Empirical analysis of unethical practice of cookies in E-marketing.
Kumar, Satinder ; Sharma, Rishi Raj
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
The world is changing at a remarkable pace and so does the world of
marketing. The limited options to communicate with the target audience
have been widening. Even the technology has profoundly changed the way
consumer process communication. Furthermore, the definition of
"media" in the Internet age seems to stretch to include the
virtual environment offered by web pages rather than the physical media
such as the press and magazines, as well as broadcast media such as
radio and television (Sally, 2004). In the utmost few years the internet
has played a major role in many spheres of economy as it is usually
specified as a worldwide medium. As one of the most exciting technical
innovations of the twentieth century, the Internet has deeply changed
the way we communicate and manage business. Since the breakthrough of
the internet as a new communication medium it has become a part of the
strategy of firms. It acts as an advertising medium for firms to admit
in their efforts, as a distribution channel and as a source of data.
Internet application to the development of diverse firm strategies is a
practice that has come to be called E-commerce (Samaniego et al., 2006).
The rapid adoption of the Internet as a commercial medium has
caused marketers to experiment with the innovative ways of marketing,
thus changing the pattern of marketing strategies. Electronic marketing
is a revolution in today's business world. Business organisations
have been forced to adopt technological changes over the last decade.
E-marketing' utilises electronic channels to carry through their
marketing activities to attain marketing objectives of the organisation
(Petrovic, 2011). E-marketing growth depends not exclusively on
technical infrastructure, which pulls in the possibility of
communication and acknowledgement of the transaction through the net,
but also on the proper relationship between buyers and sellers, where
most important is trust (Kossecki et al, 2003).
The online marketing or E-marketing activities offer lots of
opportunities for companies to market themselves and their products
inexpensively and effectively, but they need to exercise considerable
care to ensure that their method or their E-marketing technique
doesn't get them into legal or other difficulties. E-marketing has
huge potential, simply, like any novel technology, there are also booby
traps that demand to be taken care of. Consumer concerns about unethical
practices on the internet are directly having a direct effect on the
take up of E-marketing.
The power of information technology to affect societal concerns,
such as privacy, is widely known. Roberts (2003) and Quinton (2005)
opined "cookies", small data files embedded in Web pages and
downloaded automatically to visitors' browsers are used for a
number of tasks, from personalising Internet content and enabling Web
shopping carts to delivering ads based on browser behaviour. Cookies are
the invisible force behind just everything we do on the net--from
accessing content and information to making purchases and communicating
with others around the globe. Cookies are what makes the Internet so
different to traditional broadcast media. Although the Net can never
compete with TV as a visual medium, it is infinitely more powerful as a
personalisation tool (Shermach, 2005). Companies are now able to target
users and segment them on the basis of their browsing habits with the
help of unknowingly installed cookies. Not only commercial firms find
this information very useful, but federal web sites are tracking their
users too. Information regarding consumer's age, job, lifestyle,
income level, marital status, and buying preferences can be gathered
using cookies. How this information is used, depends on the individual
companies collecting the information.
As one of the most exciting technical innovations of the twentieth
century, the Internet has deeply changed the way we communicate and
manage business.
Review of Literature
Numerous surveys have focused on the different ethical issues
relating to E-marketing, but very few are concerned with cookies. Today,
many web sites on the internet can employ "cookies" to
maintain track of passwords and usernames and track the sites a
particular user visits (Cookiecentral.com). But, the use of cookies to
track a user's browsing habits is becoming a concern of many
internet users. Here an attempt has been made to go over the variables
related to the ethical issue of cookies problem in E-marketing.
Ponnurangam and Lorrie (2006) revealed cookies are used to identify
visitors to a web site and streamline online transaction processes.
Indians consumers are less probable to have changed their cookie
settings or less willingness to involve steps to address the cookie
concern, and least bother to erase cookies.
Basically online consumers do not understand the difference between
first and third party cookies. Soltani et. al. (2009) opined third party
cookies are used by online promotion companies to set cookies associated
with ads embedded in first party sites; when browsers load the
advertisers' ads, they also get advertisers' third-party
cookies. Raghu et al. (2001) and Lavin (2006) revealed that the general
utility of cookies from visited Web sites is a concern of consumers and
policy makers alike, perhaps a deeper concern involves the use of
cookies placed on the online user's hard drive by a party not
directly visited by the online consumer. Such third-party cookies are
often sanctioned by the visited Web site to build consumer profiles by
the third party organisation for targeted marketing purposes.
Web Marketers use the cookies to violate the privacy of online
consumers. Milne and Rohm (2008) opined the lack of disclosure regarding
whether and how cookies are used to collect and gather information is a
covert marketing practice that may negatively impact consumer trust and
security. Linn (2005) revealed now Web browsers are equipped to supply
consumers with the ability to delete or reject cookies in accordance
with their own security and privacy preferences. Efrim and Won (2002)
found consumer's personal or sensitive information's are
collected by the utilisation of a Cookie. The consumer's
preferences and behavioural data are tracked and gathered in the cookie.
Ponnurangam and Lorrie (2006) revealed cookies are employed to find
repeat visitors to a web site and streamline online transaction
processes. Anthony (2008) revealed the use of web cookies has been
criticised by consumer advocates, policy makers, and even marketers
themselves as a potential threat to consumer privacy.
The rapid adoption of the Internet as a commercial medium has
caused marketers to experiment with the innovative ways of marketing,
thus changing the pattern of marketing strategies.
Miyazaki and Fernandez (2001) revealed tracking, drawing together,
sharing personal information by placing cookies on the computer and
taking hold of the consumer without his consent, reduces privacy and
researchers believed it reduces the perceived benevolence and
credibility of the online vendor thereby reducing thrust. Efrim and Won
(2002) found consumer's personal information is collected by the
use of a Cookie. Now consumers are more concerned with privacy, but
marketers use cookies to gather consumer's personal information for
marketing and promotion purpose; hence cookies have a negative impact on
E-marketing. Anthony (2008) found that the cookie, use has increased
significantly over the last few years. Although the majority of sites
are now disclosing their role of cookies, many sites are lacking in
disclosure.
Efrim and Won (2002) found consumer's personal information is
collected by the use of a Cookie. Consumers are not aware about the
cookies as an invisible force to assemble their personal data.
Ponnurangam and Lorrie (2006) revealed cookies are utilised to identify
repeat visitors to a web site and streamline online transaction
processes. Ha et al. (2006) and Hoofnagle (2005) revealed online
consumers are frequently confused about the advantages and disadvantages
of cookies and cannot properly recognise what a cookie is.
Web marketers (First Party) and third parties with the help of
cookies collect personal information of online consumers. The data is
then stored in consumers lists, databases for marketing programmes
therefore breaching the privacy of the online users (FTC, 1998). Efrim
and Won (2002) revealed consumer's preferences and behavioural
information are tracked and gathered in the cookie. Consumer's
personal information is gathered and piled up by web merchants with the
exercise of a Cookie. Various Internet, enabling technologies, such as
cookies and membership, are used by marketers to identify consumers and
track their purchases and/or visit histories (Iyer et al., 2002).
Cookies are the common way for identify theft and tracking
individual online. Suki et al. (2001) revealed consumers submit their
detailed personal information to marketers, but they remain concerned
about the possibility that marketers may violate their privacy when they
collect this data. In addition, marketers can gather data by placing
cookies on internet users' hard drives (Weitz, 2005). Their privacy
concerns are interrelated to the unauthorised utilisation of credit card
numbers, their database may be sold to others and personal information
may be shared with other businesses without their consent.
Online marketers use Cookies as a promotional technique to target
the consumers. Efrim and Won (2002) revealed consumer's preferences
and behavioural information are tracked and gathered in the cookie to
obtain valuable information about consumers' attitude, perception
and preferences. Business to consumers (B2C) Web sites collect data
about visitors via explicit modes and implicit means (more worried with
the cookies) providing the necessary information for decision making on
marketing, publicising, and products (Patterson et al. 1997).
In one case the consumers start either blocking or deleting
cookies, it will raise the security online. Ha et al. (2006), Jensen,
Potts, and--Jensen (2005), and Milne and Rohm (2008) discovered that
consumers have fixed capability to deal effectively with the potential
for cookie related invasions of privacy; most consumers do not use
available technology to prohibit cookies from being put on their hard
drives, thus they do not go for online purchase. For example, Fox (2000)
found only 10 percent of Internet users have set their browsers to
reject cookies; 5 percent use anonym zing software to mark their
computer identity; and 24 percent have provided false personal data
(like a fake name) to avoid revealing true information. Similarly, 94
percent of Internet users want disciplinary action must be taken against
privacy violators.
Consumer concerns about unethical practices on the internet are
directly having a direct effect on the take up of E-marketing.
Consumers along with the privacy policy must be aware regarding
notification of cookies. The most usual method of identifying and
tracking online consumer activity involves the placement of small text
files on a consumer's hard drive without consent that are then
offered back to the Web site during subsequent visits by the consumers
(Bayan 2001; Gralla 2007; Linn 2005; Millett, Friedman, and Felten
2001). In rare instances, an internet user takes time to understand a
Web site's privacy policy, but even then the information is only
marginally helpful. Most privacy policies are obtuse and noncommittal
(La Rose and Rifon 2007; Milne, Culnan, and Greene 2006), but even a
straight forward policy can be deceiving. For example, many privacy
policies state that the site uses cookies and other means to obtain
customer information and that it shares customer data only with
affiliated companies and firms that have entered into joint marketing
agreements with the site host.
Web marketers with cookies use the unethical procedure to collect
the consumer's personal information without their consent. Business
to consumer web sites collect data about visitors via implicit means
which is concerned with cookies to provide the necessary information for
decision making on marketing, publicising, and products (Patterson et
al. 1997). When consumers disclose their personal and monetary
information online, consumer concern perceived privacy include receiving
spam mails, being tracked for their Internet usage history and
preference through cookies, website vendors with the concession on how
to use customers' personal data and so on (Wang, Lee and Wang,
1999).
Significance of the Study
The review of the existing literature reveals that a number of
studies have been carried out on various aspects of E-Marketing but a
very few comprehensive studies in this area could be found which
provides detailed information regarding Ethical issue of cookies in
E-Marketing and also no comprehensive study could be cited out which
could explain the perceptions of respondents/individuals towards same.
As the consumer can only settle what is proper or wrong or even
permissible in the field of E-marketing hence study regarding their
behaviour becomes significant. In the light of the above discussion
comprehensive and detailed study regarding perceptions of respondents
toward ethical issue of cookies in E-Marketing is in dire need. Since
these consumers are the only scapegoat of this unethical business, hence
their perceptions and attitudes toward the ethical issue of cookies in
E-marketing becomes an significant topic of subject.
Objective and Research Methodology
To examine the perceptions and attitudes of respondents towards
ethical issue of cookies in E-Marketing judgmental sampling was employed
to gather information from people who could reasonably interpret the
E-marketing and form ethical viewpoint regarding cookie issue in
E-marketing, hence in the present study those individuals have been
included who are developed and exposed to E-marketing. The study
involved the analysis of primary data--collected through sample from one
of the prosperous states of India, i.e. Punjab and Union Territory of
Chandigarh. The survey has been conducted via email and face-to-face
interviews. The hypothesis have been framed for the present objective
based on the literature reviewed H01: There exists no significant
association between the perceptual factors extracted with regard to the
ethical issue of cookies in E-marketing and the attitude of the
respondents towards the ethical issue of cookies. A total of 640 survey
questionnaires had been sent out, to which 598 questionnaires received.
Each of the responses received has been screened for errors, incomplete
or missing responses. For those responses that had a few blank answers
(less than 25 percent of the questions) and which involved 5-point
interval-scaled questions has been assigned with a midpoint scale of 3.
After the screening process carried out, only 568 responses have been
considered complete and valid for data analysis. This represents a
success rate of 94.66 percent, which is considered to be good in view of
time and cost constraints.
Cookies are the invisible force behind just everything we do on the
net - from accessing content and information to making purchases and
communicating with others around the globe.
Using Psychological Reactance as the framework, an attempt has been
made to understand consumer perceptions towards ethical concern
regarding cookies in E-marketing. The scale so generated was based along
the strong literature survey and in consultation with practitioners and
professionals in the area of E-marketing. The pre-pilot survey was done
to improve the questionnaire. The improved questionnaire was subjected
to the pilot survey for further improvements and later, the full scale
survey was done. The visual inspection of the correlation matrix,
commonality, mean and standard deviation, scale reliability
(Cronbach's alpha) and Measures of Sampling Adequacy
(Kaiser-Meyer-Okline) were used before using Factor Analysis.
Bartlett's test of Sphericity and Correlations were also used for
verification of factor analysis results.
Analysis
The factor analysis technique was applied on responses of
respondents with regard to eleven variables related to the ethical issue
of cookies in E-marketing and three factors were extracted. The
respondents were required to rate eleven variables/statements, on a five
point Likert scales, which ranged from strongly disagree to strongly
agree.
Scale Development
A scale was developed to identify the factors affecting
consumer's perceptions towards ethical issue of cookies in
E-marketing. The literature for the same was consulted as shown in
literature survey. The variables were chosen based on literature support
and in consultation with professional in the arena of internet marketing
or E-marketing. Total 11 variables were selected to find the perceptions
of the respondents toward ethical issue of cookies. These items were to
be rated on a five point Likert scale by the respondents.
Scale Refinement
Item wise reliability analysis was executed on selected variables
for developing a reliable scale. For the determination of reliability
assessment of unidimensionality, reliability and validity have been
answered. Hence, based upon these concepts the scale generated for
present objective was refined and purified. Also the Inter item
correlations and Cronbach's alpha statistics were employed to
conduct the scale reliability analysis and to know the extent to which
items were correlated with the remaining items in a set of items under
consideration. The results are shown in Table I.
Factor Analysis
Principal component analysis was conducted as a means of data
reduction, to ascertain if the face validity of the items held (Pallant,
2001). Prior to performing PCA the suitability of data for factor
analysis was assessed. The correlation matrix revealed many coefficients
of 0.3 and above. PCA revealed the presence of three components with
Eigen values exceeding 1, explaining 78.51 percent of the variance. The
variance explained by each component is presented in Table II.
Reliability, Validity and Unidimensionality
The Cronbach's alpha of scale is 0.896 (Table II) which is a
right indicator to move forwards as the value of Cronbach's alpha
coefficient of 0.6 and above is good for research in social science
(Cronbach, 1990). Also the corrected-item-total correlation [greater
than or equal to] 0.5 and inter-item correlation is more than 0.3.
It is likewise important to mention that corrected-item-total
correlation > 0.5 and inter-item correlation >0.3 (Table I) is
good enough for reliability of the scale (Hair et al., 2009). The value
of communalities using principal component analysis ranged from 0.601 to
0.859 (Table I). Here, it is apt to mention that commonality >0.5 is
sufficient for the explanation of constructs (Hair et al., 2009). All
these values show factors analysis has extracted good quantity of
variance in the items. Hence, all the requirements of reliability,
validity and unidimensionality are met.
Correlation Coefficients
Correlations of all variables with each other were examined using
Pearson Correlation coefficients. Correlations among different items
were quite satisfactory and were also significant. According to the
scale used if all the 11-items get a rating of 5 each, the total score
would be 55. The mean score of the respondents is 32.83 (Table II). The
mean correlation is 0.442 and it varies from 0.269 to 0.801 with a range
0.532. There is a sufficient correlation to go ahead with factor
analysis. Factor analysis is performed with varimax rotated, Principal
Component Analysis. The scale reliability has also made for factors, so
classified. The results are shown in the Table II.
Extraction of Factors
Table II shows the factor analysis of the eleven variables; this
analysis extracted three factors from the eleven variables. Each
component was defined by at least three scale items. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) value of 0.880 is sufficient
enough for validating factor analysis results. Here, it is pertinent to
mention that KMO>0.6 and P<0.5 are good enough for research in
social sciences (Hair et al., 2009).
The Bartlett's Test of Sphericity also has a value of
[X.sup.2] =4221.026, DF = 55, which is significant (p [less than or
equal to] 0.5) as shown in the Table II.
All these requirements are sufficient for validating factor
analysis. The three factors classified using the factor analysis is
presented in the Table II. All the factors having loads more than 0.7
are considered good and the loading in present study ranged from 0.738
to 0.886. Items with factor loadings <0.5 were removed. The three
factors so generated have Eigenvalues ranging from 1.401 to 5.446.
Web marketers with cookies use the unethical procedure to collect
the consumer's personal information without their consent.
First Factor (Unethical Practice)
The first factor labeled as "Unethical Practice" explain
49.507 percent of the total variance. It includes five variables; i.e.
Cookies are invisible forces behind whatever consumers do online,
Deleting or blocking cookies enhance security online, Cookies are more
used as a promotional technique by marketers, Unethical procedures or
practices followed in cookies and Cookies make identity theft possible.
The results disclosed that the respondents believe the cookies as
"unethical practice" as it is invisible hand, which is tracked
and collecting the data of consumers, without their knowledge when they
are transacting online. They also feel that the promotional tactics used
by the marketers by using cookies also make identity theft possible. The
factor loading ranges from 0.738 to 0.886. The inter item correlation
ranges from 0.668 to 0.843 and item to total correlation ranges from
0.597 to 0.696. It covers 5.446 of the Eigenvalues.
Second Factor (Consumer Awareness)
Three variables load on second factor which is labeled as
"Consumer Awareness". These three variables revealed the
consumers are somewhat aware regarding cookies and they know how to deal
with it. The items included in this factor are: Consumers prefer to
delete cookies, Consumers understand the difference between first and
third party cookies and Consumers must receive notification before
cookie download. The results also revealed that in comparison to the
problem of spyware, the respondents to some extent were aware regarding
the issue of cookies and know how to handle with it. This factor has
explained 16.27 percent of the total variation in the factor analysis.
The factor loading ranges from 0.869 to 0.890. The inter item
correlation ranges from 0.791 to 0.827 and item to total correlation
ranges from 0.584 to 0.592. It covers 1.790 of the Eigen values.
Third Factor (E-marketing Barrier)
Factor third is developed from another three variables; i.e.,
Cookies are used to collect personal information, Cookie negatively
impact online/E-marketing and Cookie violate privacy of consumers. It
has been labeled as "E-Marketing Barrier". This
category's results indicated that it is important for web merchants
to create consumer's trust in E-marketing, as cookies violate the
consumer's privacy and it negatively influences the E-marketing.
This factor explains 9.51 percent of the total variance in the factor
analysis solution and shows the importance of this ingredient in online
shopping behaviour. The factor loading ranges from 0.838 to 0.872. The
inter item correlation ranges from 0.745 to 0.785 and item to total
correlation ranges from 0.596 to 0.599. It covers 1.401 of the Eigen
values.
Indians consumers are less probable to have changed their cookie
settings or less willingness to involve steps to address the cookie
concern, and least bother to erase cookies.
Validation of Factor Analysis Results
Here an attempt has been made to validate the factor analysis
results by calculating "Correlation between summated scales"
and "Correlation between a representative of factors and summated
scales". The values for communalities range from 0.601 to 0.859.
Here, it is pertinent to mention that Eigen value >1.0 and
communalities >0.5 are sufficient explanations of constructs (Hair et
al., 2009). The factor analysis results were valid as the correlation
among summated scales and representative variables was high (>0.5)
and it was low among summated scales ([less than or equal to] 0.5).
SEM for Ethical Issue of Cookies in E-Marketing
SEM (structural equation modeling), which includes measurement
model and path analysis, is an efficient way to find the causal
relationships between constructs and their underlying measurement
suitability. Confirmatory factor analysis is employed to test the
reliability and validity of the questionnaires after collecting the
questionnaires. The loading factor values of each manifest variable are
higher than 0.6 (the suggested threshold value is 0.6 (Bagozzi and Yi
(1988)), indicating that internal consistency and convergent validity
are good; composite reliability (Construct reliability) and the
Cronbach's a value of each construct are higher than 0.8, also the
average variance extracted of each construct is greater than 0.5,
indicating good reliability.
Path Analysis
In the following part, an attempt has been induced to disclose the
effects of path analysis conducted using a Structural Equation Modeling
technique.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The values for various fit indices, chi-square, level of
significance and effect of factors/items on perception towards ethical
issue of cookies are shown in Figure 1. The results in figure show that
path loading on Unethical Practices (coded-F1) factor ranged from 0.79
to 1.0. The path loading of 1.0 for invisible force and 0.97 for
deleting cookies enhance the security show that these items play a more
important role for this construct as compared to other items. Ha et. al.
(2006) and Sorkin (2001) revealed online consumers are frequently
confused about the advantages and disadvantages of cookies and cannot
properly distinguish what a cookie is. Here, it is significant to notice
that the path loading of Unethical Practices factor (0.62) on cookies
(coded-F4) is least as compared to other two constituents. The other
variables in this factor are Promotional Technique, Unethical procedure
and Identity theft, all these are loaded significantly. B2C websites
collect information about visitors via implicit means which is concerned
with cookies to provide the necessary data for decision making on
marketing, advertising, and products (Patterson et al. 1997). The path
loading on Consumer's Awareness (coded-F2) factor has the range
from 0.95 to 1.00. In that respect are three points in this factor
significantly loaded. The maximum loading is for notification before
cookie download (1.0) and Delete cookies (0.98) showing the dominance in
this factor. The path loading of this factor on privacy is 0.70 which is
second among all factors. In this constituent, it is suggested, web
marketers should not gather personal data from the consumers without the
consumer's consent with the help of cookies. Online shoppers do not
interpret the difference between first and third party cookies, but even
they prefer to delete cookies and require notification before cookies
are installed on their PC. The E-marketing barrier (Coded F3) factor has
path loading from .92 to 1.00. The results show that the loading of
collecting personal information (1.00) played a more dominating role for
this factor. All the loading is different and sufficient to explain this
factor. Anthony (2008) revealed the use of web cookies has been
criticised by consumer advocates, policy makers, and even marketers
themselves as a potential threat to consumer privacy. Consumers do not
trust in the online purchase because it is less secure than traditional
market as marketers collect the consumer's personal information
with cookies and violate the privacy. Milne and Rohm (2008) opined the
lack of disclosure regarding how cookies are used to collect and gather
information is a covert marketing practice that may negatively impact
consumer trust and security.
Effect Estimates for Factors and Variables
Here in the Table III, an attempt has been made to identify the
effect of each individual factor and variable upon respondent's
perception toward ethical issue of cookies in E-marketing.
The path analysis conducted using a Structural Equation Modeling
technique revealed that the most of the divergence in the perception
towards ethical issues of Cookies is explained by the factor of
E-marketing Barrier and least variance due to Unethical Practices
factor. The total effect estimate showed that this effect was high for
E-marketing Barrier (1.000) and Consumer's Awareness (0.701). It is
least for unethical practices (0.620). Here, it is also interesting to
note that among items total effect was very high for collect personal
information (1.0) and Cookies have a negative impact on E-Marketing
(0.945); hence, these items play a more important role for cookies
concern as compared to other items. The other items also showed
significant path loading on cookies concern.
Now consumers are more concerned with privacy, but marketers use
cookies to gather consumer's personal information for marketing and
promotion purpose; hence cookies have a negative impact on E-marketing.
The H01 hypothesis has been rejected as the extracted factors have
significant path loading to develop the perceptions towards ethical
issue of cookies in E-marketing, hence "unethical practice,
consumer awareness" and "E-marketing barrier" have
significant association to frame perceptions towards the ethical issue
of cookies in E-marketing.
This section helps us to understand the cookies concern in
e-marketing and the items which are playing more important and less
important role towards the perception of respondents for the issue of
cookies in e-marketing. The results discussed leaves an implication for
the marketers to ramp up the consumer trust through online selling in
such a direction that the consumer information collected through cookies
shall not be misused in any of the way and the information collected
through cookies shall only be utilised for marketing purpose and that
likewise in an ethical way. Mostly respondents do not prefer online
shopping, as they felt that cookies lead to violations of privacy by
collecting their personal information unethically. Cookie issue was
considered unethical by the respondents because marketers use the same
unethically to promote their products online.
Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions
* The survey was confined to individual shopping behaviour. Punjab
and Chandigarh are being a collectivist State and UT, most of the
shopping happens in a family set up. Consideration of family shopping
behaviour might take in interesting findings.
* The present study was cross-sectional in nature and given the
corresponding drawbacks of the same, longitudinal studies should be
conveyed in the future to prove the proposed model so as to re-evaluate
directions of causality among the survey variables. As perceptions
change over time, longitudinal research may be helpful.
* The sample for the present study comprised of 568 respondents.
The sample is a small proportion of the full population of online
consumers in Punjab and Chandigarh. Therefore, research studies with
much larger sample size would be required to ensure more generalised
findings of the study.
Conclusion
The use of the Internet as a way to promote goods and services has
been rising over the past two decades globally. In the past twenty
years, we have witnessed the rapid growth of the Internet and the
geometric growth of the Internet users. Nevertheless, people still avoid
making purchases on the Internet due to unethical practices in the new
electronic environment. Past researches have indicated that unethical
practices in Electronic marketing constituted a key barrier to the use
of Internet shopping as well as long-term commitment to the relationship
building. The results disclosed that the respondents believe the cookies
as unethical practice as it is invisible hand, which is tracking and
collecting the data of consumers, without their knowledge when they are
transacting online. They also felt that the promotional tactics used by
the marketers by using cookies also makes identity theft possible. The
path analysis conducted using a Structural Equation Modeling technique
revealed that the most of the variance in the ethical issue of Cookies
is explained by the factor of E-marketing Barrier and least variance due
to Unethical Practices factor. Respondents do not prefer online
marketing as they felt that cookies breach the privacy by collecting
their personal information unethically. Cookies issue was considered as
unethical by the respondents because marketers use the same unethically
to promote their products online.
Satinder Kumar
Assistant Professor, School of Management Studies, Punjabi
University, Patiala.
Rishi Raj Sharma
Associate Professor, Guru Nanak Dev University, Regional Campus,
Gurdaspur.
References
Anthony, D. Miyazaki. (2008). Online privacy and the disclosure of
cookie use: Effects on consumer trust and anticipated patronage. Journal
of American Marketing Association, 27(1), 19-33.
Bagozzi, R.P, & Yi, Y (1988). On the evaluation of structure
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1),
70-83.
Bayan, Ruby. (2001). Privacy means knowing your cookies. Link-Up,
18(1), 22-23.
Cronbach Lee, Joseph. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing.
5th Edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Dobie, K., Grant, J., & Ready, K. (2001). Product motivation
and purchasing activity: An explanatory study of consumers: Internet
purchasing activity. Journal of Promotion Management, 6(1/2), 31-43.
Efrim Boritz., & Won Gyun. (2002). Internet privacy: Framework,
review and opportunities for future research. Proceedings of 41st Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Efrim Boritz., & Sundar Raj. (2006). Internet privacy research:
Framework, review and opportunities. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 20, 1-63.
Fox, S. (2000). Trust and privacy online: Why Americans want to
rewrite the rules. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Assessed
September, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org
FTC, Federal Trade Commission. (1998). Privacy online: A report to
congress. Accessed June 2011, Available at:
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/priv23a.pdf
Ha, Vicki, Farah Al Shaar, Kori Inkpen., & Lina Hdeib. (2006).
An examination of user perception and misconception of internet cookies
in CHI 2006 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Montreal: Association for computer Machinery Digital Library, 833-38.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., &
Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edition. Upper
Saddle River. Delhi: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W.
C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. 5th Edition. California:
Prentice-Hall International Inc.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis. 4th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hoffnagle. (2005). E-marketing efforts of IT solution providers:
What can be expected in the next 12 months. Var Business, 17(14), 68.
Iyer, G.R., Miyazaki, A.D., Grewal, D., & Giordano, M. (2002).
Linking web-based segmentation to pricing tactics. Journal of Product
and Brand Management, 11, 288-302.
Jensen, Carlos, Colin Potts., & Christian Jensen. (2005).
Privacy practices of internet users: Self-reports versus observed
behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 203-227.
Kossecki Pawel, Swierczynska-Kaczor., & Urzula. (2003). No
trust, no transaction-The implication for internet suppliers.
Information Security Solution European Conference, The European
contribution, Speech/00/344.
La Rose, Robert., & Nora J. Rifon. (2007). Promoting i-safety:
Effects of privacy warnings and privacy seals on risk assessment and
online privacy behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 127-149.
Lavin, Marilyn. (2006). Cookies: What do consumers know and what
can they learn? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for
Marketing, 14(4), 279-288.
Linn, John. (2005). Technology and web user data privacy. Journal
of IEEE Security and Privacy, 3, 52-58.
Samaniego, M. Jose, Ana M. Gutierrez Arranz., & Rebeca San Jose
Cabezudo. (2006). Determinants of internet use in the purchasing
process. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 21(3), 164-174.
Millett, Lynette I., Batya Friedman., & Edward Felten. (2001).
Cookies and web browser design: Toward realizing informed consent
online. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, New York: Association for Computer Machinery, 46-52.
Milne Shalini Bahl., & Andrew Rohm. (2008). Toward a framework
for assessing covert marketing practices. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 27, 57-62.
Milne, George R., Mary J. Culnan., & Henry Greene. (2006). A
longitudinal assessment of online privacy notice readability. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 25(2), 238-249.
Miyazako A.D., & Fernandez A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of
privacy and security risks for online shopping. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 35(1), 27-44.
Patterson, P.G., L.W. Johnson., & R.A. Spreng. (1997). Modeling
the determinants of customer satisfaction for business to business
professional services. Academy Marketing Science Journal, 25(1), 4-17.
Petrovic. (2011). Ethical E-marketing. European Journal of
Marketing, 31(6), 24-29.
Ponnurangam, Kumaraguru., & Lorrie Cranor. (2006). Privacy in
India: Attitudes and awareness. Journal of Computer Science, 385,
243-258.
Quinton. (2005). Online privacy and the disclosure of cookie use:
Effects on consumer trust and anticipated patronage. Journal of American
Marketing Association, 17, 12-36.
Raghu, T.S., PK. Kannan, H.R. Rao., & Whinston A. (2001).
Dynamic profiling of consumers for customized offerings over the
internet: A model and analysis. Journal of Decision Support Systems, 32,
117-34.
Roberts, M. L. (2003). Internet marketing: Integrating online and
offline strategies. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sally Harridge. (2004). Electronic marketing, the new kid on the
block. Journal of Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(3), 297-309.
Shermach. (2005). Nature of e-business ethical dilemmas.
Information Management and Computer Security, 15(2), 16-27.
Soltani A., Canty S., Mayo Q., Thomas L., & Hoofnagle C. J.
(2009). Flash cookies and privacy. Accessed 15 Apr 2010, August 11 2009,
Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1446862.
Sorkin, D. (2001,Winter). Technical and legal approaches to
unsolicited electronic mail. USFL Review, 325-83.
Suki, N. B. M., Ahmad M. I., & Thyagarajan, V (2001).
Motivation and concern factors for internet shopping: A Malaysian
perspective. The Electronic Journal for Ecommerce Tools and
Applications, 1, 1-18.
Wang, H., M. K. O. Lee., & C. Wang. (1999). Consumer privacy
concerns about Internet marketing communications of the association for
computing machinery, Communications of the ACM, 41 (3), 63-70.
Weitz, E. (2005). Determinants of continuity in conventional
industrial channel dyads. Journal of Marketing Science, 8, 310-323.
Table I
Scale Reliability Analysis (Ethical Issue of Cookies)
Variables Initial Extraction Mean
Invisible force 1.000 0.828 3.11
Possible identity theft 1.000 0.601 3.16
Promotional technique 1.000 0.728 3.14
Deleting cookies enhance 1.000 0.811 3.16
security
Unethical procedures 1.000 0.752 3.20
Delete cookie 1.000 0.829 3.00
First v/s third 1.000 0.821 2.88
party cookies
Notified before cookies 1.000 0.859 2.99
downloaded
Violate privacy 1.000 0.783 2.74
Negative impact 1.000 0.797 2.72
Collect personal data 1.000 0.827 2.72
Variables Std. Dev. Corrected Cronbach's
Item-Total Alpha if
Correlation Item Deleted
Invisible force 0.954 0.687 0.889
Possible identity theft 0.970 0.597 0.880
Promotional technique 0.913 0.653 0.885
Deleting cookies enhance 1.024 0.695 0.859
security
Unethical procedures 1.100 0.696 0.903
Delete cookie 1.099 0.588 0.881
First v/s third 1.083 0.584 0.899
party cookies
Notified before cookies 0.973 0.592 0.879
downloaded
Violate privacy 0.948 0.599 0.884
Negative impact 0.951 0.599 0.882
Collect personal data 0.970 0.596 0.889
Inter-item correlation: Mean = 0.442, Minimum = 0.269,
Maximum = 0.801, Range = 0.532, Max/Min = 2.977,
Variance = 0.028, N = 11
Table II
Factor Analysis Results for Consumer's Perceptions
Toward Ethical Issue of Cookies in E-Marketing
Factors
Variables Unethical Consumer E-Marketing
Practice Awareness Barrier
Invisible force 0.886
Deleting/blocking cookies 0.870
enhance security
Promotional technique 0.822
Unethical procedures 0.820
Possible identity theft 0.738
Notified before cookies 0.890
installed
Delete cookie 0.873
Difference between 0.869
1st and 3rd party cookies
Collect personal data 0.872
Negative impact 0.847
Violate privacy 0.838
Eigen Value 5.446 1.790 1.401
% Variance 49.507 16.269 12.733
Cumulative % Variance 49.507 65.776 78.509
Scale Reliability alpha 0.912 0.901 0.877
Cronbach's Alpha= 0.896, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy= 0.880, Bartlett's lest of Sphericity
(Approx. Chi-Square = 4221.026, Df = 55, Sig = 0.00,
Mean = 32.83. SD = 10.64.
Table III
Effect Estimates for Perceptual Factors and Variables Affecting
Consumer's Perceptions/ Attitude toward the Ethical
Issue of Cookies in E-Marketing
Factors/Variables Decisions Effect
affecting consumer's Estimates
Perceptions
toward Cookies Total Direct Indirect Values
Unethical Practice 0.620 0.620 0.000 Chi
square = 66.330
Consumer Awareness 0.701 0.701 0.000 DF= 41
E-Marketing Barrier 1.000 1.000 0.000 RMR= 0.037
Invisible force 0.620 0.000 0.620 GFI= 0.979
Deleting/blocking 0.559 0.000 0.559 AGFI= 0.967
cookies enhance
security
Promotional 0.539 0.000 0.539 PGFI= 0.608
technique
Unethical procedures 0.551 0.000 0.551 NFI= 0.984
Identity theft 0.491 0.000 0.491 RFI= 0.978
possible
Notified before 0.701 0.000 0.701 IFI= 0.994
cookies installed
Delete cookie 0.687 0.000 0.687 TLI= 0.991
Difference between 0.665 0.000 0.665 Significance
1st and 3rd party Level= 0.007
cookies
Collect personal 1.000 0.000 1.000
data
Negative impact 0.945 0.000 0.945
Violate privacy 0.924 0.000 0.924
