institutional email account cannot be found after performing a basic Google search (name, department, and institution).

At submission, the journal currently allows authors to recommend or oppose reviewers. Note, however, that the Editor in Chief views these as a guideline and may follow or disregard this information at their discretion. No more than one recommended reviewer is permitted to serve on a review team.

The Journal of Marketing Research is committed to delivering high-quality, fast peer review for your paper, and as such has partnered with Web of Science. Web of Science is a third-party service that seeks to track, verify, and give credit for peer review. Reviewers for the Journal of Marketing Research can opt in to Web of Science in order to claim their reviews or have them automatically verified and added to their reviewer profile. Reviewers claiming credit for their review will be associated with the relevant journal, but the article name, reviewer’s decision, and the content of their review is not published on the site. For more information, visit the Web of Science website.

The Editor or members of the Editorial Board may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the journal. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative members of the Board, and the submitting Editor/Board member will have no involvement in the decision-making process.

All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.

Please note that AI chatbots, for example ChatGPT, should not be listed as authors. For more information see the policy on Use of ChatGPT and generative AI tools .

2.2.1 Author misconduct policy and procedures

See the  AMA Editorial Policies & Procedures page .

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgments section on the title page. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.

Acknowledgments should be included on the title page that is uploaded separately from the main text to facilitate anonymous peer review.

Per ICMJE recommendations , it is best practice to obtain consent from non-author contributors who you are acknowledging in your paper.

2.3.1 Third party submissions Where an individual who is not listed as an author submits a manuscript on behalf of the author(s), a statement must be included in the Acknowledgments section of the title page  and in the accompanying cover letter. The statements must:

• Disclose this type of editorial assistance—including the individual’s name, company, and level of input
• Identify any entities that paid for this assistance
• Confirm that the listed authors have authorized the submission of their manuscript via third party and approved any statements or declarations (e.g., conflicting interests, funding)

Where appropriate, Sage reserves the right to deny consideration to manuscripts submitted by a third party rather than by the authors themselves .

2.3.2 Writing assistance

Individuals who provided writing assistance (e.g., from a specialist communications company) do not qualify as authors and so should be included in the Acknowledgments section. Authors must disclose any writing assistance—including the individual’s name, company, and level of input—and identify the entity that paid for this assistance. It is not necessary to disclose use of language polishing services.

The Journal of Marketing Research requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading on the title page. Please visit the Funding Acknowledgements page on the Sage Journal Author Gateway to confirm the format of the acknowledgment text in the event of funding, or state, “This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.”

The Journal of Marketing Research encourages authors to include a declaration of any conflicting interests and recommends that you review the good practice guidelines on the Sage Journal Author Gateway .

The Journal of Marketing Research is committed to facilitating openness, transparency, and reproducibility of research, and has a Policy for Research Transparency .  For more information, visit the Journal of Marketing Research Policy for Research Transparency page .

Subject to appropriate ethical and legal considerations, authors are encouraged to:

• Share your research data in a relevant public data repository
• Include a data availability statement linking to your data. If it is not possible to share your data, use the statement to confirm why it cannot be shared.
• Cite this data in your research

Peer reviewers may be asked to peer review the research data prior to publication.

• Peer reviewers may be asked to assess compliance with the research data policy
• Peer reviewers may be asked to assess research data files

If you need to anonymize your research data for peer review, please refer to Sage's  Research Data Sharing FAQs for guidance.

2.6.1 Falsification of Data/Misreporting of Data

See the  AMA Editorial Policies & Procedures page.

2.6.2 Replication Studies

Authors of direct replication studies seeking to replicate findings from an article published in the  Journal of Marketing Research who are unable to confirm the results or conclusions should contact Roland Rust, AMA Vice President of Publications, at [email protected] .

2.7 Decision appeal policy

See the  AMA Decision Appeal Policy page .

If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, the author may contact the publisher with a detailed written description of their concern, and information supporting the concern, at  [email protected] .

   Back to top

Sage is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ International Standards for Authors and view the Publication Ethics page on the Sage Author Gateway .

3.1.1 Plagiarism

The Journal of Marketing Research and Sage take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. Submitted articles are checked with duplication-checking software. Where an article, for example, is found to have plagiarized other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgment, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to, publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction), retracting the article, taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies, or taking appropriate legal action.

3.1.2 Prior publication

If material has been previously published, it is not generally acceptable for publication in the Journal of Marketing Research . However, there are certain circumstances where previously published material can be considered for publication; for example, the  Journal of Marketing Research will consider submissions of papers that have been posted on preprint servers or presented at conferences. Please refer to the  AMA Editorial Policies & Procedures , the guidance on the Sage Author Gateway or, if in doubt, contact the editorial office ( [email protected] ).

3.2 Contributor’s publishing agreement      

Before publication, Sage requires the author as the rights holder to sign a Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement. Sage’s Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement is an exclusive license agreement, which means that the author retains copyright in the work but grants Sage the sole and exclusive right and license to publish for the full legal term of copyright. Exceptions may exist where an assignment of copyright is required or preferred by a proprietor other than Sage. In this case, copyright in the work will be assigned from the author to the society. For more information, please visit the Sage Author Gateway .

The Journal of Marketing Research offers optional open access publishing via the Sage Choice programme and Open Access agreements, where authors can publish open access either discounted or free of charge depending on the agreement with Sage. Find out if your institution is participating by visiting Open Access Agreements at Sage . For more information on Open Access publishing options at Sage please visit Sage Open Access . For information on funding body compliance, and depositing your article in repositories, please visit Sage’s Author Archiving and Re-Use Guidelines and Publishing Policies .

4. Preparing your manuscript for submission

For templates and information about formatting, manuscript organization, manuscript components, web appendices, and references, see the  AMA Submission Guidelines page .

The Journal of Marketing Research is hosted on Sage Track, a web-based online submission and peer review system powered by ScholarOne™ Manuscripts. Visit https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ama_jmr to log in and submit your article online.

IMPORTANT: Please check whether you already have an account in the system before trying to create a new one. If you have reviewed or authored for the journal in the past year, it is likely that you will have had an account created. For further guidance on submitting your manuscript online please visit ScholarOne Online Help  or contact the editorial office ( [email protected] ).

As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent, and fair peer review process, Sage is a supporting member of ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID . ORCID provides a unique and persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher, even those who share the same name, and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities, ensuring that their work is recognized.

We encourage all authors and co-authors to link their ORCIDs to their accounts in our online peer review platforms. It takes seconds to do: click the link when prompted, sign into your ORCID account, and our systems are automatically updated. We collect ORCID IDs during the manuscript submission process, and your ORCID ID then becomes part of your accepted publication’s metadata, making your work attributable to you and only you. Your ORCID ID is published with your article so that fellow researchers reading your work can link to your ORCID profile and from there link to your other publications.

If you do not already have an ORCID ID, please follow this link to create one or visit Sage's  ORCID homepage to learn more.

You will be asked to provide contact details and academic affiliations for all co-authors via the submission system and identify who is to be the corresponding author. These details must match what appears on your manuscript. The affiliation listed in the manuscript should be the institution where the research was conducted. If an author has moved to a new institution since completing the research, the new affiliation can be included in a manuscript note at the end of the paper. At this stage, please ensure that you have included all the required statements and declarations and uploaded any additional supplementary files (including reporting guidelines where relevant).

Please also ensure that you have obtained any necessary permission from copyright holders for reproducing any illustrations, tables, figures, or lengthy quotations previously published elsewhere. For further information, including guidance on fair dealing for criticism and review, please see the Copyright and Permissions page on the Sage Author Gateway .

6. On acceptance and publication      

Within two days of acceptance, your article will be published on the journal’s Accepted Manuscripts page . Accepted or “express” manuscripts are unchanged from the final version of the manuscript submitted in Sage Track. This version of the article will remain posted until the article is edited, typeset, and moved to the Online First page.

When your article enters production, it will be copy edited by a member of the AMA’s editorial staff. You may contact the editorial office ( [email protected] ) regarding questions about your article’s progress throughout the production process. Proofs will be made available to the corresponding author via the Sage editing portal or by email, and corrections should be made directly or notified to us promptly. Authors are reminded to check their proofs carefully to confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence, and contact details are correct, and that Funding and Conflict of Interest statements, if any, are accurate. 

Online First allows final articles (completed and approved articles awaiting assignment to a future issue) to be published online prior to their inclusion in a journal issue, which significantly reduces the lead time between submission and publication. Visit the Sage Journals help page for more details, including how to cite Online First articles.

Sage provides authors with online access to their final article.

Publication is not the end of the process! You can help disseminate your paper and ensure that it is as widely read and cited as possible. The Sage Author Gateway has numerous resources to help you promote your work. Visit the Promote Your Article page on the Gateway for tips and advice.

Any correspondence, queries, or additional requests for information on the manuscript submission process should be sent to the Journal of Marketing Research ’s editorial office as follows: [email protected] .

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, E-access

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Marketing →

• 29 Feb 2024

Beyond Goals: David Beckham's Playbook for Mobilizing Star Talent

Reach soccer's pinnacle. Become a global brand. Buy a team. Sign Lionel Messi. David Beckham makes success look as easy as his epic free kicks. But leveraging world-class talent takes discipline and deft decision-making, as case studies by Anita Elberse reveal. What could other businesses learn from his ascent?

• 17 Jan 2024

Psychological Pricing Tactics to Fight the Inflation Blues

Inflation has slowed from the epic rates of 2021 and 2022, but many consumers still feel pinched. What will it take to encourage them to spend? Thoughtful pricing strategies that empower customers as they make purchasing decisions, says research by Elie Ofek.

• 05 Dec 2023
• Cold Call Podcast

What Founders Get Wrong about Sales and Marketing

Which sales candidate is a startup’s ideal first hire? What marketing channels are best to invest in? How aggressively should an executive team align sales with customer success? Senior Lecturer Mark Roberge discusses how early-stage founders, sales leaders, and marketing executives can address these challenges as they grow their ventures in the case, “Entrepreneurial Sales and Marketing Vignettes.”

Tommy Hilfiger’s Adaptive Clothing Line: Making Fashion Inclusive

In 2017, Tommy Hilfiger launched its adaptive fashion line to provide fashion apparel that aims to make dressing easier. By 2020, it was still a relatively unknown line in the U.S. and the Tommy Hilfiger team was continuing to learn more about how to serve these new customers. Should the team make adaptive clothing available beyond the U.S., or is a global expansion premature? Assistant Professor Elizabeth Keenan discusses the opportunities and challenges that accompanied the introduction of a new product line that effectively serves an entirely new customer while simultaneously starting a movement to provide fashion for all in the case, “Tommy Hilfiger Adaptive: Fashion for All.”

• Research & Ideas

Are Virtual Tours Still Worth It in Real Estate? Evidence from 75,000 Home Sales

Many real estate listings still feature videos and interactive tools that simulate the experience of walking through properties. But do they help homes sell faster? Research by Isamar Troncoso probes the post-pandemic value of virtual home tours.

• 17 Oct 2023

With Subscription Fatigue Setting In, Companies Need to Think Hard About Fees

Subscriptions are available for everything from dental floss to dog toys, but are consumers tiring of monthly fees? Elie Ofek says that subscription revenue can provide stability, but companies need to tread carefully or risk alienating customers.

• 29 Aug 2023

As Social Networks Get More Competitive, Which Ones Will Survive?

In early 2023, TikTok reached close to 1 billion users globally, placing it fourth behind the leading social networks: Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Meanwhile, competition in the market for videos had intensified. Can all four networks continue to attract audiences and creators? Felix Oberholzer-Gee discusses competition and imitation among social networks in his case “Hey, Insta & YouTube, Are You Watching TikTok?”

• 26 Jun 2023

Want to Leave a Lasting Impression on Customers? Don't Forget the (Proverbial) Fireworks

Some of the most successful customer experiences end with a bang. Julian De Freitas provides three tips to help businesses invest in the kind of memorable moments that will keep customers coming back.

• 31 May 2023

With Predictive Analytics, Companies Can Tap the Ultimate Opportunity: Customers’ Routines

Armed with more data than ever, many companies know what key customers need. But how many know exactly when they need it? An analysis of 2,000 ridesharing commuters by Eva Ascarza and colleagues shows what's possible for companies that can anticipate a customer's routine.

• 30 May 2023

Can AI Predict Whether Shoppers Would Pick Crest Over Colgate?

Is it the end of customer surveys? Definitely not, but research by Ayelet Israeli sheds light on the potential for generative AI to improve market research. But first, businesses will need to learn to harness the technology.

• 24 Apr 2023

What Does It Take to Build as Much Buzz as Booze? Inside the Epic Challenge of Cannabis-Infused Drinks

The market for cannabis products has exploded as more states legalize marijuana. But the path to success is rife with complexity as a case study about the beverage company Cann by Ayelet Israeli illustrates.

• 07 Apr 2023

When Celebrity ‘Crypto-Influencers’ Rake in Cash, Investors Lose Big

Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan, and other entertainers have been accused of promoting crypto products on social media without disclosing conflicts. Research by Joseph Pacelli shows what can happen to eager investors who follow them.

• 10 Feb 2023

COVID-19 Lessons: Social Media Can Nudge More People to Get Vaccinated

Social networks have been criticized for spreading COVID-19 misinformation, but the platforms have also helped public health agencies spread the word on vaccines, says research by Michael Luca and colleagues. What does this mean for the next pandemic?

• 02 Feb 2023

Why We Still Need Twitter: How Social Media Holds Companies Accountable

Remember the viral video of the United passenger being removed from a plane? An analysis of Twitter activity and corporate misconduct by Jonas Heese and Joseph Pacelli reveals the power of social media to uncover questionable situations at companies.

• 06 Dec 2022

Latest Isn’t Always Greatest: Why Product Updates Capture Consumers

Consumers can't pass up a product update—even if there's no improvement. Research by Leslie John, Michael Norton, and Ximena Garcia-Rada illustrates the powerful allure of change. Are we really that naïve?

• 29 Nov 2022

How Much More Would Holiday Shoppers Pay to Wear Something Rare?

Economic worries will make pricing strategy even more critical this holiday season. Research by Chiara Farronato reveals the value that hip consumers see in hard-to-find products. Are companies simply making too many goods?

• 26 Oct 2022

How Paid Promos Take the Shine Off YouTube Stars (and Tips for Better Influencer Marketing)

Influencers aspire to turn "likes" into dollars through brand sponsorships, but these deals can erode their reputations, says research by Shunyuan Zhang. Marketers should seek out authentic voices on YouTube, not necessarily those with the most followers.

• 25 Oct 2022

Is Baseball Ready to Compete for the Next Generation of Fans?

With its slower pace and limited on-field action, major league baseball trails football in the US, basketball, and European soccer in revenue and popularity. Stephen Greyser discusses the state of "America's pastime."

• 18 Oct 2022

When Bias Creeps into AI, Managers Can Stop It by Asking the Right Questions

Even when companies actively try to prevent it, bias can sway algorithms and skew decision-making. Ayelet Israeli and Eva Ascarza offer a new approach to make artificial intelligence more accurate.

• 08 Aug 2022

Building an 'ARMY' of Fans: Marketing Lessons from K-Pop Sensation BTS

Few companies can boast a customer base as loyal and engaged as BTS fans. In a case study, Doug Chung shares what marketers can learn from the boyband's savvy use of social media and authentic connection with listeners.

Recovering Overlooked Information in Categorical Variables with LLMs: An Application to Labor Market Mismatch

Categorical variables have no intrinsic ordering, and researchers often adopt a fixed-effect (FE) approach in empirical analysis. However, this approach has two significant limitations: it overlooks textual labels associated with the categorical variables; and it produces unstable results when there are only limited observations in a category. In this paper, we propose a novel method that utilizes recent advances in large language models (LLMs) to recover overlooked information in categorical variables. We apply this method to investigate labor market mismatch. Specifically, we task LLMs with simulating the role of a human resources specialist to assess the suitability of an applicant with specific characteristics for a given job. Our main findings can be summarized in three parts. First, using comprehensive administrative data from an online job posting platform, we show that our new match quality measure is positively correlated with several traditional measures in the literature, and at the same time, we highlight the LLM's capability to provide additional information conditional on the traditional measures. Second, we demonstrate the broad applicability of the new method with a survey data containing significantly less information than the administrative data, which makes it impossible to compute most of the traditional match quality measures. Our LLM measure successfully replicates most of the salient patterns observed in a hard-to-access administrative dataset using easily accessible survey data. Third, we investigate the gender gap in match quality and explore whether there exists gender stereotypes in the hiring process. We simulate an audit study, examining whether revealing gender information to LLMs influences their assessment. We show that when gender information is disclosed to the GPT, the model deems females better suited for traditionally female-dominated roles.

This paper was presented at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Jinan University, Shanghai Jiaotong University, and the 25th Quarterly Forum of China Labor Economists Forum. We are grateful for the feedback from all the participants. All remaining errors are our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Working Groups

More from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Gender pay gap in U.S. hasn’t changed much in two decades

The gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 20 years or so. In 2022, women earned an average of 82% of what men earned, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. These results are similar to where the pay gap stood in 2002, when women earned 80% as much as men.

As has long been the case, the wage gap is smaller for workers ages 25 to 34 than for all workers 16 and older. In 2022, women ages 25 to 34 earned an average of 92 cents for every dollar earned by a man in the same age group – an 8-cent gap. By comparison, the gender pay gap among workers of all ages that year was 18 cents.

While the gender pay gap has not changed much in the last two decades, it has narrowed considerably when looking at the longer term, both among all workers ages 16 and older and among those ages 25 to 34. The estimated 18-cent gender pay gap among all workers in 2022 was down from 35 cents in 1982. And the 8-cent gap among workers ages 25 to 34 in 2022 was down from a 26-cent gap four decades earlier.

The gender pay gap measures the difference in median hourly earnings between men and women who work full or part time in the United States. Pew Research Center’s estimate of the pay gap is based on an analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) monthly outgoing rotation group files ( IPUMS ) from January 1982 to December 2022, combined to create annual files. To understand how we calculate the gender pay gap, read our 2013 post, “How Pew Research Center measured the gender pay gap.”

The COVID-19 outbreak affected data collection efforts by the U.S. government in its surveys, especially in 2020 and 2021, limiting in-person data collection and affecting response rates. It is possible that some measures of economic outcomes and how they vary across demographic groups are affected by these changes in data collection.

In addition to findings about the gender wage gap, this analysis includes information from a Pew Research Center survey about the perceived reasons for the pay gap, as well as the pressures and career goals of U.S. men and women. The survey was conducted among 5,098 adults and includes a subset of questions asked only for 2,048 adults who are employed part time or full time, from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

The  U.S. Census Bureau has also analyzed the gender pay gap, though its analysis looks only at full-time workers (as opposed to full- and part-time workers). In 2021, full-time, year-round working women earned 84% of what their male counterparts earned, on average, according to the Census Bureau’s most recent analysis.

Much of the gender pay gap has been explained by measurable factors such as educational attainment, occupational segregation and work experience. The narrowing of the gap over the long term is attributable in large part to gains women have made in each of these dimensions.

Related: The Enduring Grip of the Gender Pay Gap

Even though women have increased their presence in higher-paying jobs traditionally dominated by men, such as professional and managerial positions, women as a whole continue to be overrepresented in lower-paying occupations relative to their share of the workforce. This may contribute to gender differences in pay.

Other factors that are difficult to measure, including gender discrimination, may also contribute to the ongoing wage discrepancy.

Perceived reasons for the gender wage gap

When asked about the factors that may play a role in the gender wage gap, half of U.S. adults point to women being treated differently by employers as a major reason, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in October 2022. Smaller shares point to women making different choices about how to balance work and family (42%) and working in jobs that pay less (34%).

There are some notable differences between men and women in views of what’s behind the gender wage gap. Women are much more likely than men (61% vs. 37%) to say a major reason for the gap is that employers treat women differently. And while 45% of women say a major factor is that women make different choices about how to balance work and family, men are slightly less likely to hold that view (40% say this).

Parents with children younger than 18 in the household are more likely than those who don’t have young kids at home (48% vs. 40%) to say a major reason for the pay gap is the choices that women make about how to balance family and work. On this question, differences by parental status are evident among both men and women.

Views about reasons for the gender wage gap also differ by party. About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (68%) say a major factor behind wage differences is that employers treat women differently, but far fewer Republicans and Republican leaners (30%) say the same. Conversely, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say women’s choices about how to balance family and work (50% vs. 36%) and their tendency to work in jobs that pay less (39% vs. 30%) are major reasons why women earn less than men.

Democratic and Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts in the same party to say a major reason for the gender wage gap is that employers treat women differently. About three-quarters of Democratic women (76%) say this, compared with 59% of Democratic men. And while 43% of Republican women say unequal treatment by employers is a major reason for the gender wage gap, just 18% of GOP men share that view.

Pressures facing working women and men

Family caregiving responsibilities bring different pressures for working women and men, and research has shown that being a mother can reduce women’s earnings , while fatherhood can increase men’s earnings .

Employed women and men are about equally likely to say they feel a great deal of pressure to support their family financially and to be successful in their jobs and careers, according to the Center’s October survey. But women, and particularly working mothers, are more likely than men to say they feel a great deal of pressure to focus on responsibilities at home.

About half of employed women (48%) report feeling a great deal of pressure to focus on their responsibilities at home, compared with 35% of employed men. Among working mothers with children younger than 18 in the household, two-thirds (67%) say the same, compared with 45% of working dads.

When it comes to supporting their family financially, similar shares of working moms and dads (57% vs. 62%) report they feel a great deal of pressure, but this is driven mainly by the large share of unmarried working mothers who say they feel a great deal of pressure in this regard (77%). Among those who are married, working dads are far more likely than working moms (60% vs. 43%) to say they feel a great deal of pressure to support their family financially. (There were not enough unmarried working fathers in the sample to analyze separately.)

About four-in-ten working parents say they feel a great deal of pressure to be successful at their job or career. These findings don’t differ by gender.

Gender differences in job roles, aspirations

Overall, a quarter of employed U.S. adults say they are currently the boss or one of the top managers where they work, according to the Center’s survey. Another 33% say they are not currently the boss but would like to be in the future, while 41% are not and do not aspire to be the boss or one of the top managers.

Men are more likely than women to be a boss or a top manager where they work (28% vs. 21%). This is especially the case among employed fathers, 35% of whom say they are the boss or one of the top managers where they work. (The varying attitudes between fathers and men without children at least partly reflect differences in marital status and educational attainment between the two groups.)

In addition to being less likely than men to say they are currently the boss or a top manager at work, women are also more likely to say they wouldn’t want to be in this type of position in the future. More than four-in-ten employed women (46%) say this, compared with 37% of men. Similar shares of men (35%) and women (31%) say they are not currently the boss but would like to be one day. These patterns are similar among parents.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on March 22, 2019. Anna Brown and former Pew Research Center writer/editor Amanda Barroso contributed to an earlier version of this analysis. Here are the questions used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

What is the gender wage gap in your metropolitan area? Find out with our pay gap calculator

• Gender & Work
• Gender Equality & Discrimination
• Gender Pay Gap
• Gender Roles

Women have gained ground in the nation’s highest-paying occupations, but still lag behind men

Diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace, the enduring grip of the gender pay gap, more than twice as many americans support than oppose the #metoo movement, women now outnumber men in the u.s. college-educated labor force, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Marketing research on Mobile apps: past, present and future

• Review Paper
• Published: 08 November 2021
• Volume 50 , pages 195–225, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Lara Stocchi 1 ,
• Naser Pourazad 2 ,
• Nina Michaelidou 3 ,
• Arry Tanusondjaja 1 &
• Paul Harrigan 4  

50k Accesses

48 Citations

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

We present an integrative review of existing marketing research on mobile apps, clarifying and expanding what is known around how apps shape customer experiences and value across iterative customer journeys, leading to the attainment of competitive advantage, via apps (in instances of apps attached to an existing brand) and for apps (when the app is the brand). To synthetize relevant knowledge, we integrate different conceptual bases into a unified framework, which simplifies the results of an in-depth bibliographic analysis of 471 studies. The synthesis advances marketing research by combining customer experience, customer journey, value creation and co-creation, digital customer orientation, market orientation, and competitive advantage. This integration of knowledge also furthers scientific marketing research on apps, facilitating future developments on the topic and promoting expertise exchange between academia and industry.

Similar content being viewed by others

Mobile Applications, the Economics of

Understanding Perceived Values and Behavioral Effects of Mobile Apps: An Abstract

The role of transactionality of mobile branded apps in brand experience and its impact on loyalty

Daria Plotkina & Landisoa Rabeson

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Mobile apps, or apps in short, have been defined as the ultimate marketing vehicle (Watson, McCarthy and Rowley 2013 ) and a staple promotional tactic (Rohm, Gao, Sultan and Pagani 2012 ) to attract business ‘on the go’ (Fang 2019 ). They yield great potential for customer engagement due to specific characteristics (e.g., vividness, novelty and built-in features, see Kim, Lin and Sung 2013 ), supporting one-to-one and one-to-many interactions (Watson et al. 2013 ) and facilitating exchanges without time or location-based restrictions (Alnawas and Aburub 2016 ). In essence, apps translate communication efforts into interactive customer experiences heightening cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses (Kim and Yu 2016 ). For example, apps support value-generating activities such as making purchases and accessing information (Natarajan, Balasubramanian and Kasilingam 2017 ). Accordingly, apps offer firms multiple opportunities to achieve marketing objectives, influencing and shaping the customer journey (Wang, Kim and Malthouse 2016a ). Overall, apps also allow firms to realize a digital customer orientation and to attain competitive advantages through the provision of superior customer experiences (Kopalle, Kumar and Subramaniam 2020 ).

Over the last decade, the popularity of apps continued to increase (currently, there are more than 2.87 million apps available, Buildfire 2021 ) and, although apps’ growth has gradually slowed down, they remain at the heart of digital marketing strategies, impacting economies worldwide (Arora, Hofstede and Mahajan 2017 ). For instance, in the US, apps drive about 60% of digital media consumption (Fang 2019 ) and 90% of the top 100 global brands offer one or more apps (Tseng and Lee 2018 ). Apps also generate significant economic results thanks to attaining prolonged media exposure and consumer spending. For example, the TikTok app generates over one billion video views every day (Influencer Marketing Hub 2018 ; Iqbal 2019 ) and has attracted $50 million in consumer spending last year, on top of advertising revenues (Williams 2020 ). The global health and financial crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic further illustrates the pivotal role apps play in facilitating business survival and reigniting customer experiences—see the instance of the Zoom app, which generated $2.6 billion revenue in 2020 (Sensortower 2020 ).

An increase in academic research on apps has matched their growth in popularity. Marketing is no exception to this trend; however, it lacks a state-of-the-art integrative review , which hinders the advancement of this field of inquiry. Integrative reviews offer new insights as a result of synthesis and critique, and are crucial for new knowledge generation (Elsbach and van Knippenberg 2020 ). Importantly, integrative reviews form the basis for justification or validation of established knowledge (MacInnis 2011 ); they also “identify new ways of conceiving a given field or phenomenon” (Post, Sarala, Gattrell and Prescott 2020 , p.354). Moreover, in addition to their substantiative theoretical contribution, integrative reviews typically facilitate the exchange of knowledge between academia and industry. Based on this reasoning, the present study has two research objectives. The first objective ( RO1 ) is to synthesize existing research on apps to sharpen scholarly understanding of their key role in marketing and customer experiences. To do so, we review established findings through the theoretical lens of the customer journey (Lemon and Verhoef 2016 ), which we modify and extend to establish conceptual links with digital customer orientation , market orientation and competitive advantage . As illustrated, the factor that connects these concepts and explicates apps’ relevance to marketing is value (including value co-creation ). The second objective ( RO2 ) involves offering a series of directions for future research based on priority knowledge gaps. The ultimate goal is to define future research paths for marketing scholars, while promoting knowledge and data exchange between academia and practice.

Comprehensively, this study constitutes the most extensive attempt in the marketing literature to integrate and review the full breadth of publications on apps and significantly differs from existing reviews (e.g., Ström, Vendel and Bredican 2014 ; Nysveen, Pedersen and Skard 2015 ). In particular, we synthesize 471 bibliometric sources, maintaining a clearer delineation between mobile technologies in general vs. apps. Our review also covers all types of apps and includes a unified conceptual framework—two further limitations of prior attempts (e.g., Tyrväinen and Karjaluato 2019 ; Mondal and Chakrabarti 2019 ).

Review approach

In line with past studies (e.g., Groenewald 2004 ; Mkono 2013 ), we used a semi-inductive approach to integrate and review marketing knowledge on apps. Specifically, as appropriate when reviewing fields that are not yet stabilized (Roma and Ragaglia 2016 ), we first conducted a bibliometric analysis to identify relevant sources, mapping the overall knowledge field via quantitative assessment of authors, references and citations (Culnan et al. 1990 ). We followed the same procedure as Samiee and Chabowski ( 2012 ), which begins with identifying keywords. In this regard, we drew upon extant literature on apps (e.g., Mondal and Chakrabarti 2019 ) to collate sources, which contained in the title, abstract or keywords any of the following terms: mobile application(s), mobile app(s), mobile phone application(s), mobile phone app(s), smartphone application(s), smartphone app(s), and apps(s). This selection aligns with past studies (e.g., Radler 2018 ) and reflects synonyms of apps used in real life. We also narrowed down the bibliometric data to sources with a clear marketing focus by screening for terms such as marketing , consumer or customer in the title, abstract or keywords. At times, this approach resulted in the inclusion of sources outside the confines of marketing research (e.g., technology and information system and/or management). Following a similar protocol to others (e.g., Wang, Zhao and Wang 2015 ; Mondal and Chakrabarti 2019 ), we located all sources from the Scopus database, concentrating on articles published in the last two decades—a timeframe, which captures seminal studies and more recent research. The second step of the review process involved screening all bibliometric sources to identify recurring themes and established findings. Following recent guidelines for developing insightful reviews (Hulland and Houston 2020 ), this intuitive review step also entailed locating and examining additional bibliometric sources not included in the initial data frame. The Web Appendix describes all sources examined (471) and a full-length bibliography.

Superordinate theoretical lens

To present the outcomes of our integrative review, we modify and expand the scope of the customer journey by Lemon and Verhoef ( 2016 ). This framework is applicable to different consumption contexts and simplifies the complexity resulting from seemingly disconnected theoretical bases. Moreover, it serves as a useful basis to understand and manage customer experiences . Customer experiences combine cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sensory and social aspects related to distinct consumption stages and touchpoints (see Verhoef, Lemon, Parasuraman, Roggeveen, Tsiros and Schlesinger 2009 ; Becker and Jaakkola 2020 ). In relation to apps, McLean, Al-Nabhani and Wilson ( 2018 ) highlight that the experiential (or journey) factor has been neglected thus far. This knowledge void is surprising, since apps are considered catalysts of ‘new’ customer experiences due to being a unique source of customer value . Nonetheless, apps call for critical modifications of Lemon and Verhoef’s ( 2016 ) framework, as follows.

First, we synthesize research across three journey stages: pre-adoption , adoption and post-adoption. Footnote 1 The pre-adoption stage concerns customer experiences and decision-making before app adoption, which shape consumer predispositions toward the app. In more detail, this stage captures the theoretical links between positive consumer attitudes, individual characteristics and the intention to download, adopt or use the app; it also includes firm/brand-initiated strategies to enhance consumer predispositions. The adoption stage includes customer experiences inherent to the continuation of the consumer decision-making process past initial predispositions, which signal app download and use . Experiences arise from firm/brand-initiated strategies and associated consumer reactions; they also originate from consumer characteristics likely to impact the choice of an app. Moreover, this stage includes activities that signify adoption such as using the app (e.g., mobile shopping). The post-adoption stage involves all customer experiences following adoption and resulting from ongoing app usage such as stickiness —i.e., the intention to continue using the app and frequency of app usage (Racherla, Furner and Babb 2012 ); and engagement (e.g., Kim et al. 2013 ; Wu 2015 ; Fang 2017 )—i.e., “a customer’s voluntary resource contribution to a firm’s marketing function, going beyond financial patronage” (Harmeling, Moffett, Arnold and Carlson 2017 , p.312). This final stage also includes relevant outcomes for the app and for the brand behind the app such as brand loyalty and customer satisfaction.

In line with Lemon and Verhoef’s ( 2016 ) assumptions, we contend the distinction between the three customer journey stages to be conceptually and practically fluid. Specifically, the adoption and post-adoption stages are blurred by a seamless feedback loop , since the decision-making process underpinning app adoption is likely to start from pre-adoption predispositions, and to be re-lived during activities that signify adoption whilst also shaping crucial post-adoption outcomes. However, for practical purposes, we distinguished bibliometric sources related to each stage by focusing on the focal concept or key dependent variable discussed in each source. For instance, we considered studies on intentions to adopt the app for pre-adoption; studies on app usage were examined for the adoption stage; and studies on stickiness and engagement were reviewed in relation to post-adoption.

A second modification of the original framework concerns the touchpoints. In more detail, we integrate brand-owned and partner-owned touchpoints , which are designed, managed and controlled by the firm and/or other partners (e.g., developers and app stores) due to the unique business model of app stores (Jung, Baek and Lee 2012 ); and consumer-owned and social touchpoints , which are out of the firm’s direct control, highlighting the extraordinary level of direct consumer involvement with apps through seamless feedback mechanisms—e.g., through customer ratings and reviews. Based on apps’ ubiquitous nature (Tojib and Tsarenko 2012 ), we also consider these touchpoints as “ always-on” points of interaction with a pervasive impact across all stages. For instance, taking the app’s marketing mix as an example (a key brand and partner-owned touchpoint), we assume it to impact consumer initial predispositions toward the app (pre-adoption); app usage (adoption) and consumer responses to the app (post-adoption).

Finally, to further enhance the theoretical and managerial contributions made, we expand the framework’s scope by linking it to customer orientation and competitive advantage via the broad notion of customer value . Kopalle et al. ( 2020 ) clarify that any brand or firm can harvest market opportunities by embracing a digital customer orientation . Digital customer orientation occurs “when the customization and enrichment of the experience delivered by a firm is in real-time and based on the in-use feedback from customers” (Kopalle et al. p. 115). This definition requires a platform for information sharing, real-time insights and context-driven value creation and co-creation . Apps are ideal platforms, as consumers can easily act as integrators of value and resources throughout the customer journey. For example, the business model of app stores hinges on user feedback and information exchange across the supply chain, extending the scope of apps to a broad service delivery network (Tax, McCutcheon and Wilkinson 2013 ). Apps are also viewed as dynamic packages of service provision (see Piccoli, Brohman, Watson and Parasuraman 2009 ), or ‘bundles’ of stimuli, functionalities and experiences that facilitate value creation and co-creation inherent to the appscape (Kumar, Purani and Viswanathan 2018 ; Lee 2018b ). Finally, apps are a pivotal source of hyper-contextualized consumer insights, which can be turned into market intelligence (Tong et al. 2020 ). By making consumer insights and market intelligence part of inter-functional coordination and strategic implementation (Narver and Slater 1990 ; Deshpandé, Farley and Webster 1993 ; Lafferty and Hult 2001 ), firms can consistently deliver superior customer value, attaining market orientation and competitive advantages via apps (when the app is linked to an existing brand) and for apps (when the app is the brand) .

Pre-adoption stage

Empirical research on the pre-adoption stage is abundant and focuses on two aspects that initiate the consumer decision-making process shaping consumer predispositions toward the app, driving the intention to download and/or adopt an app over other alternatives: the technological features and benefits consumers seek; and specific individual consumer characteristics . In contrast, research exploring different strategies for encouraging apps adoption is scarce. Table  1 summarizes existing theoretical approaches inherent to this stage, together with future research themes and examples of priority research questions.

Initiation of the consumer decision-making process

Technological features and benefits sought.

Extant research extensively documents technological features and benefits that consumers seek in apps, using the Technology Adoption Model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw 1989 ) and modifications of it, including conceptual models that combine technology adoption with Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers 2005) and Uses and Gratification (U&G) theory (Mcguire 1974 , Eighmey and McCord 1998 ). In particular, past research consistently highlights the following key pre-adoption drivers. First, incentives of technology adoption such as usefulness, ease of use and enjoyment—all confirmed to enhance consumer positive attitudes and/or evaluations of an app, thus underpinning the intention to download and/or adopt the app (Bruner and Kumar 2005 ; Hong and Tam 2006 ; Karaiskos, Drossos, Tsiaousis, Giaglis and Fouskas 2012 ; Ko, Kim and Lee 2009 ; Maity 2010 ; Wang and Li 2012 ; Kim, Yoon and Han 2016b ; Li 2018 ; Stocchi, Michaelidou and Micevski 2019 ). Second, numerous studies stress the importance of value perceptions (Peng, Chen and Wen 2014 ; Zhu, So and Hudson 2017 ; Zolkepli, Mukhiar and Tan 2020 ), especially perceptions of convenience (Kim, Park and Oh 2008 ; Kang, Mun and Johnson 2015 ); novelty, accuracy and precision (Ho 2012 ); locatability (i.e., identifiability in space and time); and, more broadly, apps’ quality (Noh and Lee 2016 ). Studies also highlight apps’ potential to create positive consumer predispositions via personalization (Tan and Chou 2008 ; Wang and Li 2012 ; Watson et al. 2013 ; Li 2018 ); pleasant aesthetics (Stocchi et al. 2019 ; Kumar et al. 2018 ; Lee and Kim 2019 ); and the perceived monetary value (Hong and Tam 2006 ; Kim et al. 2008 ; Venkatesh, Thong and Xu 2012 ), which often counterbalances effort expectancy (Kang et al. 2015 ). Third, past research often explains the pre-adoption decision-making process via concentrating on medium characteristics such as apps’ compatibility, controllability, connectivity and service availability (Kim et al. 2008 ; Ko et al. 2009 ; Lu, Yang, Chau and Cao 2011 ; Mallat, Rossi, Tuunainen and Öörni 2009 ; Tan and Chou 2008 ; Wu and Wang 2005 ); and medium richness (Lee, Cheung and Chen 2007 ). Similarly, other research focuses on consumer’s positive attitudes resulting evaluations of the technology provider such as reputation (Chandra, Srivastava and Theng 2010 ) and communicativeness (Khalifa, Cheng and Shen 2012 ); or network factors including synergies with other channels (Kim et al. 2008 ) and app popularity (Picoto, Duarte and Pinto 2019 ).

The same technological features and benefits discussed so far are recurrently mentioned within industry reports explaining how to attract app users (e.g., IBM Cloud Education 2020 ; Babich 2017 ; Payne 2021 ). Nonetheless, there is a limited understanding of which combinations of technological features and benefits sought most impact the intention to download and/or adopt an app. Such insights could originate from experimental studies shedding light on how consumers choose an app over alternatives. There is also scope for longitudinal analyses of which technological features most impact app market performance.

Individual characteristics

Several marketing studies catalogue individual consumer characteristics that drive the intention to adopt an app, stemming from a combination of personality traits theory (McCrae, Costa 1987 ; John and Srivastava 1999 ), consumer involvement theory (Richins and Bloch 1986 ; Mittal 1989 ), and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen 1991 ; Azjen 1980 ). Combining these theories, it is possible to identify the following recurring drivers. First, we find studies highlighting the relevance of generic factors likely to influence consumer pre-dispositions at the early stages of any decision-making process, such as consumer involvement (Taylor and Levin 2014 ), inertia (Wang, Ou and Chen 2019 ), consumer experience (Lee and Kim 2019 ; Kim et al. 2013 ) and past behavior (Atkinson 2013 ; Ho 2012 ; Kang et al. 2015 ). We also find research highlighting the impact of behavioral control and self-efficacy (Kleijnen, de Ruyter and Wetzels 2007 ; Maity 2010 ; Sripalawat, Thongmak and Ngramyarn 2011 ; Wang, Lin and Luarn 2006 ), social norm (Hong and Tam 2006 ; Karaiskos et al. 2012 ; Lu et al. 2007 , 2008 ) and motives (Bruner and Kumar 2005 ). Second, we find research remarking the importance of key individual differences, such as consumer demographics (Yang 2005 ; Carter and Yeo 2016 ; Veríssimo 2018 ; Hur, Lee and Choo 2017 ), lifestyle (Kim and Lee 2018 ), personality (Xu, Peak and Prybutok 2015 ; Frey, Xu and Ilic 2017 ) and individual traits like innovativeness (Lu, Wang and Yu 2007 ; Liu, Yu and Wang 2008 ; Hur et al. 2017 ; Karjaluoto, Shaikh, Saarijärvi and Saraniemi 2019 ), optimism (Kumar and Mukherjee 2013 ) and mavenism (Atkinson 2013 ).

Despite the great emphasis on these aspects, there is a scope for new studies examining their implications for apps avoidance (i.e., not wanting to adopt an app) and apps resistance (i.e., opposing or postponing app adoption). Furthermore, it is crucial to investigate apps’ re-adoption , since many apps are downloaded but abandoned shortly afterwards (Baek and Yoo 2018 ). Such new research endeavors can shed further light on app abandonment caused by sampling (Roggeveen, Grewal and Schweiger 2020 ), meeting industry needs. In fact, industry reports lament that only one in four users use apps one day after the download, and within three months after download over 70% of the app users have churned (Kim 2019 ).

Route to introduction (strategies for encouraging app adoption)

Existing research exploring strategies that encourage app adoption primarily draws from industry trends, as opposed to empirical evidence or conceptual work (see Zhao and Balagué 2015 ). Hence, the need for new frameworks outlining and evaluating strategies for apps’ introduction is pressing. In particular, there is scope for empirical studies assessing the effectiveness of alternative market introduction strategies for different app types. For example, future research on pre-adoption of apps linked to existing brands could compare apps against other brand touchpoints (see also Peng et al. 2014 ; Wang et al. 2016a ). Similarly, future research on pre-adoption of standalone apps could concentrate on appraising the implications of the app’s marketing mix (discussed later on in this integrative review).

Adoption stage

The adoption stage of the customer journey for apps and via apps covers the continuation of the consumer decision-making process until app adoption, including any activities that signify adoption—e.g., behaviors resulting from using the app such as mobile shopping and in-app purchases . Table  2 combines theoretical approaches used to explore these aspects; it also lists key themes for future research, alongside examples of unanswered questions.

Continuation of the consumer decision-making process

Past studies focus on technological features and benefits sought, or on individual consumer characteristics also in relation to the pre-adoption stage. In relation to the first aspect, many scholars confirm the importance of the same pre-adoption drivers (e.g., ease of use, usefulness and enjoyment), either directly or via attitudes and/or intentions (see Gao, Rohm, Sultan and Pagani 2013 ; Huang, Lin and Chuang 2007 ; Koenig-Lewis, Marquet, Palmer and Zhao 2015 ; Veríssimo 2018 ; Stocchi, Pourazad and Michaelidou 2020a ). Past research also highlights new drivers such as mobility value (i.e., the combination of convenience, expediency and immediacy, see Huang et al. 2007 ) and ubiquity (i.e., the possibility to access products and services “anytime, anywhere”, see Tojib and Tsarenko 2012 ). Other drivers of app adoption and/or use include trust (Chong, Chan and Ooi 2012 ), device compatibility (Wu and Wang 2005 ), app price (Malhotra and Malhotra 2009 ), provider reputation (Chandra et al. 2010 ), consumer experiential learning (Grant and O’Donohoe 2007 ) and perceived media flow (Wu and Ye 2013 ). In terms of individual characteristics, extant studies confirm the same range of factors as in pre-adoption (Mort and Drennan 2007 ; Bhave, Jain and Roy 2013 ; Byun, Chiu and Bae 2018 ; Taylor, Voelker and Pentina 2011 ; Yang 2013 ; Kang et al. 2015 ). Research also highlights the importance of consumer motives (Jin and Villegas 2008 ), social influence (Chong et al. 2012 ), attachment with the device (Rohm, Gao, Sultan and Pagani 2012 ) and self-to-app connection (Newman, Wachter and White 2018 ). Additionally, some studies reveal further important individual level factors such as consumer innovativeness (Lewis et al. 2015), consumer knowledge (Koenig-Lewis et al. 2015 ), personality (Pentina, Zhang, Bata and Chen 2016 ; Fang 2017 ) and a sense of self (Scholz and Duffy 2018 ). Moreover, several studies uncover new drivers such as escapism (Grant and O’Donohoe 2007 ), playfulness and drive stimulation (Mahatanankoon, Wen and Lim 2005 ). There are also studies highlighting the importance of usage values (Liu, Zhao and Li 2017 ) and advantages (Zolkepli et al. 2020 ; Newman, Wachter and White 2018 ; Arya, Sethi and Paul 2019 ), including information needs (Alavi and Ahuja 2016 ) and usage preferences (Doub, Levin, Heath and LeVangie ( 2018 ); Cheng, Fang, Hong and Yang 2017 ) such as browsing (Kim, Kim, Choi and Trivedi 2017 ).

The range of theoretical approaches underpinning the research mentioned so far is broad. For example, we find theories not explored for pre-adoption like experiential learning theory (Kolb 1984 ), media flow theory (Wu and Ye 2013 ), motivation theory (Herzberg, Mausner and Bloch-Snyderman 1959 ) and the self-concept (Sirgy 1982 ). Nonetheless, a common aspect connecting these seemingly disparate theoretical bases is the notion of value. Specifically, there is an emphasis on different types of consumer values (e.g., utilitarian and hedonic) assumed to encourage the shift from the intention to adopt an app to actual adoption and/or use. Although this assumption is plausible and empirically sound, there is scope for new investigations outlining the consumer decision-making process resulting in app adoption and/or use in greater detail. For instance, scholars could adapt conceptual frameworks explicating how consumers evaluate brands for choice (e.g., Keller 1993 ).

Behaviors that signal adoption

The industry distinguishes 33 app categories in the Google Play store and 24 categories in the Apple’s App Store, out of which popular app categories (i.e., categories with an uptake greater than 3%) include apps linked to retailers, games and lifestyle apps (Think Mobile 2021 ). Considering these popular app categories, two key behaviors signaling adoption echo the focus of extant marketing studies: mobile shopping via apps and in-app purchasing .

Mobile shopping

Past research clarifies the factors that encourage purchasing via the app and the intention to purchase the brand powering the app (when the app is linked to an existing offline or online brand). In terms of factors that encourage purchases via the app vs. other channels, extant studies identify the importance of positive customer experiences , especially the speed of transactions, security and user-friendliness that apps can provide (Buellingen and Woerter 2004 ; Figge 2014 ); consumer participation, flexibility and technology quality (Mäki and Kokko 2017 ; Dacko 2017 ); location awareness and interactivity (Wang et al. 2016a ); and access to information and promotions (Magrath and McCormick 2013 ). Extant research also discusses the relevance of the customer’s overall interest in the app (Taylor and Levin 2014 ) and specific apps’ attributes (e.g., ease of use and connection with the self) as drivers of the intention to purchase via the app over the physical store (Newman et al. 2018 ), often due to heightening buying impulses (Wu and Ye 2013 ; Chadha, Alavi and Ahuja 2017 ). Finally, past studies highlight two factors that underpin the intention to purchase the brand powering the app: the provision of holistic brand experiences (Wang and Li 2012 ; Kim and Yu 2016 ; Chen 2017 ; Fang 2017 ) and and app usability (i.e., “the extent to which a mobile app can be used to achieve a specified task effectively during brand-consumer interactions” Baek and Yoo 2018 , p. 72).

Considering the above, more research is needed to clarify how purchases via apps occur, including any facilitating or inhibiting factors, as these strongly correspond with industry priorities. Indeed, industry experts call for more insights on how personalized content and push notifications might encourage purchasing via the app (Anblicks 2017 ; Tariq 2020 ). Such future research extensions could also reinforce rather scattered theoretical bases, which primarily include expectancy theory (Vroom 1964 ), motivation theory (Herzberg et al. 1959 ), Uses and Gratifications (U&G) theory (Mcguire 1974 ) and customer satisfaction theory (Churchill Jr. and Surprenant 1982 ). Finally, in terms of apps attached to existing brands, future research could evaluate the impact on brand sales and/or other brand performance indicators. For example, future studies could consider the effects of apps as a tool to enhance a brand’s availability in consumer’s memory, ultimately impacting brand purchase intentions (see Sharp 2010 ; Romaniuk and Sharp 2016 ).

In-app purchasing

Research predicting in-app purchases highlights, as key drivers, perceived app value (i.e., quality, value for money, social and emotional value—see Hsu and Lin 2015 ; and Hsiao and Chen 2016 ) and features of the app that motivate app use (Stocchi, Michaelidou, Pourazad and Micevski 2018 ; Stocchi et al. 2019 ). Extant studies also remark the importance of personality traits such as bargain proneness, frugality and extraversion (Dinsmore, Swani and Dugan 2017 ), and price sensitivity , which Natarajan et al. ( 2017 ) found to alter perceptions of risk, usefulness, enjoyment and personal innovativeness, via customer satisfaction (see also Kübler, Pauwels, Yildrim and Fandrich 2018 ). Since the conceptual focus and scope of extant studies is somewhat confined, future research could expand the theoretical bases used by considering established patterns and regularities in buying behavior (see the work of Sharp 2010 ; and Romaniuk and Sharp 2016 ).

Post-adoption stage

The post-adoption stage concerns two aspects: ongoing or continued app usage, explored through the notions of stickiness and engagement ; and outcomes of app adoption for the app itself and for the brand behind the app , as applicable. Table  3 maps extant theoretical approaches vs. outstanding research themes and priorities linked to these aspects, with examples of research questions yet to be explored (Fig. 1 ).

Unified theoretical framework

Ongoing (continued) app usage

App stickiness.

Racherla, Furner and Babb ( 2012 ) and Furner, Racherla and Babb ( 2014 ) link app stickiness to telepresence , which comprises two dimensions: vividness and interactivity . Vividness influences a medium’s ability to induce a sense of presence resulting from its breadth (sensory dimensions and cues) and depth (quality of presentation). Interactivity is the extent to which users can modify the medium’s form and content in real-time. Similarly, Chang ( 2015 ) and Xu et al. ( 2015 ) explore loyalty towards apps focusing on perceived value and customer satisfaction. Other studies concentrate on the continued intention to use an app , highlighting the importance of consumer perceptions of apps’ features (Kim, Baek, Kim and Yoo 2016 ), especially design, functionality and social features (Tarute, Nikou and Gatautis 2017a ). For example, Tseng and Lee ( 2018 ) confirm that improving loyalty towards branded apps can be achieved through an affective path (i.e., bolstering functional, experiential, symbolic and monetary benefits) and a utilitarian path (i.e., emphasizing system and information quality). Similarly, Alalwan ( 2020 ) links performance expectancy and hedonic motivation to the continued intention to use apps.

The above studies draw upon different theoretical bases, albeit consistently highlighting the importance of value perceptions resulting from customer experiences. Nonetheless, past research bears two recurring issues: inconsistent conceptualizations and measurements, and the conflation with other prominent notions such as app engagement. These two issues could be turned into future research providing a unified definition and measure of app stickiness. Future research could also explore the outcomes of app stickiness, clarifying if it can improve apps’ market performance and survival chances. Lastly, there is scope for longitudinal studies examining fluctuations in app stickiness, especially pre and post app modifications. Notably, these future endeavors all yield significant synergies with current industry practices and trends (see App Radar 2019 , The Manifest 2018 ).

App engagement

According to Kim et al. ( 2013 ) and Wang et al. ( 2016b ), app engagement can be understood as the sum of motivational experiences (see also Calder and Malthouse 2008 ) that connect the consumer to the app. Similarly, Dovaliene, Masiulyte and Piligrimiene ( 2015 ) and Dovaliene, Piligrimiene and Masiulyte ( 2016 ) theorize consumer engagement with apps as a mixture of cognitive, emotional and behavioral aspects (see also Jain and Viswanathan 2015 ), while Noh and Lee ( 2016 ) link consumer intention to engage with apps to perceptions of quality . Adapting Calder, Malthouse and Schaedel’s ( 2009 ) measure of media engagement , Wu ( 2015 ) confirms that effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social influence and consumer-brand identification underpin consumer engagement, which then drives the intention to continue app usage. In contrast, Kim and Baek ( 2018 ) use Kilger and Romer’s ( 2007 ) measure of media engagement to evaluate branded apps engagement. This approach closely aligns with Eigenraam, Eelen, van Lin, and Verlegh’s ( 2018 ) definition of digital engagement , which captures consumers’ tendency to conduct various tasks beyond usage of branded services, displaying behaviors that signal engagement. In a similar vein, Tarute, Nikou and Gatatuis ( 2017a ) modify Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie’s ( 2014 ) work and contend that engagement with apps originates from the intensity of individual participation and motivation (see also Vivek, Beatty and Morgan 2012 ). Stocchi et al. ( 2018 ) explore consumer motives for engaging with apps, while Fang, Zhao, Wen and Wang ( 2017 ) consider branded apps’ characteristics that underpin psychological engagement (i.e., a highly subjective state characterized by deep focus, concentration and absorption), assumed to drive behavioral engagement (i.e., the consumer intention to engage with the branded app). Past studies also analyze consumer engagement behaviors (i.e., manifestations towards the brand or the firm beyond purchase that strengthen the consumer-brand relationship and generate value, see van Doorn, Lemon, Mittal, Nass, Pick, Pirner and Verhoef 2010 ). For example, Viswanathan, Hollebeek, Malthouse, Maslowska, Kim and Xie ( 2017 ) infer app engagement from the behavior changes of customers enrolled in the loyalty program. Gill, Sridhar and Grewal ( 2017 ) return similar findings for B2B apps. Lee ( 2018b ) and van Heerde, Dinner and Neslin ( 2019 ) highlight that consumer engagement behaviors have a strong bearing on brand loyalty. Finally, Chen ( 2017 ) and Fang ( 2017 ) predict engagement with the brand powering the app.

In essence, existing research on apps’ engagement presents contrasting assumptions and conceptualizations, which place emphasis on different cognitive and psychological aspects resulting from an evaluation of the benefits (and thus values) that apps offer. Therefore, there is scope for a unified definition and measurement of app engagement combining diverging theoretical perspectives such as motivation theory (Herzberg et al. 1959 ), flow theory (Wu and Ye 2013 ), transportation theory (Green and Brock 2000 ), media engagement theory (Kilger and Romer 2007 , Calder and Malthouse 2008 ) and the Customer, Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty (VSL) framework (Lam, Shankar, Erramilli and Murthy 2004 ; Yang and Peterson 2004 ). Meeting recurring industry priorities (Beard 2020 ; Marchick 2014 ; Facebook 2021 ), future research could aso explore disengagement —i.e., when consumers de-escalate the frequency of app usage (see also Wang et al. 2016c ), as well as the link between app engagement and other apps performance indicators such as downloads.

Outcomes for the app

Extant research exploring the outcomes of app adoption for the app itself concentrates on two key aspects: the willingness to spread word-of-mouth (WOM) about the app and the willingness to re-purchase via the app . For example, Furner, Racherla et al. (2014) attribute consumer willingness to spread positive WOM about mobile apps to the app’s stickiness. In a similar vein, Baek and Yoo ( 2018 ) link branded apps’ continued usage intention to branded apps’ referral intentions. Embracing a different conceptual angle, Xu et al. ( 2015 ) highlight the link between perceptions of app value, satisfaction with the app, loyalty towards the app and WOM about the app, which the authors consider to be a form of experiential computing . Other studies attribute the consumer’s inclination to recommend apps to the level of app loyalty resulting from perceptions of value (Chang 2015 ) or service quality (Chopdar and Sivakumar 2018 ). On occasion, past research explores specific characteristics of branded apps likely to entice WOM such as usefulness (Kim et al. 2016 ), ease of use and personal connection (Newman et al. 2018 ), and utilitarian and hedonic benefits (Stocchi et al. 2018 ). In terms of the willingness to re-purchase via the app and other mobile shopping changes, Kim et al. ( 2015 ), Wang, Xiang, Law and Ki ( 2016a ) and Gill et al. ( 2017 ) demonstrate that using an app increases spending over time. In light of these findings, research on the outcomes of app adoption for the app reveals substantial scope for expansion. In particular, future research could explore the underlying mechanisms linking perceptions of value (especially value in use), satisfaction with the app and outcomes beyond the standard chain of effects leading to WOM and/or other forms of loyalty toward the app.

Outcomes for the brand behind the app

Research exploring the outcomes for the brand behind the app covers a wide range of conceptual bases, including persuasion theory (Petty and Cacioppo 1986 ), involvement theory (Richins and Bloch 1986 ; Mittal 1989 ), self-congruence theory (Aaker 1999 ; Sirgy, Lee, Johar and Tidwell 2008 ) and consumer-brand relationship theory (Fournier 1998 ). Nonetheless, given the theoretical and managerial relevance of these aspects, there is ample scope for new marketing knowledge, as follows.

Brand loyalty

Lin and Wang ( 2006 ) theorize brand loyalty as the outcome of perceived value, customer satisfaction, trust and habits inherent to m-commerce apps. Similarly, Kim and Yu ( 2016 ) evaluate the extent to which branded apps can drive brand loyalty through the provision of a continuous brand experience, which they defined as “sensation, feelings, cognition and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are all a part of a brand’s design, identity, packaging, communication, and environment” (p.52). Embracing a slightly different focus, Baek and Yoo ( 2018 ) focus on branded apps’ usability, seen as conceptually woven into the user experience. Therefore, building upon these past studies and their implications, future research could focus on the psychological mechanisms that increment brand loyalty via app usage. For example, keeping in mind the established conventions of how brands grow (Sharp 2010 ; Romaniuk and Sharp 2016 ), there is scope for investigating app characteristics likely to enhance brand loyalty for different customer segments. There is also scope for research exploring the reverse effect, i.e. studies evaluating the impact of brand loyalty on app performance.

Willingness to spread WOM about the brand

Kim and Yu ( 2016 ) attribute consumer’s willingness to spread positive WOM about the brand powering an app to the holistic brand experience resulting from using the app. Similarly, Sarkar, Sarkar, Sreejesh and Anusree ( 2018 ) link positive WOM about retailers to the use of related apps. To revamp scholarly and managerial attention around this theme, future studies could establish a connection with the latest online WOM research (e.g., Ismagilova, Slade, Rana and Dwivedi 2019 ; Sanchez, Abril and Haenlein 2020 ; Rosario, de Valck and Sotgiu 2020 ). Such studies could also consider instances whereby buzz about the brand might impact app performance.

Wang et al. ( 2016a ) present a series of theoretical reflections concerning the persuasive nature of branded apps, highlighting apps’ ability to trigger frequent context-based brand recall. Bellman, Potter, Treleaven-Hassard, Robinson and Varan ( 2011 ) add that branded apps can persuade consumers by increasing interest in the brand powering the app (purchase intention) and in the product category (product involvement). At the same time, Ahmed, Beard and Yoon ( 2016 ) remark that apps’ persuasive potential originates from vividness, novelty, and multi-platforming opportunities (see also Kim et al. 2013 ). Similarly, Alnawas and Aburub ( 2016 ) and Seitz and Aldebasi ( 2016 ) attribute apps’ persuasiveness to the benefits offered, which can be cognitive (information acquisition), social integrative (connecting with others), personal integrative (self-value bolstering) and hedonic (e.g., escapism). More recently, Lee ( 2018a ) examines the dual route to persuasion for apps, including argument quality (central route) and source credibility (peripheral route), while van Noort and van Reijmersdal ( 2019 ) evaluate cognitive and affective brand responses to apps.

In line with the above, apps’ persuasive power is widely established, a trend that is also apparent in mobile advertising trends (via apps and in-apps), which continue to overtake desktop advertising (eMarketer 2019). Nonetheless, there is scope for new knowledge evaluating the outcomes of advertising via apps beyond attitude change and brand purchase intentions (see Ahmed et al. 2016 ), explicitly appraising apps’ effects on brand recall and brand recognition (see Ström et al. 2014 ; van Noort and Reijmersdal 2019 ). There is also scope for replications and extensions of Bellman et al.’s ( 2011 ) seminal work, bringing neuroscience into marketing research on apps. For example, future research could determine the most persuasive app features for different consumer segments. It is equally paramount to consider the effects of deploying apps compared to other advertising channels. Such comparisons could evaluate synergies between apps and other digital media (especially social media), guiding firms in advertising platform choices whilst avoiding unduly media duplication. Future studies could also explore the impact of brand advertising on app performance. These future investigations are relevant to the industry, as apps are considered superior advertising channels than websites (Deshdeep 2021 ).

Customer satisfaction

Lin and Wang ( 2006 ) attribute customer satisfaction to perceptions of app value and consumer trust. Subsequent studies often refer to these original findings, albeit returning either too simplistic (Lee, Tsao and Chang 2015 ) or too intricate research frameworks (Xu et al. 2015 ), or frameworks not focused on the prediction of customer satisfaction (Natarajan et al. 2017 ). Other studies concentrate on utilitarian and hedonic benefits that apps offer vs. non-monetary sacrifices such as privacy surrender (Alnawas and Aburub 2016 ). In contrast, Alalwan ( 2020 ) considers online reviews, performance expectancy, hedonic motivation and price value. Among studies exploring perceptions of value and customer satisfaction, Chang ( 2015 ) looks at emotional and social values, app quality and value for money. Likewise, Rezaei and Valaei ( 2017 ) find that experiential values (i.e., service excellence, customer return on investment, aesthetics and playfulness) positively influence satisfaction. In contrast, Iyer, Davari and Mukherjee ( 2018 ) find that both functional and hedonic values positively influence consumer satisfaction from the branded app, while social values have a negative impact (see also Karjaluoto et al. 2019 ).

Considering the above and, more generally, the pivotal role of perceptions of value seen in extant research on pre-adoption and adoption, there is limited ground for additional endeavors exploring these aspects. However, there is a need for research clarifying how to measure service quality for apps and evaluating the differences with other non-digital sources of customer satisfaction . In fact, only two studies have explored these aspects, proposing inconsistent models. Specifically, Demir and Aydinli ( 2016 ) outline seven dimensions of service quality for instant messaging apps (communication, data transferring, distinctive features aesthetics, security, feedback, and networking), while Trivedi and Trivedi ( 2018 ) explore the antecedents of satisfaction with fashion apps adding other perceived quality dimensions. There is also scope for new research exploring the on-going effects of attaining brand engagement via apps, expanding the exploratory work by Chen ( 2017 ) on brands active on WeChat. Finally, it is worth exploring instances whereby customer satisfaction with the brand and brand engagement might influence app performance.

Emotional response toward the brand

When interacting with mobile technologies, users often experience strong emotional responses, which can result in the willingness to act without thinking (McRae, Carrabis, Carrabis and Hamel 2013 ). Indeed, van Noort and van Reijmersdal ( 2019 ) show that entertaining apps heighten affective brand responses and, according to Arya et al. ( 2019 ), consumers might become brand vocals. Moreover, apps can trigger emotional connections between the consumer and the brand, on the basis of self-congruence (Iyer et al. 2018 ; Kim and Baek 2018 ; Yang 2016 ) or self-app connection , arising from personalized consumption experiences that turn apps into digital manifestations of one’s preferences, desires and needs (Newman et al. 2018 ). Apps can also lead to brand attachment (i.e., an emotional bond between the consumer and the brand); brand identification (i.e., overlap between the consumer and the brand, see Peng et al. 2014 ); brand affect (i.e., deep emotions towards the brand, see Sarkar et al. 2018 ); brand love (i.e., a romantic connection between the brand and the consumer, see Baena 2016 ); and brand warmth (i.e., the belief that a brand is friendly, trustworthy and truthful, see Fang 2019 ). Building upon these findings, there is an opportunity to examine the cognitive and affective brand responses that result from using different types of apps (see also van Noort and van Reijmersdal 2019 ) and how these might impact app performance. Such studies could return relevant insights useful to the identification of strategies for market survival and attaining a competitive advantage for apps through building strong connections with consumers.

“Always on” points of interaction

Research linked to brand and partner-owned , and consumer-owned and social “always on” points of interaction is nascent, yet very important to understand how to shape positive and interative customer journeys with apps and via apps. Table  4 integrates extant conceptual approaches, which include the Innovation Diffusion Theory (Rogers 1995 ); personality traits theory (McCrae, Costa 1987 ; John and Srivastava 1999 ) and value network theory (Peppard and Rylander 2006 ). It also highlights key priority future research themes and questions.

Brand and partner owned “always on” points of interaction

In accordance with Tong, Luo and Xu ( 2020 ), brand and partner owned “always on” points of interaction are linked to the four standard elements of the marketing mix , as follows.

Product (including innovation and branding)

Existing research exploring how apps promote innovation and how to innovate apps is very limited. A few noteworthy exceptions include studies about apps used in specific industries such as construction and higher education—see Lu, Mao, Wang and Hu ( 2015 ); Wattanapisit, Teo, Wattanapisit, Teoh, Woo and Ng ( 2020 ); Liu, Mathrani and Mbachu ( 2019 ); and Pechenkina ( 2017 ). However, product innovation research often discusses it in relation to technological developments (Toivonen and Tuominen 2009 ). Therefore, since mobile technologies are subject to ongoing and rapid technological advancements (Lamberton and Stephen 2016 ), there is scope for new research empirically evaluating the impact of innovating apps’ technological features. For example, with the advent of apps involving augmented and virtual reality, there is room for studies quantifying the effect of these advancements on downloads and engagement and mobile shopping (in app and via the app). More broadly, more research is needed to reveal the mechanisms through which apps catalyze innovation to generate value for different stakeholders (Snyder, Witell, Gustafsson, Fombelle and Kristensson 2016 ; Shankar, Kleijnen, Ramanathan, Rizley, Holland and Morrissey 2016 ). Indeed, it has been argued that apps facilitate the establishment of two-way dialogues between the end-user and key stakeholders (Wong, Peko, Sundaram, and Piramuthu 2016 ).

Similarly to extant research on app innovation and innovation via apps, studies exploring apps as a branded digital offering or studies clarifying the implications of branding apps are also limited. This is surprising, since Sultan and Rohm ( 2005 ) define apps as a ‘ brand in the hand ’. Similarly, Smutkupt, Krairit and Esichaikul ( 2010 ) and Urban and Sultan ( 2015 ) argue that mobile technologies offer excellent opportunities for enhancing a brand’s image. Moreover, explicit links between apps and branding objectives appeared in the literature following Bellman et al.’s ( 2011 ) formal definition of branded apps and Taivalsaari and Mikkonen’s ( 2015 ) definition of ‘ brandification ’ of apps—i.e., custom-built native apps that enable seamless customer experiences. For example, Stocchi, Guerini and Michaelidou, ( 2017 ) link the image of branded apps to their market penetration, while Stocchi, Ludwichowska, Fuller and Gregoric ( 2020a ) propose and validate a simple brand equity framework for apps (c.f. Keller 1993 ). Accordingly, there is room for new empirical research exploring the implications of branding apps. For instance, future studies could explore the implications of branding and/or extending apps and thus apps’ portfolio management, which is crucial for navigating increasing app competition (Jung et al. 2012 ). The literature is also missing clarity on what information consumers hold in memory in relation to apps, and how these memories impact knowledge of the app and of the brand powering the app (see also van Noort and van Rejmersdal 2019 ).

Adding to the above, the industry discusses several practices to promote apps (Saxena 2020 ; Fedorychak 2019 )—e.g., App store optimization via keywords and the inclusion of screenshots and videos for greater conversion rate (Karagkiozidou, Ziakis, Vlachopoulou and Kyrkoudis 2019 ; Padilla-Piernas et al. 2019 ), or the use of push notifications (Srivastava 2017 ; Clearbridge Mobile 2019 ). At the same time, some studies highlight the power of promoting apps via influencers (Hu, Zhang and Wang 2019 ) or via leveraging user reviews and ratings (Ickin, Petersen and Gonzalez-Huerta 2017 ; Kübler et al. 2018 ; Numminen and Sällberg 2017 ; Hyrynsalmi, Seppänen, Aarikka-Stenroos, Suominen, Järveläinen and Harkke 2015 ; Liu, Au and Choi 2014 ). Nonetheless, there is a limited understanding of the implication and effectiveness of promoting apps via these methods. In particular, there is limited knowledge on the effects of advertising apps offline (e.g., via TV advertisements) and online (e.g., on social media or display advertising).

Research on pricing strategies for apps is a line of enquiry of its own merit, which started with Dinsmore, Dugan and Wright’s ( 2016 ) work exploring the effectiveness of monetary vs. nonmonetary (e.g., data provision) tactics to cue an app’s novelty; and Dinsmore, Swani and Dugan’s ( 2017 ) research testing whether personality traits drive the willingness to pay for apps and the willingness to make in-app purchases (see also Natarajan et al. 2017 and Kübler et al. 2018 studies on the implications of price sensitivity for app success). More recently, Arora et al. ( 2017 ) clarify that the presence of a free version of the app (sampling) reduces the speed of adoption, and Appel, Libai, Muller and Shachar ( 2020 ) also discuss issues inherent to apps’ sampling. Nonetheless, there is scope for more research on improving apps’ monetization and on maximizing the chance of market survival. For instance, future research could evaluate the trade-off between apps’ pricing strategies and other marketing mix elements, especially apps’ advertising and promotion. There are also opportunities for experimental research evaluating the effects of different monetization tactics for different app types. Lastly, although freemium pricing strategies (i.e., free basic app version with subsequent payable upgrades, Arora et al. 2017 ) are very common, they may not always be a feasible option. Likewise, the decision to market apps at a price may be quite counterproductive in light of the multitude of free alternatives.

Distribution

Although often exceeding the confines of marketing research, there is established knowledge concerning the distribution of apps. For example, Cuadrado and Dueñas ( 2012 ) stress the importance of the value network, which includes providers, consumers, platforms, telecommunications, social networks and remote service providers. Within this network, critical factors include feedback, innovation, service quality, device compatibility, ready-to-use services and interfaces (e.g., for data storage, security, automatic updates, notifications and billing), and developers’ diversity. Jung et al. ( 2012 ) highlight the relevance of the profit-sharing model of apps’ stores and the review mechanisms, which counteract low entry barriers. Oh and Min ( 2015 ) also emphasize the importance of app stores given the increasing pressure for monetization, while Wang, Lai and Chang ( 2016b ) explore different strategies for app competition. At the same time, Roma and Ragaglia ( 2016 ) revealed differences in monetization effectiveness across the two leading app stores (Google Play and Apple’s AppStore). Finally, Martin, Sarro, Jia, Zhang and Harman ( 2017 ) consider app stores as a channel for communications and feedback crucial to market survival. Hence, although extant research has established that the distribution of apps is bound to the app store’s business model, the need for research clarifying app store’s role in the competitive success of apps is pressing. In particular, future studies could introduce new paradigms for supply chain management and channel integration based on gathering and sharing large amounts of highly-contextualized consumer insights.

Different marketing mix configurations

Besides significant expansions of research considering the four elements of the marketing mix for apps, there is scope for studies exploring different marketing mix configurations. For example, according to Tong et al. ( 2020 ), mobile technologies’ marketing mix includes an element of prediction (i.e., the elaboration of considerable amounts of consumer insights), with all elements of the marketing mix enriched by opportunities for personalization . Moreover, since apps are ‘all-in-one’ gateways (Grewal, Hulland, Kopalle and Karahanna 2020 ) for the asynchronous provision of products and services whereby promotion and distribution are often combined, future research could determine the extent to which apps’ marketing mix elements are somewhat conflated.

Consumer-owned and social “always on” points of interaction

Consumer reviews and peer-to-peer interactions.

Although lacking in explicit theoretical grounding, past research confirms that consumer reviews reflect users’ experience with the app, questions and bug reports (Genc-Nayebi and Abran 2017 ). Indeed, reviews influence the decision to install and use an app (Ickin et al. 2017 ; Jung et al. 2012 ; Kübler et al. 2018 ; Numminen and Sällberg 2017 ), and the willingness to purchase an app (Huang and Korfiatis 2015 ; Hyrynsalmi et al. 2015 ; Liu et al. 2014 ). Past studies also highlight the impact of negative reviews (Huang and Korfiatis 2015 ), linking the volume and valence of reviews to app’s sales (Hyrynsalmi et al. 2015 ; Liang, Li, Yang and Wang 2015 ). Nonetheless, there is scope for future research exploring the impact of peer-to-peer interactions, embracing new conceptual perspectives such as social contagion (Iyengar, Van den Bulte and Valente 2011 ) and network effects theory (Katona, Zubcsek and Sarvary 2011 ). Future research could also examine apps’ role as catalyst of online communities, meeting industry calls for more clarity on how to attain synergies between apps and other crucial aspects of digital marketing (e.g., social media). Finally, from a methodological point of view, there is scope for qualitative research evaluating the social and personal implications of consumer views on apps, adopting lesser explored conceptual lenses such as the notion of the extended self (Belk 1988 ) or product symbolism (Elliott 1997 ; Richins 1994 ). Second, given the obvious differences in the uptake and popularity of apps across different areas of the world, this is a paramount line of future enquiry to evaluate likely cultural differences across all elements of the customer journey. For instance, future studies could evaluate the effects of standard cultural variations in basic demographic features such as age and gender (see McCrae 2002 ) and the impact of country-level cultural orientations (e.g., in line with Hofstede’s traits, see Johnson, Kulesa, Cho and Shavitt 2005 ) across all stages of the customer journey with apps, since they are known to impact individual responses and behaviours in numerous settings. Similarly, future studies could examine the impact of individual-level differences linked to specific personality traits that characterise certain cultures across the full customer journey with apps. This is a promising future research avenues, since personality traits have numerous psychological implications (e.g., in terms of cognitive styles—see Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier 2002 , and cognitive processes—see Nisbett, Peng, Choi and Norenzayan 2001 ).

Privacy and personal data management

Privacy in mobile marketing practices is often seen as a result of perceived benefits, which mitigate perceptions of risks and personal data management concerns (Grewal et al. 2020 ). In line with this view, past studies describe privacy as a risk that impacts the intention to use mobile commerce (Wu and Wang 2005 ) and specific types of apps such as banking apps (Koenig-Lewis et al. 2015 ). Similarly, Sultan, Rohm and Gao ( 2009 ) examine privacy in relation to the risk inherent to mobile marketing acceptance, and Gao et al. ( 2013 ) identify privacy as a potential loss when adopting mobile devices. In contrast, Lu et al. ( 2007 ) consider privacy, security and opting out as reflections of trust in wireless environments, a view that led studies evaluating privacy in relation to apps theorize it as a key driver of adoption and/or usage resulting from consumer trust—see Morosan and DeFranco ( 2015 , 2016 ). Indeed, Miluzzo, Lane, Lu and Campbell ( 2010 ) stress the significance of enabling users to control privacy settings . As a result of such contrasting assumptions, besides exacerbating the lack of clarity surrounding privacy in the broader marketing literature (Tan, Qin, Kim and Hsu 2012 ), extant research provides limited insights on the implications of privacy, loss of privacy and security (i.e., privacy risk) for apps. Hence, there is a clear need for future research clarifying the notion of app privacy—a need, which matches important transnational industry trends to create clear guidelines for personal data collection and usage (see the key issues highlighted in the GDPR guidelines, Gdpr-info.eu 2018). Above all, exploring the acceptable trade-off between apps’ functionality and ubiquity for the secure management of consumer personal data are promising areas of future research. To explore these aspects, future studies could draw upon relevant unexplored conceptual bases such as social justice (Tyler 2020 ) and ethics theory (Yoon 2011 ).

‘Blurring’ of the delineation between the firm and the customer

For the customer journey stages and “always on” points of interaction to translate into a digital customer orientation, it is essential to consider extant knowledge that explores apps’ potential in attenuating the divide between the firm and the customer, shaping unique customer experiences; for example, via value creation and co-creation , and consumer response to app technological advancements . Table  5 lists existing theoretical approaches deployed to investigate these aspects, together with priority future research themes and questions worth exploring.

Value creation and co-creation

As previously discussed, the role of perceptions of values in the pre-adoption decision-making process, and in promoting the continuation of the cognitive, affective and behavioral processes inherent to adoption and post-adoption is well-established. Moreover, conceptual research (e.g., Zhao and Balagué 2015 ) clearly highlights apps’ great potential for value creation . Nonetheless, with a few exceptions (e.g., Ehrenhard, Wijnhoven, van den Broek and Stagno 2017 ; Kristensson 2019 ; Lei, Ye, Wang and Law 2020 ), explicit conceptual and/or empirical assessments of apps’ effectiveness for value creation are limited. This is surprising, since Larivière et al. ( 2013 ) suggest that mobile touchpoints trigger a fusion of value , which can simultaneously benefit shoppers, employees and companies. Moreover, Lei et al. ( 2020 ) show that, in hospitality, apps facilitate value co-creation by virtue of media richness. A possible reason for the marketing research scarcity in this domain could be the use of a narrow range of theoretical bases. In particular, besides the use of the Dynamic Business Capabilities (DBC) theory (Wheeler 2002 ), channel expansion theory (Carlson and Zmud 1999 ) and generic theoretical frameworks evaluating the links between perceptions of value and customer satisfaction (Lin and Wang 2006 ), there is an absence of research adapting standard customer value theories (e.g., Woodside, Golfetto and Gilbert 2008 ) and value fusion theory (e.g., Larivière et al. 2013 ). There is also scope for research clarifying how apps facilitate value co-creation and the marketing potential of co-created apps —i.e., apps shaped through the direct involvement of consumers (see Gokgoz, Ataman and van Bruggen 2021). Indeed, Dellaert ( 2019 ) contends that consumer co-production plays a fundamental role in making companies rethink the value creation process. This view matches the service-dominant logic (see Vargo and Lusch 2004 ; Zhang, Lu and Kizildag 2017 ), whereby consumers use resources available to them to experience and co-create value (Grönroos 2019 ). Thus, scholars could research antecedents and outcomes of value creation and co-creation via apps, exploring in detail the appscape (see also Tran, Mai and Taylor 2021 ). More research is also warranted to understand how apps are used during value exchanges (e.g., in shopping centers, see Rauschnabel et al. 2019 ) and after value exchanges (e.g., to mitigate purchase regret, see Wedel et al. 2020 ).

Technological advancements

Extant research contends that technological advancements such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) in apps provide highly customized experiences, impacting consumer preferences and behaviors (Huang and Rust 2017 ; Pantano and Pizzi 2020 ). For example, AR-enabled apps improve consumer perceptions of utilitarian and hedonic benefits (Nikhashemi et al. 2021 ), encourage positive attitudes (Yaoyuneyong et al. 2016 ; Wedel et al. 2020 ), and boost purchase intentions and WOM (Yaoyuneyong et al. 2016 ) through enjoyment (Rauschnabel et al. 2019 ). Similarly, VR apps elicit positive brand affect by provoking strong sensory reactions such as perceptions of tangibility via haptic vibrations (Wedel et al. 2020 ). Additionally, through the use of anthropomorphic cues (i.e., human traits assigned to computers, see Nass and Moon 2000 ), apps enhance user interactions (Alnawas and Aburub 2016 ) thanks to a humanized customer experience, which influences how consumers perceive the brand attached to the app (van Esch et al. 2019 ; Olson and Mourey 2019 ) and increases trust irrespective of privacy concerns (van Esch et al. 2019 ; Ha et al. 2020 ). Although on par with current industry trends (the global VR/AR app market is considered one of the most rapidly growing domains of software development see Unity Developed 2021), this stream of research has not exhaustively evaluated the effects of apps’ technological advancements on consumer experiences. Arguably, this knowledge void is caused by dated theoretical bases such as the diffusion of innovation (Rogers 1995 ), the Uses and Gratification (U&G) theory (Mcguire 1974 , Eighmey and McCord 1998 ) and the Technology Continuance Theory (TCT) (Liao, Palvia and Chen 2009 ). Hence, future research could embrace new theoretical angles like the physical and psychological continuity theory (Lacewing 2010 ), teletransportation theory (Langford and Ramachandran 2013 ) and service prototyping theory (Razek et al. 2018 ).

Digital customer orientation and competitive advantage

• Digital customer orientation

Hyper-contextualized consumer insights

The pervasive nature of mobile technologies generates unprecedented opportunities for hyper-contextualized consumer insights , which include “at which locations consumers are using their mobiles (where), what times they are looking for products (when), how they search for information and complete purchases (how), and whether they are alone or with someone else when using mobile devices (with whom)” (Tong et al. 2020 , p. 64). Indeed, due to their built-in features, apps allow gathering, storing, and using these insights, as documented in empirical studies highlighting synergies between apps and CRM (Wang et al. 2016c ; Lee 2018a ; Newman et al. 2018 ). Intuitively, the provision of these insights potentially facilitates the realization of digital customer orientation. Nonetheless, as Table 5 shows, the marketing literature is yet to explicitly explore these aspects. Above all, there is room for future research documenting the strategic relevance of consumer insights generated via apps vs. other digital hubs such as web analytics and social media analytics. Moreover, there is scope for evaluating additional implications of information sharing and real-time insights in relation to app personalization . Specifically, apps can enable consumers accessing customized information, strengthening consumer relationships via the provision of superior experiences (Kang and Namkung 2019 ). However, although studies have considered apps’ personalization potential in frameworks aimed at predicting other aspects of the customer journey (see Tan and Chou 2008 ; Wang and Li 2012 ; Watson et al. 2013 ; Li 2018 ), more research is needed to esplicitly evaluate the trade-off between personalization and privacy loss. Furthermore, since market segmentation constitutes a key premise to understand and satisfy consumer needs based on relevant insights (e.g., Cooil, Aksoy and Keiningham 2008 ), there is scope for studying segmentation of apps’ users. In this regard, using cluster analysis, Doub et al. ( 2018 ) and Alavi and Ahuja ( 2016 ) detect distinct segments in relation to the use of certain types of apps (e.g., for food shopping and mobile banking). In contrast, Kim and Lee ( 2018 ) focus on psychographic segmentation of app users, and Kim, Lee and Park ( 2016 ) introduce a user-centric service map and a framework for user-value analysis. Finally, Liu et al. ( 2017 ) and Chen, Zhang and Zhao ( 2017 ) use the Recency, Frequency, Monetary (RFM) approach. Nonetheless, future studies could explore alternative angles such as behavioral segmentation (e.g., delineating between different types of apps’ users based on the usage occasions and frequency of use) and intent-based segmentation (e.g., distinguishing consumers based on stage of customer journey). There is also potential for determining if segments identified in bricks and mortar contexts exhibit different patterns of app usage.

Market intelligence

Thus far, there are only two key studies with a clear focus on market intelligence and competing dynamics. In more detail, using panel data, Jung, Kim and Chan-Olmsted (2014) examine habits and repertoires for different app types by adapting known audience behavior and media concentration benchmarks; and Lee and Raghu ( 2014 ) highlight that app competition is configured as a long-tail market (i.e., many choices and low search costs). Therefore, there are multiple avenues for future research advancements in relation to market intelligence (Shapiro 1988 ) (see Table 5 ). Above all, there is significant scope for more empirical efforts outlining app competition dynamics, ascertaining likely differences for dissimilar app categories (or sub-markets), and introducing metrics and methods to evaluate app return on investment (see also Gill et al. 2017 ). These future research endeavors match industry priorities and concerns; indeed, as Dinsmore et al. ( 2017 ) state: “…more than 60% of app developers are ‘below the app poverty line’, meaning they generate less than $500 a month from their apps […] and a mere 24% of developers are able to directly monetize their products by charging a fee in exchange for download” (p.227).

• Competitive advantage

Lafferty and Hult ( 2001 ) attribute the theoretical foundations of market orientation and thus the attainment of competitive advantage to four factors: customer orientation ; the strategic use of consumer insights and market intelligence ; inter-functional coordination ; and strategic implementation . Having already discussed the first two factors, we now concentrate on the latter two, synthesizing the new marketing knowledge required to clarify how to attain a competitive advantage via apps and for apps (see again Table 5 ).

Inter-functional coordination

An essential premise of market orientation is the effective dissemination of consumer insights and market intelligence across the organizational functions (Lafferty and Hult 2001 ), striving for the coordination needed to deliver superior customer value (Narver and Slater 1990 ). Unfortunately, extant marketing research on apps that relates to this matter is currently missing. Therefore, there is potential for examining apps from the perspective of organizational behaviors (see Cadogan 2012 ), exploring the role of market-orientated behaviors (e.g., product design excellence, see Cyr, Head and Ivanov 2006) in the development, launch and strategic management of apps. For example, future research could evaluate the effects of different managerial approaches, different levels of digital marketing knowledge and the implications of a firm’s overall digital marketing strategy. New studies could also examine the underlying effects of market-level conditions such as market dynamism (i.e., rapid changes in consumer needs and preferences, see again Cadogan 2012 ).

Strategic implementation

A final foundation of market orientation and pre-condition for attaining competitive advantage is the strategic use of the information in decision-making (Lafferty and Hult 2001 ), especially within individual business units (Ruekert 1992 ). It also concerns a significant degree of organizational responsiveness to exogenous factors such as market competition (Kohli and Jaworski 1990 ). Unfortunately, there is a void on these aspects in the marketing literature on apps. Hence, there is scope for new knowledge uncovering different pathways leading to competitive advantage by deploying apps and for the app. Such studies could seek to determine differences across different industries and businesses. There is also scope for studies quantifying the impact for apps on business growth. Finally, the evaluation of synergies with other crucial strategic aspects, especially attribution marketing, marketing analytics and, more broadly, a firm’s digital marketing strategy, represents a fruitful area of future research.

Conclusions, contributions and limitations

We presented an integrative review of existing marketing knowledge on apps spanning two decades of research and hundreds of studies. The synthesis has been mapped against a meta-theoretical focus (see also Becker and Jaakkola 2020 ), which integrates core marketing notions such as the customer journey, digital customer orientation and, importantly, value creation and co-creation. The integration of these aspects modifies and expands Lemon and Verhoef’s ( 2016 ) customer journey, further enhancing the contribution made in reconciling current views and assumptions. Moreover, the meta-theoretical lens used highlighted significant knowledge voids that need to be addressed to move marketing research on apps forward—an outcome that meets the first key research objective of this study. The synthesis also revealed synergies vs. disconnections between industry trends and academic research on the topic of apps, fulfilling the second research objective. The resulting conceptual and practical contributions are as follows.

Summary of theoretical contributions

Apps can enhance consumer perceptions of value from the early stages of the customer journey. In fact, the decision-making process characterizing the pre-adoption and adoption stages hinges on consumer evaluations of perceived benefits that apps can offer, alongside individual characteristics shaping the chains of effects linking attitudes, intentions and behavioral outcomes signaling adoption. Although more research is needed to better understand potential differences in these mechanisms for different types of apps and different consumer segments, the trigger of positive customer experiences and journeys lies in ensuring that the consumer sees value in the app as a channel to access products and services, and as a two-way platform for seamless interactions. Moreover, at the early stages of the customer journey, different marketing strategies play a crucial role; yet little is known in relation to them. On the contrary, a lot is understood in relation to the value of apps post-adoption as the ultimate marketing vehicle, albeit primarily in instances whereby the app is attached to an existing brand. Therefore, new theoretical and empirical evidence is needed to clarify outcomes for standalone apps beyond mobile shopping implications. In fact, considering existing marketing research on “always on” points of interaction, substantial gaps emerge in relation to apps’ marketing mix—an aspect that is vital for the provision of positive customer experiences and rewarding journeys, and for the creation (and co-creation) of value.

Nonetheless, there are clear opportunities for turning customer journeys for apps and via apps into a competitive advantage. These include realizing a digital marketing orientation, leveraging apps’ power to provide hyper-contextualized consumer insights and personalization opportunities, and harvesting the potential of technological advancements (e.g., VR/AR and AI). There are also ample opportunities for gathering strategically relevant market insights beyond the business model imposed by app stores. In this instance, the key to unlock apps’ potential for the attainment of competitive advantage lies in elevating the digital customer orientation to an all-encompassing market orientation, whereby the consumer insights and market intelligence acquired are shared across organizational functions (beyond marketing) and turned into the input of innovative business strategies. As this integrative review reveals, extant knowledge concerning these aspects is missing and needs to be created to move this field of marketing research on apps forward.

Summary of managerial contributions

Marketing practice relating to apps is ever-evolving. However, a great deal of strategies already in use and guidelines for market success often hinge on opinions, learn-by-doing and, we dare to say, blindly following trends and hypes. Scholarly marketing research can play a vital role in remedying this tendency, as long as extant and well-established findings are clearly communicated and readily available to practitioners. In this regard, our integrative review provides highly simplified summaries that can inform businesses on how to plan app launches and successfully integrate apps into business strategies. In particular, the critical synthesis of marketing knowledge presented serves as a nomological map to understand the depth of existing scholarly research on apps yielding managerial relevance. We stress that these findings often match or complement industry assumptions; in other instances, however, discrepancies emerge alongside missing know-how. Hence, a key practical implication of our integrative synthesis lies in providing a roadmap for addressing these inconsistencies, revealing great scope for more synergy between academia and the industry. Ultimately, it is auspicious to see an increase in information and data porosity through the involvement of the industry in future lines of inquiry mapped in this review. Indeed, for the research directions outlined, access to data and the monitoring of market trends are essential. Likewise, harvesting apps’ full economic potential hinges on accessing rigorous scientific findings.

Upon reading this integrative review, we envision managers of businesses deploying apps to support existing brands and managers of businesses whereby the app is the brand to embrace important strategic guidelines that emerged such as: (i) the role apps play in the media ecosystem and/or as a marketing channel, ensuring consumers enjoy seamless value-generating experiences; (ii) the importance of marketing apps via offering clear benefits that match strategic priorities of a business; and (iii) the existence of untapped strategic power for apps for the attainment of competitive advantage, especially upon gathering and using consumer insights and market intelligence above and beyond the marketing function.

Limitations and general future research directions

Our review approach entailed a combination of bibliometric analysis and a more intuitive process whereby research themes were detected and iteratively refined. Although considerable alignment emerged between these two steps, the approach inevitably resulted in some arbitrary choices. For instance, we did not focus on aspects involving the development and supply of apps; similarly, technological aspects of apps’ programing and design were not considered. Therefore, future research could pursue alternative routes such as presenting a meta-analysis of the extant empirical findings. Moreover, the reconciliation of views from academia and industry has been fulfilled by juxtaposing industry trends and assumptions with the summaries of findings extracted from the body of scholarly work reviewed. Future studies could present more explicit analyses of industry views, such as conducting primary research involving managers and app developers. Finally, future development of the outcomes of this integrative review calls for a more detailed evaluation of interdisciplinary links, detecting and exploring in more detail the connections between marketing knowledge and other relevant fields such as information technology, information management and organizational behavior.

In comparison to Lemon and Verhoef’s ( 2016 ) original framework, the use of the word ‘adoption’ is based on the logic that most apps are initially available to consumers at no cost. As such, there is often no ‘purchase’ per se; rather, the focal event that starts the customer journey is the series of customer experiences that lead to adopting the technology. The focus on adoption also combines the strategic firm/brand perspective and the consumer perspective (see Becker and Jaakkola 2020 ).

Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1), 45–57.

Google Scholar  

Ahmed, R., Beard, F., & Yoon, D. (2016). Examining and extending advertising's dual mediation hypothesis to a branded mobile phone app. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16 , 133–144.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.

Alalwan, A. A. (2020). Mobile food ordering apps: An empirical study of the factors affecting customer e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. International Journal of Information Management, 50 , 28–44.

Alavi, S., & Ahuja, V. (2016). An empirical segmentation of users of mobile banking apps. Journal of Internet Commerce, 15 , 390–407.

Alnawas, I., & Aburub, F. (2016). The effect of benefits generated from interacting with branded mobile apps on consumer satisfaction and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31 , 313–322.

Anblicks (2017). 9 Advantages of mobile apps over responsive eCommerce websites . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://anblicks-inc.medium.com/9-advantages-of-mobile-apps-over-responsive-ecommerce-websites-6aed1e6db0d.

App Radar (2019). 6 App metrics you absolutely need to measure . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://appradar.com/blog/6-app-metrics-you-absolutely-need-to-measure

Appel, G., Libai, B., Muller, E., & Shachar, R. (2020). On the monetization of mobile apps. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37 , 93–107.

Arora, S., Hofstede, F. T., & Mahajan, V. (2017). The implications of offering free versions for the performance of paid mobile apps. Journal of Marketing, 81 , 62–78.

Arya, V., Sethi, D., & Paul, J. (2019). Does digital footprint act as a digital asset?–enhancing brand experience through remarketing. International Journal of Information Management, 49 , 142–156.

Atkinson, L. (2013). Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and ‘green’ smartphone apps to mobilize sustainable consumption in the retail environment. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37 , 387–393.

Azjen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs .

Babich (2017). Mobile app onboarding: The do’s and the don’ts . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://www.shopify.com/partners/blog/mobile-app-onboarding .

Baek, T. H., & Yoo, C. Y. (2018). Branded app usability: Conceptualization, measurement, and prediction of consumer loyalty. Journal of Advertising, 47 , 70–82.

Baena, V. (2016). Online and mobile marketing strategies as drivers of brand love in sports teams: Findings from real Madrid. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 17 , 202–218.

Beard (2020). The challenge facing app developers: Engaging users . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lab-real-world/202008/the-challenge-facing-app-developers-engaging-users

Becker, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2020). Customer experience: Fundamental premises and implications for research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 , 630–648.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 , 139–168.

Bellman, S., Potter, R. F., Treleaven-Hassard, S., Robinson, J. A., & Varan, D. (2011). The effectiveness of branded mobile phone apps. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25 , 191–200.

Bhave, K., Jain, V., & Roy, S. (2013). Understanding the orientation of gen Y toward mobile applications and in-app advertising in India. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 8 , 62–71.

Blair, I. (2021). 2021. Mobile app download and usage statistics Retrieved March 30, 2021 from https://buildfire.com/app-statistics/

Boritz, J. E. (2005). IS practitioners' views on core concepts of information integrity. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 6 (4), 260–279.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52 (4), 664.

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73 (3), 52–68.

Bruner, G., & Kumar, A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld internet devices. Journal of Business Research, 58 , 553–558.

Buellingen, F., & Woerter, M. (2004). Development perspectives, firm strategies and applications in mobile commerce. Journal of Business Research, 57 , 1402–1408.

Buildfire. (2021). Mobile app download statistics & usage statistics. Retrieved July 26 2021 from  https://buildfire.com/app-statistics/ .

Byun, H., Chiu, W., & Bae, J. (2018). Exploring the adoption of sports brand apps: An application of the modified technology acceptance model. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management, 9 , 52–65.

Cadogan, J. W. (2012). International marketing, strategic orientations and business success: Reflections on the path ahead. International Marketing Review, 29 , 340–348.

Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 , 321–331.

Calder, B.-J., & Malthouse, E.-C. (2008). Media engagement and advertising effectiveness. In B. J. Calder (Ed.), Kellogg on advertising and media (pp. 1–36). Wiley.

Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (2), 153–170.

Carter, S., & Yeo, A. C. (2016). Mobile apps usage by Malaysian business undergraduates and postgraduates: Implications for consumer behaviour theory and marketing practice. Internet Research, 26 , 733–757.

Chadha, P., Alavi, S., & Ahuja, V. (2017). Mobile shopping apps: Functionalities, consumer adoption, and usage. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 7 , 40–55.

Chandra, S., Srivastava, S. C., & Theng, Y. (2010). Evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption on mobile payment systems: An empirical analysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27 , 561–588.

Chang, C. (2015). Exploring Mobile application customer loyalty: The moderating effect of use contexts. Telecommunications Policy, 39 , 678–690.

Chen, Q., Zhang, M., & Zhao, X. (2017). Analysing customer behaviour in mobile app usage. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117 , 425–438.

Chen, Y. R. (2017). Perceived values of branded mobile media, consumer engagement, business-consumer relationship quality and purchase intention: A study of WeChat in China. Public Relations Review, 43 , 945–954.

Cheng, H. K., & Tang, Q. C. (2010). Free trial or no free trial: Optimal software product design with network effects. European Journal of Operational Research, 205 (2), 437–447.

Cheng, X., Fang, L., Hong, X., & Yang, L. (2017). Exploiting mobile big data: Sources, features, and applications. IEEE Network, 31 , 72–79.

Chong, A. Y. L., Chan, F. T. S., & Ooi, K. (2012). Predicting consumer decisions to adopt mobile commerce: Cross country empirical examination between China and Malaysia. Decision Support Systems, 53 , 34–43.

Chopdar, P. K., & Sivakumar, V. J. (2018). Understanding psychological contract violation and its consequences on mobile shopping applications use in a developing country context. Journal of Indian Business Research, 10 , 208–231.

Churchill Jr., G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (4), 491–504.

Clearbridge Mobile. (2019). A step-by-step guide to marketing your mobile app . Retrieved June 1 st , 2020 from https://clearbridgemobile.com/step-by-step-guide-marketing-mobile-app/ .

Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., & Keiningham, T. L. (2008). Approaches to customer segmentation. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 6 , 9–39.

Cuadrado, F., & Dueñas, J. C. (2012). Mobile application stores: Success factors, existing approaches, and future developments. IEEE Communications Magazine, 50 , 160–167.

Culnan, M. J., O'Reilly III, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1990). Intellectual structure of research in organizational behavior, 1972–1984: A cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (6), 453–458.

Cyr, D., Head, M., & Ivanov, A. (2006). Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce. Information & Management, 43 , 950–963.

Dacko, S. G. (2017). Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124 , 243–256.

Datta, H., Foubert, B., & Van Heerde, H. J. (2015). The challenge of retaining customers acquired with free trials. Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (2), 217–234.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982–1003.

Dellaert, B. G. (2019). The consumer production journey: Marketing to consumers as co-producers in the sharing economy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (2), 238–254.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3 (1), 60–95.

Demir, A., & Aydinli, C. (2016). Exploring the quality dimensions of mobile instant messaging applications and effects of them on customer satisfaction. International Journal of Computer Theory and Applications, 9 , 1–15.

Deshdeep (2021). App or website? 10 reasons why apps are better . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://vwo.com/blog/10-reasons-mobile-apps-are-better/ .

Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster Jr., F. E. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57 , 23–37.

Dinsmore, J. B., Dugan, R. G., & Wright, S. A. (2016). Monetary vs. nonmonetary prices: Differences in product evaluations due to pricing strategies within mobile applications. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24 (3–4), 227–240.

Dinsmore, J. B., Swani, K., & Dugan, R. G. (2017). To ‘free’ or not to ‘free’: Trait predictors of mobile app purchasing tendencies. Psychology & Marketing, 34 , 227–244.

Doub, A. E., Levin, A., Heath, C. E., & LeVangie, K. (2018). Mobile app-etite: Consumer attitudes towards and use of mobile technology in the context of eating behaviour. Journal of Direct and Digital Marketing Practice, 17 , 114–129.

Dovaliene, A., Masiulyte, A., & Piligrimiene, Z. (2015). The relations between customer engagement, perceived value and satisfaction: The case of mobile applications. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213 , 659–664.

Dovaliene, A., Piligrimiene, Z., & Masiulyte, A. (2016). Factors influencing customer engagement in mobile applications. Engineering Economics, 27 (2), 205–212.

Ehrenhard, M., Wijnhoven, F., van den Broek, T., & Stagno, M. Z. (2017). Unlocking how start-ups create business value with mobile applications: Development of an app-enabled business innovation cycle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115 , 26–36.

Eigenraam, A., Eelen, J., van Lin, A., & Verlegh, P. (2018). A consumer-based taxonomy of digital customer engagement practices. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 44 , 102–121.

Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1998). Adding value in the information age: Uses and gratifications of sites on the world wide web. Journal of Business Research, 41 (3), 187–194.

Elliott, R. L. (1997). Existential consumption and irrational desire. European Journal of Marketing, 31 , 285–296.

Elsbach, K. D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2020). Creating high-impact literature reviews: An argument for ‘integrative reviews’. Journal of Management Studies, 57 , 1277–1289.

eMarketer (2019), US digital ad spending on selected channels, 2019-2023, Retrieved March 30, 2021 from https://www.emarketer.com/chart/231153/us-digital-ad-spending-on-select-channels-2019-2023-billions/ .

Facebook (2021). Accelerate your app's growth with these two strategies . Retrieved March 27 , 2021 from https://www.facebook.com/business/help/1571320809813662?id=1858550721111595 .

Fang, J., Zhao, Z., Wen, C., & Wang, R. (2017). Design and performance attributes driving mobile travel application engagement. International Journal of Information Management, 37 , 269–283.

Fang, Y. (2017). Beyond the usefulness of branded applications: Insights from consumer–brand engagement and self-construal perspectives. Psychology & Marketing, 34 , 40–58.

Fang, Y. (2019). An app a day keeps a customer connected: Explicating loyalty to brands and branded applications through the lens of affordance and service-dominant logic. Information & Management, 56 , 377–391.

Fedorychak, V. (2019). 17 efficient ways to promote a mobile app that you need to know . Retrieved June 1 st , 2020 from https://lvivity.com/efficient-ways-to-promote-a-mobile-app .

Figge, S. (2014). Situation-dependent services—A challenge for Mobile network operators. Journal of Business Research, 57 , 1416–1422.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343–373.

Frey, R. M., Xu, R., & Ilic, A. (2017). Mobile app adoption in different life stages: An empirical analysis. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 40 , 512–527.

Furner, C. P., Racherla, P., & Babb, J. S. (2014). Mobile app stickiness (MASS) and Mobile interactivity: A conceptual model. The Marketing Review, 14 , 163–188.

Gao, T. T., Rohm, A. J., Sultan, F., & Pagani, M. (2013). Consumers un-tethered: A three-market empirical study of consumers’ mobile marketing acceptance. Journal of Business Research, 66 , 2536–2544.

Genc-Nayebi, N., & Abran, A. (2017). A systematic literature review: Opinion mining studies from mobile Appstore user reviews. Journal of Systems Software, 125 , 207–219.

Gill, M., Sridhar, S., & Grewal, R. (2017). Return on engagement initiatives: A study of a business-to-business mobile app. Journal of Marketing, 81 , 45–66.

Gokgoz, Z. A., Ataman, M. B., & van Bruggen, G. H. (2021). There’s an app for that! Understanding the drivers of mobile application downloads. Journal of Business Research, 123 , 423–437.

Goldsmith, R. E., & Newell, S. J. (1997). Innovativeness and price sensitivity: Managerial, theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6 (3), 163–174.

Grant, I., & O’Donohoe, S. (2007). Why toung consumers are not open to mobile marketing communication. International Journal of Advertising, 26 , 223–246.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701.

Grewal, D., Hulland, J., Kopalle, P. K., & Karahanna, E. (2020). The future of technology and marketing: A multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 , 1–8.

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3 , 42–55.

Grönroos, C. (2019). Reforming public services: Does service logic have anything to offer? Public Management Review, 21 (5), 775–788.

Ha, Q. A., Chen, J. V., Uy, H. U., & Capistrano, E. P. (2020). Exploring the privacy concerns in using intelligent virtual assistants under perspectives of information sensitivity and anthropomorphism. International journal of human–computer interaction , 1-16.

Harmeling, C. M., Moffett, J. W., Arnold, M. J., & Carlson, B. D. (2017). Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 , 312–335.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Bloch- Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work . Transaction Publishers.

Ho, S. Y. (2012). The effects of location personalization on individuals’ intention to use mobile services. Decision Support Systems, 53 , 802–812.

Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28 , 149–165.

Hong, S., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). Understanding the adoption of multipurpose information appliances: The case of mobile data services. Information Systems Research, 17 , 162–179.

Hornbæk, K. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64 (2), 79–102.

Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior (no. 658.834 H6).

Hsiao, K., & Chen, C. (2016). What drives in-app purchase intention for mobile games? An examination of perceived values and loyalty. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 16 , 18–29.

Hsu, C., & Lin, J. C. (2015). What drives purchase intention for paid mobile apps?–an expectation confirmation model with perceived value. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14 , 45–57.

Hu, H., Zhang, D., & Wang, C. (2019). Impact of social media influencers' endorsement on application adoption: A trust transfer perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47 , 1–12.

Huang, G., & Korfiatis, N. (2015). Trying before buying: The moderating role of online reviews in trial attitude formation toward mobile applications. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19 , 77–111.

Huang, J., Lin, Y., & Chuang, S. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: A perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. The Electronic Library, 25 , 585–598.

Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2017). Technology-driven service strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (6), 906–924.

Hughes, A. M. (1996). The complete database marketer: Second-generation strategies and techniques for tapping the power of your customer database . McGraw-Hill.

Hur, H. J., Lee, H. K., & Choo, H. J. (2017). Understanding usage intention in innovative mobile app service: Comparison between millennial and mature consumers. Computers in Human Behavior, 73 , 353–361.

Hulland, J., & Houston, M. B. (2020). Why systematic review papers and meta-analyses matter: An introduction to the special issue on generalizations in marketing. Journal of Academy of Market Science, 48 , 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00721-7

Article   Google Scholar  

Hyrynsalmi, S., Seppänen, M., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Suominen, A., Järveläinen, J., & Harkke, V. (2015). Busting myths of electronic word of mouth: The relationship between customer ratings and the sales of mobile applications. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 10 , 1–18.

IBM Cloud Education (2020). Mobile Application Development . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/mobile-application-development-explained .

Ickin, S., Petersen, K., & Gonzalez-Huerta, J. (2017). Why do users install and delete apps? A survey study. In A. Ojala, H. Olsson, & K. Werder (Eds.), Lecture notes in business information processing (pp. 186–191). Springer.

Influencer Marketing Hub (2018). 50 TikTok stats that will blow your mind . Retrieved June 1 st , 2020 from https://influencermarketinghub.com/tiktok-stats/ .

Intersoft Consulting (2021). Key issues, Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/ .

Iqbal, M. (2019). TikTok revenue and usage statistics—Business of apps . Retrieved June 1 st , 2020 from https://www.businessofapps.com/data/tik-tok-statistics/ .

Ismagilova, E., Slade, E. L., Rana, N., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). The effect of electronic word of mouth communications on intention to buy: A meta-analysis. Information Systems Frontiers , 1–24.

Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & Valente, T. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30 , 195–212.

Iyer, P., Davari, A., & Mukherjee, A. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of retailers’ mobile applications in determining customer satisfaction and repatronage intentions? A congruency perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22 , 235–243.

Jain, V., & Viswanathan, V. (2015). Choosing and using mobile apps: A conceptual framework for generation Y. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 14 (4), 295–309.

Jin, C., & Villegas, J. (2008). Mobile phone users’ behaviors: The motivation factors of the mobile phone user. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 3 , 4–11.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives, 2, 102–138 . University of California.

Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36 , 264–277.

Joo, J., & Sang, Y. (2013). Exploring Koreans’ smartphone usage: An integrated model of the technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (6), 2512–2518.

Jung, E., Baek, C., & Lee, J. D. (2012). Product survival analysis for the app store. Marketing Letters, 23 , 929–941.

Jung, J., Kim, Y., & Chan-Olmsted, S. (2014). Measuring usage concentration of smartphone applications: Selective repertoire in a marketplace of choices. Mobile Media & Communication, 2 , 352–368.

Kang, J. M., Mun, J. M., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2015). In-store mobile usage: Downloading and usage intention toward mobile location-based retail apps. Computers in Human Behavior, 46 , 210–217.

Kang, J., & Namkung, Y. (2019). The role of personalization on continuance intention in food service mobile apps. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31 , 734–752.

Karagkiozidou, M., Ziakis, C., Vlachopoulou, M., & Kyrkoudis, T. (2019). App store optimization factors for effective mobile app ranking. Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism , 479–486.

Karaiskos, D. C., Drossos, D. A., Tsiaousis, A. S., Giaglis, G. M., & Fouskas, K. G. (2012). Affective and social determinants of mobile data services adoption. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31 , 209–219.

Karjaluoto, H, Shaikh, A. A., Saarijärvi, H., & Saraniemi, S. (2019). How perceived value drives the use of mobile financial services apps. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 252–261.

Katona, Z., Zubcsek, P. P., & Sarvary, M. (2011). Network effects and personal influences: The diffusion of an online social network. Journal of Marketing Research, 48 , 425–443.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57 , 1–22.

Khalifa, M., Cheng, S. K. N., & Shen, K. N. (2012). Adoption of Mobile commerce: A confidence model. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53 , 14–22.

Kilger, M., & Romer, E. (2007). Do measures of media engagement correlate with product purchase likelihood? Journal of Advertising Research, 47 , 213–214.

Kim (2019). Why do bad user retention rates happen to good mobile apps? Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://www.appcues.com/blog/mobile-app-user-retention .

Kim, E., Lin, J., & Sung, Y. (2013). To app or not to app: Engaging consumers via branded mobile apps. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13 , 53–65.

Kim, G. S., Park, S., & Oh, J. (2008). An examination of factors influencing consumer adoption of short message service (SMS). Psychology & Marketing, 25 , 769–786.

Kim, J., & Lee, K. H. (2018). Influences of motivations and lifestyles on intentions to use smartphone applications. International Journal of Advertising, 37 , 385–401.

Kim, J., & Yu, E. A. (2016). The holistic brand experience of branded mobile applications affects brand loyalty. Social Behavior and Personality, 44 , 77–88.

Kim, J., Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2016a). A visual context-based market analysis of mobile application services. Management Decision, 54 , 2106–2132.

Kim, M., Kim, J., Choi, J., & Trivedi, M. (2017). Mobile shopping through applications: Understanding application possession and mobile purchase. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39 , 55–68.

Kim, S. C., Yoon, D., & Han, E. K. (2016b). Antecedents of mobile app usage among smartphone users. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22 , 653–670.

Kim, S. J., Wang, R. J. H, & Malthouse, E. C. (2015). The effects of adopting and using a brand’s mobile application on customers’ subsequent purchase behavior. Journal of Interactive Marketing , 31, 28–41.

Kim, S., & Baek, T. H. (2018). Examining the antecedents and consequences of mobile app engagement. Telematics and Informatics, 35 , 148–158.

Kim, S., Baek, T. H., Kim, Y., & Yoo, K. (2016c). Factors affecting stickiness and word of mouth in mobile applications. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 10 , 177–192.

Kleijnen, M., Ruyter, K. D., & Wetzels, M. (2007). An assessment of value creation in mobile service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. Journal of Retailing, 83 , 33–46.

Ko, E., Kim, E. Y., & Lee, E. K. (2009). Modelling consumer adoption of mobile shopping for fashion products in Korea. Psychology & Marketing, 26 , 669–687.

Koenig-Lewis, N., Marquet, M., Palmer, A., & Zhao, A. L. (2015). Enjoyment and social influence: Predicting mobile payment adoption. The Service Industries Journal, 35 , 537–554.

Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54 , 1–18.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1 (8), 227–247.

Kopalle, P. K., Kumar, V., & Subramaniam, M. (2020). How legacy firms can embrace the digital ecosystem via digital customer orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 , 114–131.

Kristensson, P. (2019). Future service technologies and value creation. Journal of Services Marketing, 33 (4), 502–506.

Kübler, R., Pauwels, K., Yildirim, G., & Fandrich, T. (2018). App popularity: Where in the world are consumers most sensitive to price and user ratings? Journal of Marketing, 82 , 20–44.

Kumar, A., & Mukherjee, A. (2013). Shop while you talk: Determinants of purchase intentions through a mobile device. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 8 , 23–37.

Kumar, D. S., Purani, K., & Viswanathan, S. A. (2018). Influences of ‘appscape’ on mobile app adoption and m-loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45 , 132–141.

Lacewing, M. (2010). Personal identity: Physical and psychological continuity theories.

Lafferty, B. A., & Hult, G. T. M. (2001). A synthesis of contemporary market orientation perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 35 , 92–109.

Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3), 293–311.

Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing research's evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future research. Journal of Marketing, 80 , 146–172.

Langford, S., & Ramachandran, M. (2013). The products of fission, fusion, and teletransportation: An occasional identity theorist's perspective. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91 (1), 105–117.

Larivière, B., Joosten, H., Malthouse, E. C., Birgelen, M. C., Aksoy, P., Kunz, W. H., & Huang, M. (2013). Value fusion: The blending of consumer and firm value in the distinctive context of mobile technologies and social media. Journal of Service Management, 24 , 268–293.

Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (1), 41–53.

Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25 (6), 59–62.

Lee, C., Tsao, C., & Chang, W. C. (2015). The relationship between attitude toward using and customer satisfaction with mobile application services. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28 , 680–697.

Lee, G., & Raghu, T. S. (2014). Determinants of mobile apps' success: Evidence from the app store market. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31 , 133–170.

Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, Z. (2007). Understanding user acceptance of multimedia messaging services: An empirical study. Journal of American Society of Information Science & Technology, 58 , 2066–2077.

Lee, S. A. (2018a). Enhancing customers’ continued mobile app use in the service industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 32 (6), 680–691.

Lee, S. A. (2018b). M-servicescape: Effects of the hotel mobile app servicescape preferences on customer response. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 9 , 172–187.

Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Hsu, C. N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees' intentions to use e-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14 (4), 124–137.

Lee, Y., & Kim, H. (2019). Consumer need for mobile app atmospherics and its relationships to shopper responses. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51 , 437–442.

Lei, S. I., Ye, S., Wang, D., & Law, R. (2020). Engaging customers in value co-creation through mobile instant messaging in the tourism and hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44 (2), 229–251.

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80 , 69–96.

Li, C. (2018). Consumer behavior in switching between membership cards and mobile applications: The case of Starbucks. Computers in Human Behavior, 84 , 171–184.

Liang, T., Li, X., Yang, C., & Wang, M. (2015). What in consumer reviews affects the sales of mobile apps: A multi-facet sentiment analysis approach. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 20 , 236–260.

Liao, C., Palvia, P., & Chen, J. L. (2009). Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: Toward a technology continuance theory (TCT). International Journal of Information Management, 29 (4), 309–320.

Lin, H. H., & Wang, Y. S. (2006). An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts. Information & Management, 43 (3), 271–282.

Liu, C. Z., Au, Y. A, & Choi, H. S. (2014). Effects of freemium strategy in the mobile app market: An empirical study of Google play. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31, 326–354.

Liu, F., Zhao, S., & Li, Y. (2017). How many, how often, and how new? A mulitvariate profiling of mobile app users. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38 , 71–80.

Liu, T., Mathrani, A., & Mbachu, J. (2019). Benefits and barriers in uptake of mobile apps in New Zealand construction industry: What top and middle management perceive. Facilities, 37 , 254–265.

Lu, H., & Hsiao, K. (2010). The influence of extro/introversion on the intention to pay for social networking sites. Information and Management, 47 , 150–157.

Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C., & Wang, K. (2008). Determinants of accepting wireless mobile data services in China. Information & Management, 45 , 52–64.

Lu, J., Mao, Z., Wang, M., & Hu, L. (2015). Goodbye maps, hello apps? Exploring the influential determinants of travel app adoption. Current Issues in Tourism, 18 , 1059–1079.

Lu, J., Wang, L., & Yu, C. (2007). Is TAM for wireless mobile data services applicable in China? A survey report from Zhejiang, China. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5 , 11–31.

Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P. Y. K., & Cao, Y. (2011). Dynamics between the trust transfer process and intention to use mobile payment services: A cross-environment perspective. Information & Management, 48 , 393–403.

MacInnis, D. J. (2011). Framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75 , 136–154.

Magrath, V., & McCormick, H. (2013). Marketing design elements of mobile fashion retail apps. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17 , 115–134.

Mahatanankoon, P. H., Wen, J., & Lim, B. (2005). Consumer-based m-commerce: Exploring consumer perception of mobile applications. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 27 , 347–357.

Maity, M. (2010). Critical factors of consumer decision-making on m-commerce: A qualitative study in the United States. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 5 , 87–101.

Mäki, M., & Kokko, T. (2017). The use of mobile applications in shopping: A focus on customer experience. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications, 9 , 59–74.

Malhotra, A., & Malhotra, C. K. (2009). A relevancy-based services view for driving adoption of wireless web services in the U.S. Communications of the ACM, 52 , 130–134.

Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V. K., & Öörni, A. (2009). The impact of use context on mobile services acceptance: The case of mobile ticketing. Information & Management, 46 , 190–195.

Marchick (2014). Engagement and Revenue Up with Mobile Apps. Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://medium.com/@the_manifest/14-key-metrics-you-need-to-track-for-your-mobile-app-75e48714039f .

Martin, W., Sarro, F., Jia, Y., Zhang, Y., & Harman, M. (2017). A survey of app store analysis for software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 43 , 817–847.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (1), 81.

Mcguire, W. J. (1974). Psychological motives and communication gratification. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications . Sage Publications.

McLean, G., Al-Nabhani, K., & Wilson, A. (2018). Developing a mobile applications customer experience model (MACE)-implications for retailers. Journal of Business Research, 85 , 325–336.

McRae, E., Carrabis, J., Carrabis, S., & Hamel, S. (2013). Case study: Emotional response on mobile platforms - want to be loved? Go mobile! International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 8 , 55–66.

McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural comparisons. In R. R. McCrae, R. R. & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 105–126). : Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Miluzzo, E., Lane, N.D., Lu, H., & Campbell, A. T. (2010). Research in the app store era: Experiences from the CenceMe app deployment on the iPhone. UbiComp proceedings , Copenhagen, 4 .

Mittal, B. (1989). Measuring purchase-decision involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 6 (2), 147–162.

Miyazaki, A. D., & Fernandez, A. (2000). Internet privacy and security: An examination of online retailer disclosures. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19 (1), 54–61.

Mkono, M. (2013). Hot and cool authentication: A Netnographic illustration. Annals of Tourism Research, 41 , 215–218.

Mondal, J., & Chakrabarti, S. (2019). Emerging phenomena of the branded app: A systematic literature review, strategies, and future research directions. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19 , 148–167.

Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2015). Disclosing personal information via hotel apps: A privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47 , 120–130.

Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2016). Modeling guests’ intentions to use mobile apps in hotels: The roles of personalization, privacy, and involvement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28 , 1968–1991.

Mort, G. M. S., & Drennan, J. (2007). Mobile communications: A study of factors influencing consumer use of m-services. Journal of Advertising Research, 47 , 302–312.

Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54 , 20–35.

Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (1), 81–103.

Natarajan, T., Balasubramanian, S. A., & Kasilingam, D. L. (2017). Understanding the intention to use mobile shopping applications and its influence on price sensitivity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 37 , 8–22.

Newman, C. L., Wachter, K., & White, A. (2018). Bricks or clicks? Understanding consumer usage of retail mobile apps. Journal of Services Marketing, 32 , 211–222.

Nikhashemi, S. R., Knight, H. H., Nusair, K., & Liat, C. B. (2021). Augmented reality in smart retailing: A (n)(a) symmetric approach to continuous intention to use retail brands’ mobile AR apps. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60 , 102464.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108 , 291–310.

Noh, M. J., & Lee, K. T. (2016). An analysis of the relationship between quality and user acceptance in smartphone apps. Information Systems and e-Bus Management, 14 , 273–291.

Numminen, E., & Sällberg, H. (2017). The impact of online ratings on downloads of free Mobile apps. 11 th European conference on information systems management ECISM , Genoa , 225–232.

Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Skard, S.E. (2015), A review of mobile services research: Research gaps and suggestions for future research on mobile apps , working paper 01/15, NHH, Brage.

Oh, Y. K., & Min, J. (2015). The mediating role of popularity rank on the relationship between advertising and in-app purchase sales in mobile application market. Journal of Applied Business Research, 31 , 1311–1322.

Olson, J., & A Mourey, J. (2019). Greater expectations: Anthropomorphic products must be warm and competent... or else. ACR North American Advances .

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128 , 3–72.

Padilla-Piernas, J. M., Parra-Meroño, M. C., & Beltrán-Bueno, M. A. (2019). The importance of app store optimization (ASO) for hospitality applications. Digital and Social Marketing , 151–161.

Pantano, E., & Pizzi, G. (2020). Forecasting artificial intelligence on online customer assistance: Evidence from chatbot patents analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55 , 102096.

Payne (2021). How to Launch a Mobile App in 2021 [Complete Guide] . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/31277/a-marketer-s-complete-guide-to-launching-mobile-apps.aspx .

Pechenkina, E. (2017). Developing a typology of mobile apps in higher education: A national case-study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33 , 134–146.

Peng, K., Chen, Y., & Wen, K. (2014). Brand relationship, consumption values and branded app adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114 , 1131–1143.

Pentina, I., Zhang, L., Bata, H., & Chen, Y. (2016). Exploring privacy paradox in information sensitive mobile apps adoption: A cross-cultural comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 65 , 409–419.

Peppard, J., & Rylander, A. (2006). From value chain to value network: Insights for mobile operators. European Management Journal, 24 (2–3), 128–141.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer.

Piccoli, G., Brohman, M. K., Watson, R. T., & Parasuraman, A. (2009). Process completeness: Strategies for aligning service systems with customers’ service needs. Business Horizons, 52 , 367–376.

Picoto, W. N., Duarte, R., & Pinto, I. (2019). Uncovering top-ranking factors for mobile apps through a multimethod approach. Journal of Business Research, 101 , 668–674.

Post, C., Sarala, R., Gattrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57 , 351–376.

Racherla, P, Furner, C., & Babb, J. (2012). Conceptualizing the implications of mobile app usage and stickiness: A research agenda. Available at SSRN 2187056.

Radler, V. M. (2018). 20 years of brand personality: A bibliometric review and research agenda. Journal of Brand Management, 25 , 370–383.

Rauschnabel, P. A., Felix, R., & Hinsch, C. (2019). Augmented reality marketing: How mobile AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49 , 43–53.

Razek, A. R. A., van Husen, C., Pallot, M., & Richir, S. (2018, April). A comparative study on conventional versus immersive service prototyping (VR, AR, MR). In proceedings of the virtual reality international conference-Laval virtual, 1-10).

Rezaei, S., & Valaei, N. (2017). Crafting experiential value via smartphone Apps Channel. Marketing, Intelligence & Planning, 35 , 688–702.

Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 , 504–521.

Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 280–285.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly , 574–599.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations . Simon and Schuster.

Roggeveen, A. L., Grewal, D., & Schweiger, E. B. (2020). The DAST framework for retail atmospherics: The impact of in-and out-of-store retail journey touchpoints on the customer experience. Journal of Retailing, 96 (1), 128–137.

Rohm, A. J., Gao, T., Sultan, F., & Pagani, M. (2012). Brand in the hand: A cross-market investigation of consumer acceptance of mobile marketing. Business Horizons, 55 , 485–493.

Roma, P., & Ragaglia, D. (2016). Revenue models, in-app purchase, and the app performance: Evidence from apple’s app store and google play. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 17 , 173–190.

Romaniuk, J., & Sharp, B. (2016). How brands grow part 2 . Oxford University Press.

Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 305–313.

Rosario, A. B., de Valck, K., & Sotgiue, F. (2020). Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about e-WOM creation, exposure, and evaluation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 , 422–448.

Ruekert, R. W. (1992). Developing a market orientation: An organizational strategy perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9 , 225–245.

Rust, R. T., & Huang, M. H. (2014). The service revolution and the transformation of marketing science. Marketing Science, 33 (2), 206–221.

Samiee, S., & Chabowski, B. R. (2012). Knowledge structure in international marketing: A multi-method bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (2), 364–386.

Sanchez, J., Carmen, A., & Haenlein, M. (2020). Competitive spill over elasticities of electronic word of mouth: An application to the soft drink industry. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 , 270–287.

Sarkar, A., Sarkar, J. G., Sreejesh, S., & Anusree, M. R. (2018). A qualitative investigation of e-tail brand affect. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36 , 365–380.

Saxena, P. (2020). Effective mobile app promotion strategies that start-ups must consider . Retrieved June 1 st , 2020 from https://appinventiv.com/blog/mobile-app-promotion-guide .

Scholz, J., & Duffy, K. (2018). We are at home: How augmented reality reshapes mobile marketing and consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 44 , 11–23.

Seitz, V. A., & Aldebasi, N. M. (2016). The effectiveness of branded mobile apps on user’s brand attitudes and purchase intentions. Review of Economic and Business Studies, 9 , 141–154.

Sensortower (2020). Top grossing apps | US | top app store ratings for iOS . Retrieved June 1 st , 2020 from https://sensortower.com/ios/rankings/top/iphone/us/all-categories?date=2020-06-02/ .

Shankar, V., Kleijnen, M., Ramanathan, S., Rizley, R., Holland, S., & Morrissey, S. (2016). Mobile shopper marketing: Key issues, current insights, and future research avenues. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 34 , 37–48.

Shapiro, B. P. (1988). What the hell is market oriented? Harvard Business Review, 66 , 119–125.

Sharp, B. (2010). How brands grow . Oxford University Press.

Sharp, B., Wright, M., & Goodhardt, G. (2002). Purchase loyalty is polarised into either repertoire or subscription patterns. Australasian Marketing Journal, 10 , 7–20.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 287–300.

Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D. J., Johar, J. Y., & Tidwell, J. (2008). Effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61 (10), 1091–1097.

Smutkupt, P., Krairit, D., & Esichaikul, V. (2010). Mobile marketing: Implications for marketing strategies. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 5 (2).

Snyder, H., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P., & Kristensson, P. (2016). Identifying categories of service innovations: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Business Research, 69 , 2401–2408.

Sripalawat, J., Thongmak, M., & Ngramyarn, A. (2011). M-banking in metropolitan Bangkok and a comparison with other countries. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51 , 67–76.

Srivastava, V. (2017). 71 ways to promote your mobile app for free . Retrieved June 1 st , 2020 from https://www.appypie.com/how-to-promote-your-mobile-app/ .

Statista. (2020). Number of apps available in leading app stores as of 1st quarter 2020. Retrieved June 2 nd , 2020 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/ .

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42 (4), 73–93.

Stocchi, L., Guerini, C., & Michaelidou, N. (2017). When are apps worth paying for? How marketers can analyze the market performance of mobile apps. Journal of Advertising Research, 57 , 260–271.

Stocchi, L., Ludwichowska, G., Fuller, R., & Gregoric, A. (2020a). Customer-based brand equity for branded apps: A simple research framework. Journal of marketing communications , 1-30.

Stocchi, L., Michaelidou, N., & Micevski, M. (2019). Drivers and outcomes of branded mobile app usage intention. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28 , 28–49.

Stocchi, L., Michaelidou, N., Pourazad, N., & Micevski, M. (2018). The rules of engagement: How to motivate consumers to engage with branded mobile apps. Journal of Marketing Management, 341 , 1196–1226.

Stocchi, L., Pourazad, N., & Michaelidou, N. (2020b). Identification of two decision-making paths underpinning the continued use of branded apps. Psychology & Marketing , 1–16.

Ström, R., Vendel, M., & Bredican, J. (2014). Mobile marketing: A literature review on its value for consumers and retailers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 , 1001–1012.

Sultan, F., & Rohm, A. J. (2005). The coming era of 'brand in the hand' marketing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47 , 83–90.

Sultan, F., Rohm, A. J., & Gao, T. T. (2009). Factors influencing consumer acceptance of mobile marketing: A two-country study of youth markets. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 , 308–320.

Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14 (1), 47–65.

Svendsen, G. B., Johnsen, J. A. K., Almås-Sørensen, L., & Vittersø, J. (2013). Personality and technology acceptance: The influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32 (4), 323–334.

Taivalsaari, A., & Mikkonen, T. (2015). From apps to liquid multi-device software. Procedia Computer Science, 56 , 34–40.

Tan, F. B., & Chou, J. P. C. (2008). The relationship between mobile service quality, perceived technology compatibility, and users’ perceived playfulness in the context of mobile information and entertainment services. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24 , 649–671.

Tan, X., Qin, L., Kim, Y., & Hsu, J. (2012). Impact of privacy concern in social networking web sites. Internet Research, 22 , 211–233.

Tao, D., Shao, F., Wang, H., Yan, M., & Qu, X. (2020). Integrating usability and social cognitive theories with the technology acceptance model to understand young users’ acceptance of a health information portal. Health Informatics Journal, 26 (2), 1347–1362.

Tariq (2020). 4 steps for increasing your app's user engagement and retention . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/353470 .

Tarute, A., Nikou, S., & Gatautis, R. (2017a). Mobile application driven consumer engagement. Telematics and Informatics, 34 (4), 145–156.

Tarute, A., Shahrokh, N., & Gatautis, R. (2017b). Mobile application driven consumer engagement. Telematics and Informatics, 34 , 145–156.

Tax, S. S., McCutcheon, D., & Wilkinson, I. F. (2013). The service delivery network (SDN): A customer-centric perspective of the customer journey. Journal of Service Research, 16 , 454–470.

Taylor, D. G., & Levin, M. (2014). Predicting mobile app usage for purchasing and information-sharing. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42 , 759–774.

Taylor, D. G., Voelker, T. A., & Pentina, I. (2011). Mobile application adoption by young adults: A social network perspective. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 6 , 60–70.

The Manifest (2018). 14 key metrics you need to track for your mobile app . Retrieved March 27, 2021 from https://medium.com/@the_manifest/14-key-metrics-you-need-to-track-for-your-mobile-app-75e48714039f .

Think Mobile (2021). What are the popular types and categories of apps . Retrieved July 3 rd , 2021 from https://thinkmobiles.com/blog/popular-types-of-apps/ .

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77–91.

Toivonen, M., & Tuominen, T. (2009). Emergence of innovations in services. Service Industries Journal, 29 , 887–902.

Tojib, D., & Tsarenko, Y. (2012). Post-adoption modeling of advanced mobile service use. Journal of Business Research, 65 , 922–928.

Tong, S., Luo, X., & Xu, B. (2020). Personalized mobile marketing strategies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 , 64–78.

Tran, T. P., Mai, E. S., & Taylor, E. C. (2021). Enhancing brand equity of branded mobile apps via motivations: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Business Research, 125 , 239–251.

Trivedi, J. P., & Trivedi, H. (2018). Investigating the factors that make a fashion app successful: The moderating role of personalization. Journal of Internet Commerce, 17 , 170–187.

Tseng, T. H., & Lee, C. T. (2018). Facilitation of consumer loyalty toward branded applications: The dual-route perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 35 , 1297–1309.

Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: A review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49 (2), 193–211.

Tyler, T. R. (2020). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35 , 117–125.

Tyrväinen, O., & Karjaluoto, H. (2019). A systematic literature review and analysis of mobile retailing adoption. Journal of Internet Commerce, 18 , 221–247.

Unity Developers (2021). 2021 is a Year of a Substantial Rise of AR and VR Apps. Retrieved on 24 th July from https://unitydevelopers.co.uk/2021-is-a-year-of-a-substantial-rise-of-ar-and-vr-apps/ .

Urban, G. L., & Sultan, F. (2015). The case for 'benevolent' mobile apps. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56 (2), 31.

van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13 , 253–266.

van Esch, P., Arli, D., Gheshlaghi, M. H., Andonopoulos, V., von der Heidt, T., & Northey, G. (2019). Anthropomorphism and augmented reality in the retail environment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49 , 35–42.

van Heerde, H. J., Dinner, I., & Neslin, S. A. (2019). Engaging the unengaged customer: The value of a retailer mobile app. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36 (3), 420–438.

van Noort, G., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2019). Branded apps: Explaining effects of brands' mobile phone applications on brand responses. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45 , 16–26.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68 , 1–17.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly , 425-478.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36 , 157–178.

Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85 , 31–41.

Veríssimo, J. M. C. (2018). Usage intensity of mobile medical apps: A tale of two methods. Journal of Business Research, 89 , 442–447.

Viswanathan, V., Hollebeek, L., Malthouse, E., Maslowska, E., Kim, S. J., & Xie, W. (2017). The dynamics of consumer engagement with mobile technologies. Service Science, 9 , 36–49.

Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20 , 122–146.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . Wiley and Sons.

Wang, B., Kim, S.-J., & Malthouse, E. (2016a). Branded apps and mobile platforms as new tools for advertising. In R. Brown, V. Jones, & M. Wang (Eds.), The new advertising: Branding, content, and consumer relationships in the data-driven social media era . Praeger.

Wang, D., Xiang, Z., Law, R., & Ki, T. P. (2016b). Assessing hotel-related smartphone apps using online reviews. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25 , 291–313.

Wang, J., Lai, J., & Chang, C. (2016c). Modeling and analysis for mobile application services: The perspective of mobile network operators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111 , 146–163.

Wang, W., & Li, H. (2012). Factors influencing mobile services adoption: A brand–equity perspective. Internet Research, 22 , 142–179.

Wang, W., Ou, W., & Chen, W. (2019). The impact of inertia and user satisfaction on the continuance intentions to use mobile communication applications: A mobile service quality perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 44 , 178–193.

Wang, Y., Lin, H., & Luarn, P. (2006). Predicting consumer intention to use mobile service. Information Systems Journal, 16 , 157–179.

Wang, Z., Zhao, H., & Wang, Y. (2015). Social networks in marketing research 2001–2014: A co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 105 , 65–82.

Watson, C., McCarthy, J., & Rowley, J. (2013). Consumer attitudes towards mobile marketing in the smart phone era. International Journal of Information Management, 33 , 840–849.

Wattanapisit, A., Teo, C. H., Wattanapisit, S., Teoh, E., Woo, W. J., & Ng, C. J. (2020). Can mobile health apps replace GPs? A scoping review of comparisons between mobile apps and GP tasks. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20.

Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15 (4), 263–290.

Wedel, M., Bigné, E., & Zhang, J. (2020). Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing research in consumer marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37 (3), 443–465.

Wei, J., Vinnikova, A., Lu, L., & Xu, J. (2020). Understanding and predicting the adoption of fitness mobile apps: Evidence from China. Health Communication , 1–12.

Wheeler, B. C. (2002). NEBIC: A dynamic capabilities theory for assessing net-enablement. Information Systems Research, 13 (2), 125–146.

Williams, K (2020). TikTok Was Installed More Than 738 Million Times in 2019, 44% of Its All-Time Downloads , Retrieved 1 st June, 2020 from https://sensortower.com/blog/tiktok-revenue-downloads-2019/ .

Wong, T. Y. T., Peko, G., Sundaram, D., & Piramuthu, S. (2016). Mobile environments and innovation co-creation processes & ecosystems. Information & Management, 53 , 336–344.

Woodside, A. G., Golfetto, F., & Gibbert, M. (2008). Customer value: Theory, research, and practice. In Creating and managing superior customer value . Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Wu, J., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42 , 719–729.

Wu, L, & Ye, Y. (2013). Understanding Impulsive buying behavior in mobile commerce. PACIS 2013 Proceedings, 142, https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2013/142 .

Wu, L. (2015). Factors of continually using branded mobile apps: The central role of app engagement. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 9 , 303–320.

Xu, C., Peak, D., & Prybutok, V. (2015). A customer value, satisfaction, and loyalty perspective of mobile application recommendations. Decision Support Systems, 79 , 171–183.

Yang, B. (2016). A link between consumer empathy and brand attachment on branded mobile apps: The moderating effect of ideal self-congruence. Indian Journal of Science & Technology, 9 , 1–9.

Yang, H. C. (2013). Bon appètit for apps: Young American consumers’ acceptance of mobile applications. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53 , 85–96.

Yang, K. C. C. (2005). Exploring factors affecting the adoption of mobile commerce in Singapore. Telematics & Informatics, 22 , 257–277.

Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing, 21 (10), 799–822.

Yaoyuneyong, G., Foster, J., Johnson, E., & Johnson, D. (2016). Augmented reality marketing: Consumer preferences and attitudes toward hypermedia print ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16 (1), 16–30.

Yoo, C., Park, J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1998). Effects of store characteristics and in-store emotional experiences on store attitude. Journal of Business Research, 42 (3), 253–263.

Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in everyday life: A call for research on experiential computing. MIS Quarterly , 213–231.

Yoon, C. (2011). Theory of planned behavior and ethics theory in digital piracy: An integrated model. Journal of Business Ethics, 100 , 405–417.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 4–34.

Zhang, T., Lu, C., & Kizildag, M. (2017). Engaging generation Y to co-create through mobile technology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 21 , 489–516.

Zhao, Z., & Balagué, C. (2015). Designing branded mobile apps: Fundamentals and recommendations. Business Horizons, 58 , 305–315.

Zhu, G., So, K. F., & Hudson, S. (2017). Inside the sharing economy: Understanding consumer motivations behind the adoption of mobile applications. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29 , 2218–2239.

Zolkepli, I. A., Mukhiar, S. N. S., Tan, C. (2020). Mobile consumer behaviour on apps usage: The effects of perceived values, rating, and cost. Journal of marketing communications (published electronically April 3), DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2020.1749108.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Maria Flutsch and Chandler Meakins for assisting with the management of the references. They also would like to thank Bryony Jardine for her assistance in the bibliometric analysis that underpins this study. Finally, the authors dedicate this work to Lucas Taousakis, who came to this world amid the first round of revisions and is the son of the lead author.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UniSA Business, University of South Australia (UniSA), Adelaide, South Australia

Lara Stocchi & Arry Tanusondjaja

College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia

Naser Pourazad

School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK

Nina Michaelidou

UWA Business School, University of Western Australia (UWA), Perth, Western Australia

Paul Harrigan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lara Stocchi .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Shailendra Jain served as Area Editor for this article

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Stocchi, L., Pourazad, N., Michaelidou, N. et al. Marketing research on Mobile apps: past, present and future. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 50 , 195–225 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00815-w

Download citation

Received : 12 October 2020

Accepted : 25 September 2021

Published : 08 November 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00815-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mobile applications
• Mobile apps
• Customer journey
• Customer experience
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.