Creepy Marketing:. . . .

Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

CREEPY MARKETING: THREE DIMENSIONS OF

PERCEIVED EXCESSIVE ONLINE PRIVACY VIOLATION
ROBERT S. MOORE, Mississippi State University
MELISSA L. MOORE, Mississippi State University
KEVIN J. SHANAHAN, Mississippi State University
ALISHA HORKY, Elon University
BRITNEY MACK, Mississippi State University

In this explorative paper we develop three dimensions of a new construct, Creepy Marketing
(hereafter CM). First we discuss the impact of online personalized marketing on consumers. Based
on this discussion a qualitative study examines both annoying marketing and creepy marketing from
a consumer’s perceptive. Results distinguish annoying marketing, defined primarily as tactics, from
CM, defined predominately as feelings. Based on the study, CM consists of three dimensions:
invasion of privacy, stalking behavior and violation of social norms. Each of these dimensions is
discussed and directions for future research are provided.

INTRODUCTION new personal space (Felipe & Sommer, 1966)

occurs. As a strategy, retreat reestablishes
For more than fifty years, social scientists have privacy for individuals.
studied the concept of personal space in the
corporeal world. Studies on violations of this The social sciences provide much explanation
personal space include both public and private of violations of personal space in the corporeal
settings. These settings vary widely from 1) world however a paucity of research on
public settings where one would assume violations of virtual space exists. The purpose
reduced personal space such as crowded of this study is to investigate the concept of
subway cars (Evans & Wener, 2007) to 2) virtual space, which is the space individuals
public spaces where one expects no violation of consider to be their own virtual environment.
personal space such as men’s urinals Our study begins with a discussion of more
(Middelmist, Knowles, & Matter, 1978) and 3) familiar corporeal or non-virtual invasion of
private spaces where one assumes additional personal space. Next, we discuss online
personal space such as an ATM (Kaya and personalized marketing, the impact of this type
Erkip, 1999). of marketing on consumers and then conduct a
qualitative study to identify types of marketing
Personal space, an area that individuals that pierces this veil of online virtual space
maintain around themselves (Hayduk, 1978), based on perceptions of what Internet users
consists of a culturally accepted normative consider creepy marketing (hereafter CM). The
distance and a known predictable behavior results of this study are then discussed in a
(Evans and Wener, 2007; Burgoon, 1978). broader sense offering a multi-dimensional
Both the distance property and known interpretation of CM. We conclude with
predictability of that property help to regulate suggestions for future research as well as
privacy (Evans & Wener, 2007). The violation implications for firms.
of expected behavior (Burgoon, 1978) or an
involuntary invasion of personal space elevates PERSONAL SPACE
physiological stress (Middlemist, Knowles, & VERSUS VIRTUAL SPACE
Matter, 1976) and generates discomfort
(Hayduk, 1978). If an invasion of personal To illustrate the relative differences in personal
space takes place, retreat and establishment of a versus virtual space violation, consider the
The Marketing Management Journal
following situation. It’s a weekend afternoon
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 42-53 and you decide to go shopping for a new jacket.
Copyright © 2015, The Marketing Management Association
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved You enter a store and casually browse a few
items before selecting a jacket and try it on.
Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015 42
Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

You then return it to the rack and leave the personal space that are based on the expected
store. You move on to a few other stores but distance of the violator as well as the personal
aren’t satisfied with the options and return relationship. A key finding of EVT is that the
home. The next day as you enter your favorite perceived valence of the violation will drive
bagel shop you notice someone just inside the subsequent reaction. McLaughlin and Vitak
door; he calls out your name. You turn and (2012) extend EVT to the virtual world and find
notice he is holding a jacket, pinned to it is a negative violations from friends result in
partially completed order slip with your name. confrontation while such violations from non-
In his other hand, circled on a map, is your friends results in posts being ignored, in a best-
current location. It is the same jacket you had case scenario. However, in every case,
tried on the day before. How did he know you violations of etiquette, such as stalking like
looked at that jacket? How did he know it was behavior and unwelcome communication are
you? Why does he have your location circled? always negative valance. This has potentially
For most, this situation would at a minimum be damaging implications for marketers employing
annoying and more likely, result in a rather personal information laden advertising.
unsettling feeling. However, online tools allow
marketers to virtually engage in the behavior As illustrated in our earlier scenario, the use of
described above. GPS technology as well as advances in
behavioral tracking software entices marketers
The situation described above might even feel who can more easily identify, track and
like stalking which is “conduct directed at intercept our activities as we consume digital
individuals that involves repeated physical information and interact in our online lives.
proximity, unwanted communication, threats, Though much of behavioral marketing seems
fear, or a combination of these events” (Tjaden, benign, there are instances in which marketing
1997; p. 1). One of the conditions of stalking can create an unsettling feeling. For example,
requires the communication to be non- consider the following as reported in Hill
consensual (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) where (2011); a woman in California receives an
“more than one overt act of unwanted pursuit of email from an English soccer hooligan,
the ‘victim’ is perceived as being purporting to be an acquaintance. He notes he
harassing” (Meloy & Gothard, 1995; p. 259). is on the run from the law and he was on the
way to see her. She had no idea either who he
To warrant classification as stalking, invasion was nor how he knew facts about her. Over the
of space and privacy need not be overtly course of his trek across the US, she receives
threatening. Pathe and Mullen (1997) describe updates on his antics-including an email from a
stalking as behaviors inflicted on others in the hotel manager with a bill for damages he had
form of unwanted intrusions and caused. She was terrified. On the 5th day she
communications. In fact, they need not be received notice it was a prank, initiated when
corporeal in nature but do violate an she agreed to a personality test that had been
individual’s sense of social norms. Social sent to her by a friend, aka the prankster. It
norms exist in both the corporeal and virtual turns out to be an elaborate ad campaign for the
worlds. Further, social norms regulating real Toyota Matrix, the automobile the soccer
world behavior seem to parallel those in virtual hooligan used to cross the country.
environments including expectations of
personal virtual space (Preece, 2004; Consider the coping mechanism used when
McLaughlin & Vitak, 2012). In an online personal space is violated. Online consumers
environment such as Facebook, personal space cannot retreat when faced with personalized
extends to users’ news feeds and walls with unsolicited advertising, potentially leading to a
norm violations including unacceptable posting sense of helplessness and stress. Individuals
habits on said feeds and walls (McLaughlin & may simply elect to cease interaction with the
Vitak, 2012). website; an option that for some would be
difficult when the offense occurs on social
Burgoon (1978) introduced Expectancy media sites such as Facebook or Twitter.
Violation Theory (EVT) to explain why Online marketing practices employ tools and
individuals react to negative violations of

43 Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

techniques that would be somewhat impossible due to the increased ability of a firm to know
in the non-virtual world. their preferences and to make recommendations
uniquely suitable to them (Kramer, Spolter-
PERSONALIZED MARKETING Weisfeld, & Thakker, 2007). However others
believe it represents a paradox for individuals
Personalization in marketing is not a new as their privacy is potentially invaded and they
concept. With its origins in segmentation, lose control over the use of their information
marketers have long used information such as (Christiansen, 2011; Milne, Rohm, & Bahl,
demographics, psychographics, and geographic 2009).
locations to develop and offer products to
satisfy customer needs (i.e., Smith, 1956). The paradox becomes apparent due to an
Increases in technology accompanied by organizations obtaining, or using, information
decreases in costs have enabled firms to reduce involuntarily (from the consumer’s
broad segments to markets of one (i.e., perspective). A firm can utilize tools such as
Perkowitz & Oren, 2000). These efforts can cookies and web bugs to track behavior and
range from broad personalization offerings such then use that information to change their
as a firm promoting makeup using ethnic cues offerings based on behavior. Consumers can
(Forehand & Deshpande, 2001) to very narrow identify those companies tracking their online
one to one communications such as surfing behavior using a browser add-on called
personalized custom web site landing pages to Collusion. After visiting just two websites
prospective college students. (Fox News and The Weather Channel)
Collusion generated more than thirty-five 3rd
In terms of online personalization, recent party sites that were notified of our surfing
studies have indicated that this medium offers a destinations with several sharing information
unique opportunity for organizations to between each other and other firms to which we
implement high degrees of near instantaneous had not even visited. More sophisticated
personalization (Ho & Tam, 2005; Zhang & software allows the combination of not just
Wedel, 2009). Unlike offline personalized online behavior but multiple data sources online
marketing which can introduce delays in and offline to make product recommendations
delivery (e.g., direct mail), interruption as illustrated in the below comment.
characteristics (e.g., telemarketing), or lack of “I was looking at home warranty
customer knowledge (e.g., retail staff), online companies on the Internet, but did not
personalized marketing uses real time fill in any forms with my information.
information and behavior to reach the consumer Two days later, in the regular, US snail
at the time in which they are engaged in need mail, I get an ad mailed to me from a
satisfying activities. Personalization in this home warranty company.
context refers to the ability to change online Coincidence?” Michele (theweek.com)
content as the user is experiencing it.
This form of personalization, based on behavior
Information for personalization, needed from profiling, occurs in real time as individuals surf
consumers, can be either voluntarily or the Internet. The end game is the movement of
involuntarily provided. Individuals voluntarily site visitors through the purchase cycle.
provide information (i.e., name and address) However there is also the belief that as this
through order processing and creating user personalization becomes perceived as
accounts. The willingness of customers to excessive, consumers will cope through
provide information is related to the trust an avoidance and negative attitudes (Baek &
individual has with the firm (Schoenbachler & Morimoto, 2012; Wei, Fischer, & Main, 2008).
Gordon, 2002), the perceived benefit (Akçura We believe that this second form of information
& Srinivasan, 2005) and perceived control over acquisition and use is more likely to lead to
further dissemination (Phelps, Nowak, & instances in which individuals feel that CM has
Ferrell, 2000). occurred.

It is commonly believed that over time

consumers will benefit from personalization

Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015 44

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

QUALITATIVE STUDY creepy marketing) to 266 (for how annoying

marketing might make one feel). The responses
A student sample was utilized to discover provided show that while the two types of
thoughts and feelings regarding both creepy and marketing may overlap in the minds of some
annoying marketing tactics. College students consumers, there are distinct differences
are appropriate for this type of study as they between the two in terms of definitions,
represent a homogenous population and they examples, and feelings. Of the six questions we
frequently interact with sites in which they focus on the definitions that were provided by
provide personal information that may be used respondents and use the examples and feelings
for marketing communications (i.e., as ancillary support for the development of
Facebook.com). Students in an introductory dimensions of creepy marketing. Our focus on
marketing course in a large public university the definitions allows us to understand what
located in the southern United States were subjects believe these constructs represent.
offered an opportunity to earn course credit by
responding to questions regarding annoying and Two judges sorted the responses regarding the
creepy marketing. Of the 276 students, 273 definitions of annoying and creepy marketing to
agreed to participate in the study. Subjects uncover major themes. In a process similar to
were asked six open-ended questions; three for one used by Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault
creepy marketing, three for annoying (1990), responses were read, reread, and then
marketing. Respondents were asked to grouped into categories. First, one judge used
separately define; provide examples and note open coding to create categories of responses
how annoying marketing and creepy marketing by grouping similar responses. These categories
make them feel. were then combined, when appropriate, with
other categories sharing similar characteristics.
The number of usable responses varied by These categories were then provided to the
question and ranged from 153 (for examples of

TABLE 1:
Categorization of Verbatim Responses
Q1a: Annoying Included Illustrative Quotes Percentage
Marketing Def. Subcategories
(n=287*)
Aggressive tactics “Marketing that keeps trying to influence a customer to buy a 41%
certain product even when they already turned the product
down”
Repetition “When companies use the same commercials over and over” 23%

Obnoxious Tactics 15%

Garish/loud “Any marketing that is loud, persistent, or vulgar, or things that 8%
ads are spelled incorrectly”
Irritating “Marketing that is irritating to any of the 5 senses of a target 4%
customer”
Distracting “Ads before youtube videos, Pandora, etc. Any ad that keeps you 1%
from doing what you are trying to do”
Low quality “Marketing that does not meet today’s standards” ~1%
ads
Unsolicited “When you get excessive commercials/ phone calls about a 9%
product or service that you are not interested in”
Irrelevant Content 7.3%
Nonsensical “Ads that seem to have no plan” 4%
Uninformative “Marketing that tells nothing about the product. It just tries to 2%
be funny or flashy to sell me something”
Product “Only concentrating on selling the product, not caring about the 1%
Focused customer”
Tactics Which “Bugging a customer to the point that they want nothing to do 5%
Cause Avoidance with your product”
* Some respondents provided complex definitions which were broken into distinct elements.

45 Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

TABLE 1: (Continued)
Q1b: Creepy Mar- Included Illustrative Quotes Percentage
keting Def. (n=204) Subcategories
Invasive Tactics 41%
Using/ Gath- “Marketing that knows your interests or things about you that 27.5%
ering Personal you did not provide. For example, they suggest items that you
Information would be interested in based off of other purchases”
Invasion of “Using methods that may be too personal or constant” 8%
personal space

Tracking “Cookie tracking on a computer is sometimes kind of creepy 5%

when you start getting ads for things you have been looking at”
Consumer 32%
Discomfort
Consumer “An approach to marketing that makes the consumer feel uneasy 24.5%
emotion dis- and leaves them questioning the motives of the company adver-
comfort tising the product”
Consumer “Marketing that doesn’t make you feel safe like someone is 4%
emotion fear/ watching you”
uncertainty
Use of fear “Selling products in a way that it scares the customer into not 4%
appeals buying it or using a scare tactic to get the customer to use the
product”
Violates social 14%
norms
Inappropriate “Marketing or advertising with seductive girls or guys talking 5%
examples about the products in a seductive way”
Unusual “Usually happens when advertisers are willing to touch on sub- 8%
Content jects that are socially considered out-of-bounds or off-limits”

Content “Marketing that speaks to a person’s inner life, thoughts, and ~1%
feelings feelings”
Out of the Ordinary “Marketing that uses techniques that we think are odd or unusu- 13%
Tactics (creates al to get our attention”
weird feeling)

second judge, who sorted each response into described below. Examples of both corporeal
one of the established categories. Minor and virtual creepy and annoying tactics are
disagreements in coding were resolved by discussed to show how non-virtual examples
discussion between the judges. Both the inter- often parallel virtual marketing examples.
rater reliability and Perreault and Leigh’s
(1989) Index (Ir) were calculated and both ANNOYING MARKETING
exceeded .80, supporting the consistency of the
coding process. Category 1: Aggressive tactics

DEFINITIONS A large percentage of respondents chose to

define annoying marketing in terms of the level
The respondent-provided definitions of both of aggression or persistence they perceived to
creepy and annoying marketing were separated be present in marketers’ strategies. Aggressive
into twenty-four distinct categories. These tactics include persistent selling measures after
categories were then combined by common a consumer has refused a product or service,
themes when possible and resulted in 11 pressuring the customer to make a purchase, or
abstract definitional categories. Four primary using excessive promotions. This category also
categories of definitions emerged for creepy includes instances in which a consumer feels
marketing while six categories emerged for overwhelmed by marketing efforts. For
annoying marketing. The primary definitional example, respondents defined annoying
categories for both annoying and creepy marketing as “overkill,” “over the top,”
marketing are noted in Table 1 and are “pushy”, and “in your face.”

Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015 46

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

Category 2: Repetition example, annoying marketing may be

“unsolicited emails, telephone calls, surveys,
Annoying marketing may be synonymous with etc,” “giving customers unwanted promotional
repetition in the minds of some respondents. items,” or “ when you get see excessive
The second largest definitional category for commercials or receive excessive phone calls
annoying ads centered on the reappearance of about a product or service that you are not
the same promotional tools or repeated selling interested in.” In the virtual world, this
efforts by a single firm. For example, annoying includes cookies based ads that simply mine the
marketing is defined as “when companies use cookies placed by companies such as double-
the same commercials over and over,” but also click to expose consumers to ads for products
as “when telemarketers constantly call from the related to search terms or other webpages
same company,” and “getting asked to buy the visited previously. As an example, one of the
same product multiple times.” Online current study’s authors visited the ASPCA
examples include the same pop up ads or webpage. Until cookies were cleared, ads for
banner ads repeating from page to page. the ASPCA, World Wildlife Fund and Pet
Rescue (an online game by Zynga) appeared,
Category 3: Obnoxious often three or more ads on the same page until
cookies were cleared.
The timing and design of marketing efforts can
also contribute to perceptions of annoying Category 5: Irrelevant Content
marketing. Many respondents note that
obnoxious marketing efforts are the definition Another emergent category for the definition of
of annoying marketing. These efforts that are annoying marketing involves the content of
annoying to respondents include garish, loud, or marketing communications. Some respondents
low quality ads ”Annoying marketing is any noted that annoying marketing includes
marketing that is loud, persistent, or vulgar,” or communications that contain irrelevant,
“cheaply made advertisements“. For example, nonsensical, or unfocused content. For
many online ads for insurance rely on example, annoying marketing is identified as
gimmicks such as animated gifs of girls having no plan or appearing to not be well
dancing in bikinis to gain attention; all the thought out. This type of marketing can also be
while annoying those who they target. This type perceived as including communications that are
of marketing efforts can also be included in a uninformative. As one respondent notes,
definition of annoying marketing. Several “Annoying marketing is marketing that tells
respondents note that annoying marketing is nothing about the product. It just tries to be
distracting marketing and that this can include flashy or funny to sell the customer something.”
“…ads before YouTube videos, Pandora ads, As previously mentioned, animated gifs with
etc…anything that keeps you from what you scantily clad females to sell insurance or
are doing.” Ultimately, it seems that these headlines promising a “weird way” to achieve
marketing efforts can also be irritating to the some benefit.
consumer, as many respondents stated that the
definition of annoying marketing is “marketing While uninformative and irrelevant
that is irksome,” or “marketing that is irritating communications may be annoying,
to any of the five senses of a consumer.” communication that includes only product
related content was also perceived to be
Category 4: Unsolicited annoying marketing. For example, respondents
state that annoying marketing “… is marketing
Another category that emerged in the that concentrates only on selling the product
definitions of annoying marketing was and doesn’t care about the customer.” So it
concerned with unsolicited promotional efforts. seems that annoying marketing can also be
In the corporeal world this includes customers defined as marketing efforts that either focus
receiving emails, telephone calls, or even exclusively on the product or exclusively on
promotional items from an organization when entertaining the consumer.
they have not initiated contact or requested
information from that organization. For

47 Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

Category 6: Causes Avoidance leave you alone. When discussing personal

space with students, it is evident that a form of
The final prevalent category of reported violation of virtual personal space exists. For
definitions for annoying marketing includes example, tracking activities can be conducted
definitions regarding the effect of marketing digitally as well as in person. Some
efforts on consumer behaviors. Respondents respondents stated very specifically that creepy
stated that annoying marketing can be defined marketing could be defined as online tracking
as marketing that drives the consumer away, activities. Examples include “cookie tracking
causes them to become uninterested in a on a computer is creepy when you start getting
product or service, or even drives the customer ads for items that you have been looking at”
to desire a competitors’ product or service. and “ads that keep track of your browsing
“Marketing that drives away the customer” and history.”
“bugging a customer to the point that they want
nothing to do with your product” are examples Category 2: Causing Consumer Discomfort
of definitions in this category.
Another large category of definitions for creepy
CREEPY MARKETING marketing include defining creepy marketing as
the discomfort that consumers may feel as a
Category 1: Invasive Tactics result of some marketing strategies.
Respondents note that creepy marketing may
The largest emergent category of definitions for make the consumer feel fearful, uncertain, or
creepy marketing includes invasive tactics used uncomfortable. This includes the use of fear
by marketers, or at least tactics that are appeals by marketers. For example, creepy
perceived by the customer to be invasive. The marketing is defined as “selling products in a
majority of these tactics include gathering or way that it scares that customer into not buying
using personal information from the customer. it or using a scare tactic to get the customer to
Other tactics mentioned by respondents include use the product” and “anything that tries to
the invasion of personal space by marketers and appeal to fear or distress.” Tactics such as
perceived stalking or tracking practices using these may cause the customer to feel uncertain
by marketers. or uncomfortable. Many respondents defined
creepy marketing in these terms. For example,
Many respondents cite the use and gathering of “creepy marketing is an approach to marketing
personal information as being the salient trait of that makes the consumer feel uneasy and leaves
creepy marketing. It seems that this utilization them questioning the motives of the company
of personal information results in marketing advertising the product.” One such example
efforts that are perceived to be “too personal.” involves a firewall security firm. This firm
For example, respondents reported creepy identifies the user by IP address, and provides
marketing is defined as “gathering too much personal information all the while offering a
personal information,” “marketing that knows firewall to stop other companies from doing the
you so well that it is creepy” and “marketing same.
that knows your interests or other information
about yourself that you did not provide.” This Category 3: Violates social norms
type of marketing is particularly effective
online, given the ability to gather and aggregate Content of marketing communications, which
personal information from multiple online violate social norms, may also contribute to the
sources. definition of creepy marketing. Respondents
state that creepy marketing can be defined as
Other definitions in this category include the marketing that uses inappropriate examples,
perceived invasion of one’s “personal space” or content, or salespeople, violates social norms,
“comfort zone” by the marketer as well as or deals with content matter that may be
stalking and tracking behaviors perpetrated by perceived as being personal, such as depression.
the marketer. For example, several respondents Unnecessary sexuality is mentioned in many
noted that creepy marketing could be defined as instances in which respondents state that creepy
being stalked by a salesperson and who won’t marketing can be defined by the use of

Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015 48

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

inappropriate examples, content, or salespeople. DISCUSSION

This includes such definitions as “creepy
marketing is marketing or advertising with The perceptions of what respondents defined as
seductive men or women talking about products annoying and creepy marketing offers some
in a seductive manner” and “ creepy marketing interesting results. First we will briefly discuss
is using sexuality when it is unnecessary… the annoying marketing results coupled with
adding sexual tension is not needed to sell a previous research examining these perceptions;
hamburger“ or apparently insurance. then we will differentiate this term with creepy
marketing and provide what we feel are the
Respondents state that creepy marketing three dimensions of CM.
“usually happens when advertisers are willing Annoying Marketing
to touch on subjects that are socially considered
out-of-bounds or off-limits.” Creepy marketing The findings for annoying marketing
may also occur when marketers “cross a line” predominately fall into the first three
or mention subjects that are “taboo.” This can categories: aggressive tactics, repetition, and
include topics such as depression. One obnoxious, representing 79% of responses.
respondent states that creepy marketing is Research regarding aggressive tactics is
“marketing that speaks to a person’s inner seemingly captured by hard selling techniques
life… their thoughts, or feelings.” (e.g., Chu, Gerstner, & Hess, 1995) and bait
and switch actions (e.g., Wilkie, Mela, &
Category 4: Out of the Ordinary Tactics Gundlach, 1998). Advertising repetition has
been seen to have negative consequences for
The final category of definitions for creepy both known and unknown brands (Campbell,
marketing includes the use of marketing tactics Keller, Mick, & Hoyer, 2003). Lastly,
that respondent perceived to be abnormal. obnoxious tactics have been examined in both
There were very few specific examples in this traditional and digital marketing (e.g., Chang &
category. It seems that there is some Morimoto, 2011). Taken together, the
indescribable quality to some marketing efforts components of annoying marketing focus on
that strikes consumers as being “weird” or the tactics employed by the marketer and
“unusual.” As one respondent noted, “creepy represent a long history of research in
marketing is when you can sense that marketing.
something is not normal with the marketer” and
gives examples of salespeople who act in an Creepy Marketing
unusual manner and of promotions, both online
and real world, that seem too good to be true. Based on our analysis of the definitions of CM
Several other respondents in this category provided by respondents, we formed the
attempted to explain what constitutes “weird” component categories outlined in Table 1.
tactics. For example, one respondent notes that Unlike annoying marketing, in which the tactics
the use of unrelated salespeople can be weird, employed by marketers was the focus of the
stating, “I find it creepy when companies definition, for CM it appears that the feelings
designate a single random person to become associated with the tactics are more
their spokesperson and they make commercials prominently included as part of identifying the
with them in weird scenarios, like Flo in the concept. The categories noted in Table 1 for
Progressive commercials.” However, many CM fall predominately into three dimensions
others simply stated that creepy marketing is representing 87% of responses: invasive
“marketing that is odd and weird” or actions, consumer discomfort and violates
“marketing that uses unordinary techniques.” social norms. These areas are closely
One example cited as odd given its placement is associated with corporeal research dimensions
one for erectile dysfunction appearing on a composed of invasion of privacy, stalking
news feed for Fox News. The FEMALE behavior and violations of social norms. It is
reporting it lived alone and had never searched these three dimensions that we feel compose
that term. the definition of CM.

49 Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

Invasion of Privacy aware victims, noted the impact of stalking

included increased anxiety, avoidance of
Of the three dimensions, invasion of privacy locations and changes in behavior including job
represents the most extensively researched of relocation or ceasing employment, moving
these dimensions in marketing. For example, home and eating disorders.
researchers have investigated the development
of online privacy concerns (Ashworth & Free, Violation of Social Norms
2006), dimensions of privacy concern (Sheehan
& Hoy, 2000), as well as how privacy concerns Social norms provide guidance as to what
influence the willingness to provide should or ought to be done in a given situation.
information (Nam, Song, Lee & Park, 2006; In this discussion, social norms refer to the use
Phelps et al., 2000) to build relationships online of information as one expects it to be used.
(Awad & Krishnan, 2006; Franzak, Pitta, & This is analogous to Burgoon (1978) and
Fritsche, 2001) and the resultant tensions violations of personal space. Online, this has
between advertisers use of information and proven to be an issue with minors (e.g., Bryce
consumer concern (Akcura & Srinivasan, 2005; & Klang, 2009) and has resulted in the FTC
Rapp, Hill, Gaines, & Wilson, 2009). Our (2012) development and strengthening of the
respondents reported the use of personal Child Online Privacy Protection Rule. With
information and privacy invasion as part of regard to personal information, consumers do
their understanding of CM. recognize the implicit tradeoff that is necessary
Stalking to complete or engage in meaningful experience
(Utz & Kramer, 2009). It is when information is
First, it is not the authors’ intention to minimize used in a manner that is inconsistent with
the traditional conceptualization of stalking expectations that issues arise. In a study of
which occurs between individuals in a societal relationship marketing efforts, it was found that
context, rather our discussion is grounded in the what marketers felt was the development of
belief that a firm can behave in a manner that customer intimacy, consumers considered
can be perceived as stalking by consumers. As intrusion (O’Malley, Patterson, & Evans,
such, we rely on the extant individual based 1997). Granted that technology has made
literature to inform our discussion. However, tremendous strides in collecting and integrating
in the legislative, academic and practitioner information offline (e.g., Lekakos, 2009) and
arenas stalking has proved difficult to define online (Kachhi & Link, 2009), however a
due to the nature of the actions associated with growing question has become should they
it (Fox, Nobles, & Fisher, 2011). Fox et al. (Baek & Morimoto, 2012)? Marketers have
(2011, p.77), in their review of the stalking begun to recognize that there are limits to this
literature note that typical definitions of integration (Godfrey, Seiders, & Voss, 2011)
stalking include behaviors that are “… and as this level of communication expectations
repetitive, intrusive, unwanted, and frightening, is breached negative responses can result
threatening or harassing.” They also suggest (Alreck & Settle, 2007; White, Zahay,
that stalking is likely a multidimensional Thorbjornsen, & Shavitt, 2008).
construct and that it may still occur when a
subset of these behaviors are present. Our IMPLICATIONS OF CM
respondents noted similar behaviors which AND FUTURE RESEARCH
were not necessarily received positively such
as: making contact with them (through Behavioral profiling has progressed to the point
advertisements) after they left a web site-even in which data integration from multiple stored
after several days, receiving items in the mail sources combined with real time information on
that were associated with a visited website- but behavior and location allows marketers an
were not requested and utilizing information unprecedented ability to offer highly
which they did not disclose. customized and personalized products and
services. However, based on anecdotal
The consequences of stalking behavior on their evidence, our qualitative study and theoretical
victims cannot be ignored. Path and Mullen support- there are limits in which marketers can
(1997), in their study of more distressed and effectively and comfortably use this

Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015 50

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

information before consumers perceive the consumer activity with 28% of those online
attempt to personalize their experience as going shopping for a product or service (Pew Internet,
too far. 2010) accounting for 7% of retail trade or $80
billion (US Census, 2015). Second, behavior
We find creepy marketing to be a perceptual online is easily tracked within and between web
construct composed of three dimensions: sites (FTC, 2012). Lastly, the continual
invasion of privacy, stalking behavior and improvement in supercomputing capabilities as
violation of social norms. Based on our well as software program development allows
discussion future research regarding CM should for the near instantaneous creation of offerings
be undertaken in a number of areas. First the that are tailored to individual from multiple
development of a scale to assess each of the sources based on their actual behavior in the
three components of CM is needed. Increases very near past as well as over time. Creepy
in CM are likely to be associated with greater marketing is a construct that helps to explain
feelings of uneasiness, anxiety and avoidance how individuals feel as a result of marketing
of the medium. In addition to development of interactions gone wrong.
the scale and associations, the potential impact
of CM on focal brands may prove a worthwhile LIMITATIONS
investigation. Does CM impact brands that are
promoted? Does it lead to negative WOM? A key limitation of this study lies in the sample.
Alreck and Settle (2007) would suggest that it We used a convenience sample of college-aged
would not, however their study looked at macro individuals. A more expansive sample
knowledge, such as browsing time on specific encompassing different age groups such as
websites and dollar totals of purchases, as parents of young children may have provided a
opposed to an intimate single web surfing 3rd party perspective of what creepy marketing
experience. is to them in their protective role as parents. In
addition to age groups, other demographic
For firms, one of the biggest concerns is that characteristics such as household life cycle,
CM is a moving target for each customer gender, geographic location and education may
segment. What will seem unacceptable today all play a role in consumer perceptions of
may be regarded as business as usual tomorrow. creepiness. For our study, the richness of the
However that does not eliminate the firm’s respondents’ definitions of what creepy
need to be sensitive to the limits in which marketing is to them allays much of these
consumers wish their information to be used. potential biases and provides future
As an extreme example of the feeling that opportunities for further refinement to this
consumers may feel when visiting a site that exploratory study. Also limiting our study is the
has met the CM threshold, the authors suggest issue of reliability, validity assessment, and
the reader visit www.takethislollipos.com generalizability; inherent in all qualitative
(Berkowitz, 2011; Note: site does not retain studies. As such, future quantitative studies are
data). On the other side, consumers are not recommended to examine reliability, validity
powerless and can take active control of what and generalizability of creepy marketing.
information is being shared with whom (i.e.,
see www.privacyrights.org for steps). REFERENCES
However, much of the stored information is
beyond the reach and control of end consumers Akçura, M. T. and K. Srinivasanm (2005).
(Hong & Thong, 2013). Research note: customer intimacy and cross-
selling strategy, Management Science, 51(6),
In this paper we focused on corporeal behaviors 1007-1012.
and showed how they are often analogous to Alreck, P. L. and R. B. Settle (2007). Consumer
online activities that contribute to the reactions to online behavioural tracking and
perception of a creepy marketing event. Our targeting, Journal of Database Marketing &
reasoning is based on three aspects of the Customer Strategy Management, 15(1),
Internet that allow for consumers to perceive 11-23.
creepy marketing. First, the Internet has grown
to represent a substantial proportion of

51 Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015

Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

Ashworth, L. and C. Free (2006). Marketing Forehand, M. R. and R. Deshpandé (2001).

dataveillance and digital privacy: Using What we see makes us who we are: Priming
theories of justice to understand consumers’ ethnic self-awareness and advertising
online privacy concerns. Journal of Business response. Journal of Marketing Research, 38
Ethics, 67(2), 107-123. (3), 336-348
Awad, N. F. and M. S. Krishnan (2006). The Fox, K. A., M. R. Nobles and B. S. Fisher
personalization privacy paradox: an empirical (2011). Method behind the madness: An
evaluation of information transparency and examination of stalking measurements.
the willingness to be profiled online for Aggression & Violent Behavior, 16(1), 74-84.
personalization, MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 13-28. Franzak, F., D. Pitta and S. Fritsche (2001).
Baek, T. H. and M. Morimoto (2012). Stay Online relationships and the consumer's right
away from me. Journal of A dvertising, 41(1), to privacy. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
59-76. 18(7), 631-649.
Berkowitz, J. (2011). Anti-social media: "Take FTC, (2012). FTC strengthens kids’ privacy,
this lollipop" Is your Facebook profile gives parents greater control over their
through a psychopath's eyes. Accessed at information by amending Children’s Online
http://www.fastcompany.com on 4/16/13. Privacy Protection Rule, accessed at http://
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., and M.S. Tetreault www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/12/coppa.shtm on
(1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing 4/16/13.
favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal Godfrey, A., K. Seiders and G. B. Voss (2011).
of Marketing, 54(1), 71-84. Enough Is enough! The fine line in executing
Bryce, J. and M. Klang (2009). Young people, multichannel relational communication.
disclosure of personal information and online Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 94-109.
privacy: Control, choice and consequences. Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Personal space: An
Information Security Technical Report, 14(3), evaluative and orienting overview.
160-166. Psychological Bulletin, 85(1), 117-134.
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model Hill, K. (2011). From the terrible idea file:
of personal space violations: Explication and Toyota's ‘cyberstalking' guerrilla ad
an initial test. Human Communication campaign. accessed at http://www.forbes.com
Research, 4(2), 129-142. on 4/16/13.
Campbell, M. C., K. L. Keller, D. G. Mick, and Ho, S. Y. and K. Y. Tam (2005). An empirical
W. D. Hoyer (2003). Brand familiarity and examination of the effects of web
advertising repetition effects. Journal of personalization at different stages of decision
Consumer Research, 30(2), 292-304. making. International Journal of Human-
Chang, S. and M. Morimoto (2011). Electronic Computer Interaction, 19(1), 95-112.
marketing communications: An evolving Hong, W., & L. Thong, J. Y. (2013). Internet
environment, but similar story regarding the privacy concerns: an integrated
perception of unsolicited commercial email conceptualization and four empirical studies.
and postal direct mail. Journal of Promotion MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 275-298.
Management, 17(3), 360-376 Kachhi, D. and M.W. Link (2009). Too much
Christiansen, L. (2011). Personal privacy and information: Does the Internet dig too deep?
Internet marketing: An impossible conflict or Journal of Advertising Research, 49(1),
a marriage made in heaven? Business 74-81.
Horizons, 54(6), 509-514. Kaya, N. and F. Erkip (1999). Invasion of
Chu, W., E. Gerstner and J. D. Hess (1995). personal space under the condition of short-
Costs and benefits of hard-sell. Journal of term crowding: A case study on an automatic
Marketing Research, 32(1), 97-102. teller machine. Journal of Environmental
Deighton, J. (1998). The right to be let alone. Psychology 19(2), 183-189.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12(2), 2-4. Kramer, T., S. Spolter-Weisfeld and M.
Evans. G. W. and R. E. Wener (2007). Thakkar (2007). The effect of cultural
Crowding and personal space invasion on the orientation on consumer responses to
train: Please don’t make me sit in the middle. personalization. Marketing Science, 26(2),
Journal of Environmental Psychology 27(1), 246-258.
90-94.
Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015 52
Creepy Marketing:. . . . Moore, Moore, Shanahan, Horky and Mack

Lekakos, G. (2009). It's personal. Journal of Schoenbachler, D. D. and G. L. Gordon (2002).

Advertising Research, 49(4), 404-418. Multi-channel shopping: Understanding what
McLaughlin, C. and J. Vitak (2012). Norm drives channel choice. Journal of Consumer
evolution and violation on Facebook. New Marketing, 19(1), 42–53.
Media & Society, 14(2), 299-315. Sheehan, K. B. and M. G. Hoy (2000).
Meloy, J. R. and S. Gothard (1995). Dimensions of privacy concern among online
Demographic and clinical comparison of consumers. Journal of Public Policy &
obsessional followers and offenders with Marketing, 19(1), 62-73.
mental disorders. American Journal of Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation
Psychiatry, 152(2), 258-263. and market segmentation as alternative
Middlemist, R. D., E. S. Knowles and C. F. marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing,
Matter (1976). Personal space invasions in 21(1), 3-8.
the lavatory: Suggestive evidence for arousal. The Week. (2013). (http://theweek.com/article/
Journal of Personality and Social index/226708/digital-shadow-how-companies
Psychology, 33(5), 541-546. -track-you-online)
Milne, G. R., A. J. Rohm and S. Bahl (2004). Tjaden, P. (1997). Crime of stalking: How big
Consumers’ protection of online privacy and is the problem? National Institute of Justice,
identity. Journal of Consumer A ffairs, 38 US Dept Justice; Office of Justice Programs,
(2), 217–232. United States; Washington, D.C. Accessed at
Nam C., C. Song, E. Lee and C. I. Park (2006). http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/
Consumers' privacy concerns and willingness abstract.aspx?ID=163921 on 4/16/13.
to provide marketing-related personal Tjaden, P. and N. Thoennes (1998). Stalking in
information online. Advances in Consumer America: Findings from the National
Research, 33(1), 212-217. Violence Against Women Survey, Center for
O'Malley, L., M. Patterson and M. Evans Policy Research, National Institute of Justice;
(1997). Intimacy or intrusion? The privacy Washington, D.C.
dilemma for relationship marketing in US Census (2013). 4th Quarter 2012 Retail E-
consumer markets. Journal of Marketing Commerce Sales Report, Accessed at http://
Management, 13(6), 541-559. www.census.gov/retail/ on 4/16/13.
Path, M., and P. E. Mullen (1997). The impact Utz S., and N. C. Kramer (2009). The privacy
of stalkers on their victims. The British paradox on social network sites revisited: The
Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 12-17. role of individual characteristics and group
Perkowitz, M. and E. Oren (2000). Adaptive norms. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
websites. Communications of the A CM, 43 Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(2),
(8), 152-158. article 2. Accessed at http://
Perreault, W. D., and L. E. Leigh (1989). cyberpsychology.eu on 4/16/13.
Reliability of nominal data based on Wei, M., E. Fischer, and K. J. Main (2008). An
qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing examination of the effects of activating
Research, 26(2), 135-148. persuasion knowledge on consumer response
Pew Internet (2010). Here are some of the to brands engaging in covert marketing.
things that Internet users do on a typical day, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1),
Accessed at http://pewInternet.org/Trend-Data- 34-44.
(Adults)/Online-Activities-Daily.aspx on White, T., D. Zahay, H. Thorbjørnsen and S.
4/16/13. Shavitt (2008). Getting too personal:
Phelps, J., G. Nowak and E. Ferrell, (2000). Reactance to highly personalized email
Privacy concerns and consumer willingness solicitations. Marketing Letters, 19(1), 39-50.
to provide personal information. Journal of Wilkie, W. L., C. F. Mela, and G. T. Gundlach
Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 27-41. (1998). Does "bait and switch" really benefit
Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette online: From nice to consumers? Marketing Science, 17(3),
necessary. Communications of the A CM, 47 273-282.
(4), 56–61. Zhang, J., and M. Wedel (2009). The
Rapp, J., R. P. Hill, J. Gaines and R. M. Wilson effectiveness of customized promotions in
(2009). Advertising and consumer privacy. online and offline stores. Journal of
Journal of Advertising, 38(4), 51-61. Marketing Research, 46(2), 190-206.
53 Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2015