Fear Of Texting Study Shows A Reversal Of The Gender Assumption

Written by Evan Schuman
July 8th, 2010

At this early stage of retail mobile, one of the ongoing fears involves text messaging acceptance. Beyond the general belief that younger consumers will embrace texting and older consumers will be repelled by it, there’s the assumption that men would warm to texting at all ages, given the guy love of gadgets. New stats from eMarketer challenge that assumption.

With a sample size of 1,729 and a survey done by Harris Interactive on July 1, the youngest segment clearly—and expectedly—showed strong acceptance of text alerts, with 42 percent support, with men about 4 percent more supportive (44 percent) than women (40 percent).

When moving to the 35-44 age group, the overall numbers take an expected sharp drop. But the gender differences are virtually nil, with men (29 percent) actually slightly behind women (30 percent). The surprise kicks in with the next age group: 45-54.

Although the fondness falls a bit, it’s much more pronounced in men. Women (26 percent) drop barely four percent from the 35-44 group, but male support drops almost in half, from 29 percent (for 35-44) to 16 percent (for 45-54). In the broad 55-and-older category, men actually become more receptive to texting, going up four points to 20 percent, while women drop from 26 percent to 14 percent.

It’s hard to know what’s behind those figures, which makes crafting a strategy to deal with these stats difficult. Complicating this further is the age segmentation Harris Interactive chose. The youngest group is arguably too broad, with 18-year-olds in a radically different place than 34-year-olds. Creating an 18-25 group and then a 26-34 group may have been more useful and meaningful.

Likewise, the oldest group (55 and older) should probably have been capped or segmented more. Today’s 55-year-old is quite likely working full-time, a reality that could easily impact consumers through age 70.

Full-time employees are likely to have more mobile interactions than consumers who have been out of the workforce for five or more years. It seems odd to have one group with 55-year-old managers and 90-year-old consumers who may have been retired for decades. With no end to that age segment, it makes analysis of that data practically useless.

That all said, the 45-54 group seems perfectly legitimate, Harris generally does excellent survey work and that sample size is more than adequate. What would cause the men in that group to deviate from their age peers and from their older and younger gender peers?

One distinct possibility is that the men are more resistant to text alerts specifically because they are more comfortable with the mobile devices. It’s not a novelty for them: It’s an essential work tool, for information sharing and access. From that perspective, it’s more interruptive than helpful. They didn’t grow up texting for fun and social interactions as have the younger end of the 18-34 group.

Also, the natural resistance to shopping inherent in the male of the species makes text ads more repugnant, with little counter interest in seeing bargains quickly.

Then again, it might just be that men are crazy. It’s been said before.


One Comment | Read Fear Of Texting Study Shows A Reversal Of The Gender Assumption

  1. A Reader Says:

    We in the 45-54 age group have experienced a dramatic shift in advertising. As children, we saw relatively few ads compared to today, most of which were clumsy and obvious. As adults we have seen our world become littered with marketing, and it’s not been a pleasant shift. I have personally become extremely ad averse, and will opt-out or decline every marketing opportunity, even to my own disadvantage. (Not filling out warranty cards, for example, because I don’t trust the marketing intentions of the manufacturers. )

    I have no problem receiving text messages, as long as they’re from people I like.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.