**2.1. Brand communication vs. sales focus**

evolving concept. While we cannot know the future, considering different opportunities of interaction design (design paradigms) allows us to consider what the future may be. Currently 85.3% of all UK sales come from physical retail stores [7] at a time where m-Commerce design is considered to be mature [8–10]. This relatively low market share highlights that the approach to app design and consumer engagement is needed to increase the revenue m-Commerce platforms.

After the release of the iPhone in 2007, m-Commerce apps have focused on translating the 'tiled view' of products as developed for websites into the smaller smartphone screen; see **Figure 1**. It should surprise any designer that despite exponential advances in smartphone technology (including native augmented reality capabilities [11]), there have been limited advances in m-Commerce UX design since the iPhone's launch [12]. This is exemplified in how retailers seek incremental additions of app features over revolutionary rethinking of the underlying retail concept [8].

Besides the holistic limited variation in m-Commerce app design, consideration needs to be given to how retail markets are divided. One of the clearest examples of market segmentation is found in fashion retail; global worth over \$2.7 Trillion [13]. However not all fashion retailers are equal in their market sector, which Jackson and Shaw [14] describing four sector levels:

This chapter therefore addresses this need to reimagine m-Commerce app design.

**Figure 1.** Translation of e-commerce website to m-Commerce app designs.

**1. Economy** (e.g. Primark, Walmart)

**a.** Mass Market (e.g. H&M, New Look)

**4. Diffusion** (e.g. Marc by Marc Jacobs, Vivian Westwood Red Label)

**5. Luxury** (e.g. Channel, Marc Jacobs, Vivian Westwood)

**b.** Mid-Level (e.g. Top Shop, M&S) **c.** High End (e.g. All Saints, Coast)

**2. High Street**

40 Marketing

With the internet nothing is new, only online and interactive [16]. As Parker and Doyle [17] point out, high street retail brands cannot operate in the same experiential sphere in physical stores as luxury brands can. While a luxury brand can present a highly hedonic experience within a flagship store due to high profit margins and relatively low footfall, a fast fashion or high street fashion brand cannot reproduce this; even if desired. This is because of a fast fashion business model based on high turnover of low profit margins. While the virtual space of m-Commerce removes all of these limitations, consumer expectations still exist. For example, luxury fashion brands by their definition must only be accessible by a small group of affluent customers. Through this the vast majority of consumers are actively excluded. If a fast fashion brand (e.g. H&M [14, 15]) produces an app that mirrors the 'superior' interaction of a luxury brand (e.g. Gucci), then Gucci must respond by creating a more 'luxurious and superior' experience. Ultimately the luxury brands are maintaining their exulted position of perceived excellence and aspiration.

Tzu [27] *'The sage has no fixed ideas about anything, so he takes in a broad range of information'.* We

Reimagining m-Commerce App Design: The Development of Seductive Marketing through UX

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75749

43

It is important to note that consumers are not a single homogeneous group, but instead comprise multiple sub-groups. For example, Parker and Wenyu [7] prove that demographics of age and gender are less important in profiling consumers than their behaviours and purchase motivators. Therefore, the question cannot be which form of app is best (interaction or information presentation), but instead, which is the best form of interaction for the brand and target consumer. In his excellent book, Anderson [28] argues that the emotional experience is

These studies present a duality that must exist, one of utilitarian function and presentation, and one of seductive hedonism. This chapter does not hold one form of engagement as necessarily higher than the other. This is because all human experience exists on a scale where even negative aspects can (under the right circumstances) be useful [29, 30]. For analysis, the

• *Seductive interaction* - An app that utilise hedonically engaging or interactive media to

Giving consideration to the two dimensions of brand communication/sales, and seduction/ information presentation, a series of four paradigms are clear from their intersection; as visualised within the UX Design Paradigm Framework of **Figure 2**. From this we must explore the

• *Passive presentation* – An app that utilises static media to achieve its primary purpose.

must therefore embrace uncertainty and be open to all possibilities in our design.

as important as interaction's function.

achieve its primary purpose.

spectrum of current m-Commerce apps.

**Figure 2.** The UX design paradigm framework elements.

following definitions are adopted by this chapter:

Research in marketing is converging on the concept that apps need to focus on different levels of interaction relative to the brand presentation. Research at the University of Manchester [17] has proven that two overarching focuses exist; brand communication and sales focus. This connects with the key steps of Kuo et al.'s [18] 10 steps of purchasing; information seeking before product acquisition. e-Commerce can therefore be seen as a negative motivator for luxury fashion purchases [17]. As such, luxury brands may use social media and m-Commerce apps' native ability to diffuse information rather than purely sell through the m-Commerce platform. This is in line with Rogers [19] who showed that interpersonal communication is the most powerful conduit of innovation diffusion. Consequently these studies demonstrate that a duality exists in app design:


Irrespective of the focus a designer or marketer takes with an app, it is essential that the experience of the consumer is positive [20]. This presents the possibility of a third dimension to be added to a UX Design Paradigm Framework (positive/negative experience). However the complexities of such a three dimensional model exceed the scope of this chapter. Therefore for analysis, the following definitions are adopted by this chapter:


#### **2.2. Interactivity and seduction vs. passive presentation**

The field of user centred design is considered as starting with the seminal work of Norman [21], primarily focused on function over form.1 In their insightful work, Parker and Wang [9] prove that in m-Commerce, utilitarian functions are of a higher importance to users than hedonic experience. This is in contrast to earlier studies that have suggested that hedonic experiences are critical to physical retail channels [22, 23]. Furthermore, credence is given to hedonism's importance in retail channels. For example, earlier research [25–27] shows that enjoying an interaction increases one's perception of the product's utility. However it would be naïve to consider that a single way exists to best design an app for a fashion brand. Instead there is no single right or wrong with these two dimensions. To quote the seminal work of Lao

<sup>1</sup> A position Norman [24] did however concede on in later years to extend his position to include experience and beauty as a necessary function.

Tzu [27] *'The sage has no fixed ideas about anything, so he takes in a broad range of information'.* We must therefore embrace uncertainty and be open to all possibilities in our design.

brand (e.g. H&M [14, 15]) produces an app that mirrors the 'superior' interaction of a luxury brand (e.g. Gucci), then Gucci must respond by creating a more 'luxurious and superior' experience. Ultimately the luxury brands are maintaining their exulted position of perceived

Research in marketing is converging on the concept that apps need to focus on different levels of interaction relative to the brand presentation. Research at the University of Manchester [17] has proven that two overarching focuses exist; brand communication and sales focus. This connects with the key steps of Kuo et al.'s [18] 10 steps of purchasing; information seeking before product acquisition. e-Commerce can therefore be seen as a negative motivator for luxury fashion purchases [17]. As such, luxury brands may use social media and m-Commerce apps' native ability to diffuse information rather than purely sell through the m-Commerce platform. This is in line with Rogers [19] who showed that interpersonal communication is the most powerful conduit of innovation diffusion. Consequently these studies demonstrate

Irrespective of the focus a designer or marketer takes with an app, it is essential that the experience of the consumer is positive [20]. This presents the possibility of a third dimension to be added to a UX Design Paradigm Framework (positive/negative experience). However the complexities of such a three dimensional model exceed the scope of this chapter. Therefore for

• *Brand communication* – An app whose primary focus is mixed media communication that

• *Sales focus* – An app whose primary focus is the sale of items from within the application.

The field of user centred design is considered as starting with the seminal work of Norman

[9] prove that in m-Commerce, utilitarian functions are of a higher importance to users than hedonic experience. This is in contrast to earlier studies that have suggested that hedonic experiences are critical to physical retail channels [22, 23]. Furthermore, credence is given to hedonism's importance in retail channels. For example, earlier research [25–27] shows that enjoying an interaction increases one's perception of the product's utility. However it would be naïve to consider that a single way exists to best design an app for a fashion brand. Instead there is no single right or wrong with these two dimensions. To quote the seminal work of Lao

A position Norman [24] did however concede on in later years to extend his position to include experience and beauty

In their insightful work, Parker and Wang

**1.** The creation of apps to communicate the brand marketing messages

**2.** The creation of apps with an explicit focus on m-Commerce sales

analysis, the following definitions are adopted by this chapter:

enhances the consumer's perception of the brand.

**2.2. Interactivity and seduction vs. passive presentation**

[21], primarily focused on function over form.1

1

as a necessary function.

excellence and aspiration.

42 Marketing

that a duality exists in app design:

It is important to note that consumers are not a single homogeneous group, but instead comprise multiple sub-groups. For example, Parker and Wenyu [7] prove that demographics of age and gender are less important in profiling consumers than their behaviours and purchase motivators. Therefore, the question cannot be which form of app is best (interaction or information presentation), but instead, which is the best form of interaction for the brand and target consumer. In his excellent book, Anderson [28] argues that the emotional experience is as important as interaction's function.

These studies present a duality that must exist, one of utilitarian function and presentation, and one of seductive hedonism. This chapter does not hold one form of engagement as necessarily higher than the other. This is because all human experience exists on a scale where even negative aspects can (under the right circumstances) be useful [29, 30]. For analysis, the following definitions are adopted by this chapter:


Giving consideration to the two dimensions of brand communication/sales, and seduction/ information presentation, a series of four paradigms are clear from their intersection; as visualised within the UX Design Paradigm Framework of **Figure 2**. From this we must explore the spectrum of current m-Commerce apps.

**Figure 2.** The UX design paradigm framework elements.
