Mobile

Nicholas Carah

Cite as: Carah, N. (2020). ‘Mobile Marketing’ (pp. 1-16) in Ling, R., Fortunati, L., Goggin, G, Lim, S., Li, Y. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Mobile and Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Introduction What defines life in a culture now? For much of the twentieth century it meant being immersed in the sensory of promotional appeals, experiences and imagery (Leach 1993, Lears 1995, Preciado 2014). With the ubiquity of and digital platforms, a fundamental shift has taken place. Life in a consumer culture now involves being tethered to digital platforms that engineer attention, engagement and analytics for marketers (Alaimo and Kallinikos 2016, Andrejevic 2013, Ekbia and Nardi 2014, Gerlitz and Helmond 2013, Zuboff 2015). While we are still enveloped in the sensory consumption of marketing appeals – in shops, malls and clubs; as flows of images on billboards and television – consumer culture is increasingly governed by platforms designed to shape and optimise our attention. translate their experience of consumer culture into content and data on platforms, and those platforms respond to them in real- time, customising images and ideas to respond to their preferences, location and actions (Andrejevic 2013, Zuboff 2015). The mobile device is central to these developments.

What is mobile marketing? Kaplan defines mobile marketing as ‘any marketing activity conducted through a ubiquitous network to which consumers are constantly connected using a personal device’ (2012: 130). This definition invites us to approach mobile marketing as a series of techniques developed over the past two decades. In a straightforward sense, mobile marketing involves practices like using customer databases to send SMS messages (Lamberton and Stephen 2016), targeting consumers via apps when they are in or near stores (Turow 2017), or targeting promotional posts or filters into Instagram or Snapchat feeds based on factors like our interests or location.

The use of mobile devices by marketers emerges from a culture of ubiquitous connectivity increasingly shaped by major digital media platforms such as Google and Facebook. Smartphones are integrated into the rhythms of everyday life, capturing and structuring attention and action. Market researchers claim that US consumers spend 5 hours a day on their , half of it on , messaging and entertainment apps (Perez 2017a). In 2017, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told an earnings call that users spend on average 50 minutes a day on the Facebook, Instagram and Messenger apps (Constine 2017). The cumulative effect of this engagement is important, as over a period of ten years, the average Facebook user would spend 3000 hours translating their experience and attention into data that trains the platform algorithms.

In this chapter, I argue that the mobile device is part of a critical transformation in marketing. In the space of a decade, the mobile device has become the critical interface between cultural life and marketing. Media devices have long sat at the touchpoint between marketers and consumers. In the twentieth century these devices included television, radio, billboards. These devices tended to be immobile, one-way and mass. By contrast, the smartphone is mobile, two-way and customised. With mass media technologies, it was difficult to recuperate the creativity of consumers back into the imagery and narratives of in real-time (Author). With the smartphone however, a culture emerges where consumers translate their lives into flows of images, expressions and data.

I begin by suggesting that a pre-history of mobile marketing alerts us to the ways in which it is embedded in marketers’ longer-term efforts to create a participatory and reflexive mode of branding that began to emerge with the ‘creative revolution’ of the 1960s (Frank 1998). The creative revolution began to imagine consumers as active participants in the marketing process. Modern marketing since the post-war period has been characterized by the effort to create techniques that make consumers visible and productive for corporations. I argue that devices like the smartphone are taken up by marketers as part of their ongoing efforts to harness consumers as productive laborers in the process of making both valuable brands and efficient marketing systems.

In the second part of the chapter, I focus on the relationship between smartphones and digital media platforms. Mobile marketing is intrinsic to the development of platforms such as Facebook, Google, Instagram and Snapchat. These platforms each operate under the commercial imperative to generate revenue from selling content, services or . They play a critical role in facilitating the integration of the smartphone into everyday cultural practices on the one hand, and then on the other, making those practices available to marketers as moments of attention and engagement. The platform is the critical force in making the smartphone an always-on touchpoint between consumers and marketers.

In the final part of the chapter, I consider how mobile marketing creates and leverages new forms of consumer labor. As the smartphone becomes the critical interface between marketing and culture, consumers become more and more productive parts of the marketing process. They play the crucial role of translating cultural life into data that feeds marketing analytics, of integrating marketing appeals into the performance of their lives on mobile social media platforms, and using mobile platforms to coordinate their movements in markets. The chapter takes a critical approach, informed by media and cultural studies’ attention to platforms, culture and audience labor. By doing so, I argue that the mobile is significant not only because of the way it enables marketers to invade privacy or colonise attention – it does both these things – but more profoundly because of the way it integrates the consumer into the marketing process. At least one consequence of this change is the need to reconsider how marketing shapes our culture and our lived experience.

The prehistory of mobile marketing: making consumers visible and productive During the latter part of the twentieth century, the idea that the consumer was an active, and sometimes empowered, part of the marketing process became increasingly mainstream in literature and academic theory (Holt 2002, Zwick et al. 2008). This was evident in frameworks like customer relationship marketing, value co-creation and the dominant logic of marketing (Beckett and Nayak 2008, Vargo and Lusch 2004, Zwick et al. 2008, Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). These ways of thinking about the consumer partly had their roots in the way advertisers and marketers responded to, and recuperated, the symbolic resistance and cynicism of the counter- culture (Frank 1998, Holt 2002). From cultural critique of marketing, media and the mass society (Frank 1998, Holt 2002), through to marketing theory (Gronroos 2012), the emphasis shifted away from understanding marketing and advertising as a process of top-down persuasion or ideological manipulation of passive consumers. Instead, consumers came to be understood as participants in a more open-ended and flexible marketing process. This shift unfolded as part of the larger transition from a mass to a networked (and more recently platform or surveillance) mode of capitalism (Harvey 1989, Hearn 2008, Holt 2002, Zwick et al. 2008, Zuboff 2015). In societies characterised by fragmenting media channels, proliferating lifestyle-based identities, growing opportunities for self- expression, and greater choice, marketers had to embrace a more dynamic relationship with consumers (Author, Holt 2002).

Mobile marketing emerges from this history. In this way of thinking, brands are ‘social processes’ that seek to harness and guide consumer creativity (Lury 2004, Moor 2003). This kind of marketing works in one direction by offering consumers cultural resources that they incorporate into their own lives and identities (Holt 2002, Hearn 2008, Moor 2003, Thompson and Arsel 2004); and in the other direction by monitoring the creative appropriations consumers make of brands, products and services (Andrejevic 2013, Moor 2003, Zwick 2009, Lury 2009, Turow 2011). One of the lessons of marketers’ efforts to create more flexible brands and promotional strategies is that granting more freedom to consumers must be accompanied by the development of techniques that monitor, mine and harvest the creativity generated (Frank 1998, Zwick et al. 2008). If marketers were to have a more open-ended relationship with consumers then they needed to create techniques for harnessing their participation and making them visible.

Using media to build the cultural atmosphere of consumption Throughout the twentieth century, marketers created environments that used a combination of architecture, media technologies and human laborers to stimulate and shape the affective experience of consumers, channel their creativity, and monitor their actions (Kottler 1973, Leach 1993, Preciado 2014). These spaces became synonymous with the public culture of consumer societies: malls, shops, restaurants and cafes, hotels, concert and sports stadiums, nightclubs and music festivals. The purposeful use of media technologies was intrinsic to these marketing strategies (Preciado 2014, Turow 2017), and they serve as an important pre-cursor to? the use of mobile media by marketers in the present. In the department stores of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, entrepreneurs experimented with electric light and music, for instance. From the post-war period onwards, marketers began to create what Preciado (2014) calls ‘bio-multimedia’ factories that sought to connect living bodies to media and information technologies. Preciado (2014: 213) proposes that the Playboy brand, mansion and global network of clubs in this period was a prototype ‘media platform where ‘experiences’ are administered’. Marketers and designers began creating spaces that anticipated the ‘post-electronic community-commercial environments to come’ by placing media technologies like cameras and screens at the centre of stimulating consumers’ feelings and monitoring their actions (Preciado 2014: 213). The effort to engineer the subjective experience of consumers mirrors the logic employed by platforms like Google, Facebook and Instagram in the design of their recommendation algorithms. In the era of the smartphone, marketers are imagining the mobile as a device that makes consumers and their movements and moods routinely available to their decision-making systems (Turow 2017).

Using mobile devices to make the consumer productive In the mid-2000s I observed brands using SMS and MMS functionality of mobiles to encourage audiences to interact with big screens at public events like music festivals (Author, McQuire 2008). These forms of participation combined the expressive documentation of cultural life using cameras, with the participatory expression of opinion emerging in formats like SMS voting in reality TV contests, rating and reviewing cultural products and experiences online, and blogging. For example, in Australia, Nokia ran a Music Goes Mobile (2005) campaign which aimed to promote their feature phone as a networked camera (Author). Through an online competition, they recruited young Australians to hang out with popular rock bands and film short documentary videos on the Nokia feature phone. The videos they filmed were then uploaded to a custom-built . Visitors to the site, which could only be accessed from a desktop computer, would then play the videos using a Flash player.

The campaign built on a culture where the use of the camera for ‘coolhunting’ was already well- established, and anticipated a culture where the mobile device would be seamlessly connected to the web.i In this example, we can see Nokia experimenting with building the socio-technical apparatus for getting consumers to actively translate the cultural experiences and judgments into digital content and data. As Andrejevic (2002: 266) noted, at the time the paradox of the emerging digital economy was that ‘it pretends to individuals that they count, that they are worthy of individual attention - even though all it really wants to do is count them - to plug their vital statistics into a marketing algorithm’. While Andrejevic’s (2002) object of study was reality TV formats like Big Brother, his argument spoke to the connections being engineered between the participatory affordances and data-processing power of digital technologies. Reality TV pre-empted a digital culture underpinned by the smartphone, a culture in which everyday intimacies and performances are continuously streamed and logged via the smartphone in the databases of social media platforms, for commercial gain.

Using mobile devices to make the consumer visible If the purposeful design of spaces that harness consumer subjectivity and creativity stretch back to the nineteenth century, then so too do techniques for making the consumer visible. Department stores first created accounts that extended credit to consumers in the nineteenth century (Leach 1993). These systems of accounts and credit established relationships between consumers and retailers, making their patterns of consumption visible for the first time at an individual level. With the emergence of scannable loyalty and membership cards, especially from the 1990s onwards, consumers carried with them a mobile marketing device that registered their preferences and activities in digital databases (Beckett 2012). The card acts as a touchpoint between the practices of consumers and the calculative logic of marketers. The loyalty card generates data that enables marketers to experiment with, ‘fine tune’ and customise, market offerings (Becket 2012: 11). If consumers can be comprehensively monitored, then marketers can move away from a logic of persuading mass markets into standardised patterns of consumption, and toward the logic of real- time prediction and mass customisation. In this system, consumer creativity, individuality and reflexivity, when recorded in databases, becomes a source of innovation for marketers (Beckett 2012, Zwick and Knott 2009). The logic of the loyalty card was imported into digital media with the invention of the ‘cookie’ that enabled to track individual users (Turow 2011), and from there rendered into the customised recommendation algorithms of Google search and maps, Facebook’s News Feed and Instagram’s home feed. In this respect, the loyalty card pre-empts the smartphone by creating a mobile device that is used to log the movements and actions of consumers in databases, and then employ that data to shape the atmospheres and rituals of consumption in real-time.

A platform approach to mobile marketing In the consumer media-architecture of the twentieth century – malls, retail stores, clubs, hotels, theme parks, stadiums and cultural festivals – we can see marketers devising techniques for shaping the subjective experience of the consumer, harnessing their creativity and rendering them visible. The crucial breakthrough that comes with the smartphone is that it allows marketers to operationalise these techniques by having distributed and ubiquitous access to consumer experience, and the capacity to translate that experience into actionable data. What unfolds is the progressive engineering of automated data collection, automated sense-making and then automated response (Andrejevic and Burdon 2015). This engineering process is driven by major digital media platforms who have a commercial interest in creating and profiting from ‘ubiquitous connectivity’ (Kaplan 2012, van Dijck 2013). The smartphone-enabled platforms like Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and so on to become the dominant ‘always-on’ touchpoints? between consumers and marketers.

The smartphone brings together the ‘soft’ cultural marketing techniques of designing consumer experiences with the ‘hard’ analytic marketing techniques of collecting and processing data (Lury 2009). It was the integration of the smartphone and media platforms that enabled marketers to more seamlessly convert their real world creative engagement with consumers into flows of media content and data (Author, Moor 2003). If the atmospheric marketing techniques of the twentieth century were confined to purpose-built material spaces, with the smartphone, marketing becomes ubiquitous. The smartphone is the device through which the techniques of marketing are permanently attached to the living body and lived experience. They stretch into our bedrooms and homes; they are woven into our movements through the city. They automatically convert any space we take them to into a branded? environment. Anywhere consumers go, they use the smartphone to render their social relations and affects visible, sensible and operational to marketers.

Over the past decade, digital media platforms have become the key institutional actors in integrating the smartphone into marketing systems. They engineered interfaces and protocols for transforming human experiences, affects and judgments into data (Gerlitz and Helmond 2013, van Dijck 2013). It is using the smartphone that we search, like, check-in, post images and video that render moment-to-moment experience visible and actionable within contemporary marketing systems. The smartphone and its users do the work of both making these platforms the basic infrastructure of public and private life, and of making lived experience sensible to their algorithms and machine learning processes. The smartphone is the material device through which we ‘encode’ reality and make it available to platforms, who in turn make it available to marketers’ ‘calculative operations’ (Alaimo and Kallinikos 2016, page number?).

Smartphones and the algorithmic brand culture of platforms The launch of Facebook’s News Feed in 2006 was a decisive moment in the development of mobile marketing (Facebook 2006). The News Feed put an algorithmically customised feed of content at the centre of the user interface (Bucher 2012). This enshrined the logic of continuous experimentation with user engagement in the platform’s engineering processes (Alaimo and Kallinikos 2016, van Dijck 2013, Zuboff 2015). The News Feed algorithm has been designed to iteratively learn what kinds of content kept users engaged with the platform, and then preference that content in their feeds. At first, the News Feed did not have any marketing content inserted into it. Users who accessed the platform via the mobile app or a mobile web browser saw only the News Feed, and therefore no advertising at all. This posed a major strategic problem. When Facebook listed as a public company in 2012, half its users accessed the platform from a smartphone and therefore saw no advertising. The platform could make no revenue from this mobile engagement (Reardon 2012).

From 2012, Facebook responded to this problem by integrating promoted advertiser content into the News Feed (Cohen 2012). This collapsed the distinction between advertising and all other kinds of content on the platform. Promoted posts in the feeds of mobile apps are now the backbone of Facebook’s and Instagram’s revenue. From zero in 2012, 50% of Facebook’s advertising revenue came from mobile by 2014 (Constine 2014). By 2017, 90% of Facebook advertising revenue comes from native content algorithmically integrated into the News Feed. The News Feed algorithm doesn’t just target content at specific users in particular times and places, it also does the crucial work of optimising the balance between selling the attention of users to advertisers and maintaining their ongoing engagement with the platform. Over time, an expanding array of judgments are incorporated into the algorithm to make advertisements more temporally contextual, and more responsive to location, mood and recent actions. By solving this major strategic problem Facebook also dramatically transformed the relationship between marketers and the media system. The created a form of algorithmic culture – the use of computational processes to sort culture (Striphas 2015) – wholly integrated with the strategic interests of marketers. And, they realised the potential of the smartphone as a ubiquitous, always-on, touchpoint between consumers and marketers.

Smartphones and the participatory brand culture of platforms The smartphone is also central to the rise of a participatory brand and influencer culture because it enables the candid, continuous, revelatory documentation of consumer culture. It enables the low- cost recording of video of everyday intimacies and performances. Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat each generated extensive engagement via their mobile apps before they had a formal mobile advertising model. In the absence of paid advertising, vernacular promotional cultures emerged on each of these platforms. This was partly driven by users doing the everyday labor of living in a brand culture (Hearn 2008, Banet-Weiser 2012). As users began crafting their social media profiles, they would incorporate the resources of commercial popular culture (Banet-Weiser 2012, Duffy & Serazio 2017). This would include brands they liked, products they bought and experiences they paid for. Users also did the work of ‘structuring feeling’ (Hearn 2010) on the social web by ranking, rating and reviewing goods and experiences.

Alongside these ordinary practices of a consumer culture emerged a diffuse network of microcelebrities, cultural intermediaries and hip consumers (Author, Abidin 2016, Marwick 2015). Some were cultural producers like celebrities, artists, photographers, fashion models or musicians (Marwick 2015, Author). Others had developed their following online as discerning consumers. The influencer culture that emerged on Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat demonstrates how the smartphone extends the platform’s marketing apparatus into the real world – from the bedrooms of influencers, to social rituals like clubbing or eating, to large public events like music festivals. The influencer’s body and life become seamlessly knitted together with brands in one ‘promotional package’ (Hearn 2008).

Smartphones and augmented reality branding on platforms The engineering of a participatory, data-driven, native mobile marketing model is an ongoing project. Snapchat is significant as the first platform to develop a mobile augmented reality advertising model that works at scale, is location-specific, targeted and participatory. In 2017, Snapchat began to open up sponsored lenses and filters to all marketers. These are digital objects that are only available to targeted users in specific times and locations. Users can use a lens or filter to augment the images and video they circulate to peers. For instance, Malibu Rum made available a lens that first turned the user’s head into a moving pineapple, and then the pineapple exploded to reveal the user’s real face wearing sunglasses and sipping a pina colada cocktail. Sponsored lenses can be targeted not only to specific users, but also to specific times and locations. Via these augmented reality lenses, brands become incorporated in the users’ playful depictions of their everyday life. The lenses augment their depiction of their own face, friends and cultural experiences. Facebook and Instagram began aggressively cloning features of the ephemeral video and messaging platform Snapchat once it launched a bona-fide advertising model.

Snapchat’s advertising model engineers a highly programmed version of participatory culture. Consumers can make an endless array of creative appropriations of the brand, but they do that within a platform funded by marketers, and engineered with their interests in mind. In this marketing infrastructure brands seek less to control the specific meanings of qualities attached to them, and instead aim to get consumers to play with them in open-ended ways. Each individual user produces bespoke advertisements for the brand, and in doing so generates data about the forms of engagement the brand has with specific users, enabling more granular targeting over time. The smartphone is the critical device in facilitating the emergence of this participatory augmented reality form of advertising.

Smartphones are logistical devices in the marketing process The smartphone, in combination with platforms and their apps, is now also the key device for navigating consumer culture (Turow 2017). Instagram has added ‘buy’ buttons to its promoted posts, these include links attached to specific objects in an image. For instance, a marketer might post an image of a model wearing items of clothing. If the user taps on any item of clothing, a link through to the online store pops up. In 2017 the fast fashion retailer ASOS added a ‘visual search’ feature to its app (Moon 2017). While the app was initially built as an online store, it has incrementally incorporated machine learning algorithms that customize the user experience. The visual search feature uses machine vision algorithms to enable users to take a photo of a garment of fashion accessory – it might be a photo they take of a friend, or a screenshot of an image they see on Instagram - and upload it to the app. The app will then search through ASOS’ database of more than 80,000 fashion items to see and suggest that, or similar, items. The app translates the real world observation of fashion into customized search in a database. This visual search feature is similar to Google’s announcement in 2017 about its Lens prototype (Chacksfield 2018). Lens will enable users to use the camera on their phone to decipher and add information to the world around them. For instance, they could point their phone camera at a store on the street and Lens would use machine vision to read the store name and location data and then provide information such as user reviews and opening times (Perez 2017b).

In Google’s Lens and ASOS’ visual search we can see marketers importing digital scanning practices perfected in infrastructure like Walmart and Amazon warehouses into the everyday practices of consumer culture (LeCavalier 2016). If so far, the smartphone has mostly been deployed to target information at consumers or have consumers translate their experience into images and data, in the emergence of augmented reality technologies we can see the next wave of marketing applications. The smartphone will further reduce the friction between the open-ended nature of cultural life and the logistics of marketing by making the material world scannable. In technologies that enable us to augment our faces or automatically scan our visual environment we can see new ways in which marketers exercise power. Marketers are not necessarily developing more sophisticated symbolic appeals, and they are not necessarily becoming more persuasive. They are building the tools of everyday life to make lived experience more immediately translatable into the machinery of marketing.

The labor of mobile marketing The capacity of marketers and platforms to engineer attention, harness participation and coordinate action depends on the productive activity of consumers. Mobile media cultures expand the work consumers do by watching advertisements and incorporating the lifestyles, products and experiences they promote into their lives and identities. The smartphone makes consumer attention more ubiquitously available to marketers, it is also a critical device in expanding what Andrejevic (2002) calls the work of being watched. Consumers do the work of being watched when they use the smartphone to perform their identities and document their consumer experience on platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. In doing so they produce both narratives that others consume and they convert their lived experience into data. As users select videos to watch, pause over images in their home feed, like, share and comment on content they generate data about their preferences, actions, location, proximity to others, mood and so on.

In addition to generating content and data, consumers undertake the labor of building and training marketing infrastructure, and integrating it into everyday life (Author, Ekbia and Nardi 2014). Participants in a mobile marketing system undertake the work of apprehending human experience and registering it on databases where it is available for processing and open-ended experimentation. The mobile device is a distributed probe or sensor (Andrejevic and Burdon 2015, Turow 2017) whose value is activated by human users who take it with them everywhere they go: search for information, perform their identities, communicate their judgments, and scan and decipher objects. Via these practices we do the work of training machines to sort, recognize and configure our cultural experience in ways that serve the interests of marketers (Dow Schull 2012, Ekbi and Nardi 2014). The product of user labor is a platform that users do not and cannot control.

For all the work audiences did watching television in the twentieth century; that work didn’t change the medium or infrastructure of television itself all that much. In the development of the smartphone-platform marketing model however, we are moving into an era where the human user is an active contributor to the engineering of media infrastructure itself. Platforms employ experts from engineers to sociologists and anthropologists to iron out the points of friction between human users and the calculative logic of the platform. The ordinary user also undertakes the important and productive work of using the smartphone (and other mobile media devices) to roll digital media infrastructure into the material world, onto the living body and through lived experience. As they do so, they increase the power of platforms to undertake ‘real time observation, communication, analysis, prediction, and modification of actual behaviour’ (Zuboff 2015, and also Andrejevic 2013, Author).

Conclusion In a system of mobile marketing, consumers help to build the socio-technical apparatus that marketers use to govern them. This is a profound cultural change. Media become technologies less organised around using narrative to construct a shared social situation, and more focused on using data to experiment with reality (Andrejevic 2013, Packer 2013). Within this media system participation is not only the expression of particular ideas, but more generally making available the living body to experiments and modulation. The past decade has been characterized by continuous experimentation by marketers with the promotional, participatory, logistical and predictive capacities that emerge when the smartphone connects everyday life to the databases and algorithms of digital platforms. The cumulative effect of these changes is a much more extensive integration of the logic of marketing into our lived experience. The marketing and advertising of the twentieth century was often criticised for the way it colonised our sensory experience. Everyday life became filled with the promotional images and messages of advertisers. The marketing that has emerged around the mobile device however, extends the capacity of marketers to observe, judge and shape our experience. This means that a critique of marketing must now go beyond the symbolic dimension of how marketing shapes our cultural experience, to the infrastructural dimension of how marketing is central to the expanding capacity of digital media to monitor, process and shape the social world.

While we might be savvy and cynical consumers of marketing imagery, we are much less able to disentangle ourselves from points of contact with marketing infrastructure. Where once members of a consumer culture might have sought to inoculate their subjectivity from marketing by taking a cynical or distanced attitude to advertising and consumer culture, those strategies are thwarted in the age of mobile marketing. Whatever we think of the promotional appeals of marketers, every time we use our smartphone to search for something on Google, scroll through our Instagram feed, or use a Snapchat filter, we are making the two-fold move of integrating the platform into the doing of consumer culture, and training the platform to make more precise interventions into our lived experience.

Mobile marketing then is not just a series of discreet techniques that involve the use of a networked digital device, but rather a socio-technical process through which platforms integrate marketing infrastructure into our private experience and public culture. Major digital platforms like Facebook and Google are historically significant for the way they take up the smartphone as a ubiquitous interface between lived experience and their platform interfaces, protocols and algorithms. This process is driven by the fierce competition to construct a profitable advertising model in the era of the always-on smartphone. We are now reckoning with a situation where the infrastructure of public speech and culture is engineered largely on terms set by marketers. Mobile platform-based marketing has made the logic of generating, optimizing and selling engagement the central organizing force in the mediatization of public life. The major challenge for further research in the area is to approach mobile marketing as not just techniques for managing consumers, but more fundamentally the socio-technical process through which people – their living attention and experience – become tethered to the data and marketing-driven logic of digital platforms.

References Abidin, C. (2016). Visibility labor: Engaging with Influencers’ fashion brands and# OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 161(1), 86-100. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2016). Encoding the everyday: The infrastructural apparatus of social data in Sugimoto, C. R., Ekbia, H. R., & Mattioli, M. (Eds.). (2016). Big data is not a monolith. MIT Press: Cambridge. Andrejevic, M. (2002a). The kinder, gentler gaze of Big Brother: Reality TV in the era of digital capitalism. New media & society, 4(2), 251-270. Andrejevic, M. (2002b). The work of being watched: Interactive media and the exploitation of self- disclosure. Critical studies in media communication, 19(2), 230-248. Andrejevic, M. (2013). Infoglut: How too much information is changing the way we think and know. Routledge: London. Andrejevic, M., & Burdon, M. (2015). Defining the sensor society. Television & New Media, 16(1), 19- 36. Beckett, A. (2012). Governing the consumer: technologies of consumption. Consumption Markets & Culture, 15(1), 1-18. Beckett, A., & Nayak, A. (2008). The reflexive consumer. Marketing Theory, 8(3), 299-317. Banet-Weiser, S. (2012). AuthenticTM: The politics of ambivalence in a brand culture. NYU press: New York. Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164-1180. Chacksfield, M. (2018). Life through Lens: inside Google’s plan to re-skin reality, TechRadar. Available at: https://www.techradar.com/news/life-through-lens-inside-googles-plan-to-re-skin- reality Cohen, D. (2012). Facebook launches promoted posts for pages, AdWeek. Available at: http://www.adweek.com/digital/promoted-posts-for-pages/ Constine, J. (2014). Facebook Officially A Mobile Ad Firm With 53% Of Ad Revenue Now Coming From Its 945M Mobile Users, TechCrunch. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/29/facebook-is-a-mobile-ad-company/ Constine, J. (2017).Users average 50 minutes per day on Facebook, Messenger and Instagram, TechCrunch. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/27/facediction/ Ekbia, H., & Nardi, B. (2014). Heteromation and its (dis) contents: The invisible division of labor between humans and machines. First Monday, 19(6). van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Duffy, B. & Serazio, M. (2017). Social media marketing. in Burgess, J., Poell, T. & Marwick, A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Media. Sage: London. Facebook (2006). Facebook gets a facelift. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/facebook-gets-a-facelift/2207967130/ Frank, T. (1998). The conquest of cool: Business culture, counterculture, and the rise of hip consumerism. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348-1365. Gladwell, M. (1997). The Coolhunt. The New Yorker. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/03/17/the-coolhunt Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the future. Journal of Marketing , 28(13-14), 1520-1534. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity (Vol. 14). Blackwell: Oxford. Hearn, A. (2008). Meat, Mask, Burden: Probing the contours of the branded self. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 197-217. Hearn, A. (2010). Structuring feeling: Web 2.0, online ranking and rating, and the digital ‘reputation’ economy. Ephemera, 10(3/4), 421-438. Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of consumer research, 29(1), 70-90. Instagram (2017). Bringing more transparency to commercial relationships on Instagram, Instagram. Available at: https://instagram-press.com/blog/2017/06/14/bringing-more- transparency-to-commercial-relationships-on-instagram/ Kaplan, A. M. (2012). If you love something, let it go mobile: Mobile marketing and mobile social media 4x4. Business Horizons, 55(2), 129-139. Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64. Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146-172. Lears, J. (1995). Fables of abundance: A cultural history of advertising in America. Basic Books: New York. Leach, W. R. (1993). Land of desire: Merchants, power, and the rise of a new American culture. Vintage: New York. LeCavalier, J. (2016). The Rule of Logistics: Walmart and the Architecture of Fulfillment. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. Lury, C. (2004). Brands: The logos of the global economy. Routledge: London. Lury, C. (2009). Brand as assemblage: Assembling culture. Journal of Cultural Economy, 2(1-2), 67- 82. Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Culture, 27(1 (75)), 137-160. McQuire, S. (2008). The media city: Media, architecture and urban space. Sage: London. Moon, M. (2017). Asos adds visual search to ease your fashion hunt, Engadget. Available online: https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/10/asos-ios-app-visual-search/ Moor, E. (2003). Branded spaces: the scope of ‘new marketing’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 3(1), 39-60. Packer, J. (2013). Epistemology not ideology or why we need new Germans. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 10(2-3), 295-300. Perez, S. (2017a) U.S. consumers now spend 5 hours per day on mobile devices Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/03/u-s-consumers-now-spend-5-hours-per-day- on-mobile-devices/ Perez, S. (2017b). Google Lens will let smartphone cameras understand what they see and take action, TechCrunch. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/17/google-lens-will-let- smartphone-cameras-understand-what-they-see-and-take-action/ Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Press: Boston. Preciado, P. B. (2014). Pornotopia: An Essay on Playboy's Architecture and Biopolitics. Zone Books. Reardon, M. (2012). Does Facebook have a mobile problem?, CNet. Available at: https://www.cnet.com/au/news/does-facebook-have-a-mobile-problem/ Schüll, N. D. (2012). Addiction by design: Machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press: New Jersey. Striphas, T. (2015). Algorithmic culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4-5), 395-412. Thompson, C. J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and consumers'(anticorporate) experiences of glocalization. Journal of consumer research, 31(3), 631-642. Turow, J. (2012). The Daily You: How the new advertising is defining your identity and your worth. Yale University Press: New Haven. Turow, J. (2017). The aisles have eyes: How retailers track your shopping, strip your privacy, and define your power. Yale University Press: New Haven. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17. Zwick, D., Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Putting Consumers to Work: Co-creationand new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of consumer culture, 8(2), 163-196. Zwick, D., & Knott, J. (2009). Manufacturing customers: The database as new means of production. Journal of Consumer Culture, 9(2), 221-247. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89.

i ‘Coolhunting’ is an industry term for a kind of semi-ethnographic market research that involves going out into urban, street, club and youth cultures to identify and seed trends. Coolhunters attempt to find influential people in those cultural scenes and both adopt and shape their taste. For an accessible introduction see Macolm Gladwell (1997).