Type of dissertation 30 hp

Spring term 2013

Supervisor: Ian Richardson, PhD

The Motivations of Early

Adopters of Technology

The case of Social Networks

Leonel Silva

2

Abstract This is an exploratory study concerned with the motivations of early

adopters of on-line social networks. In order to collect data, semi-structured

interviews were conducted with early adopters of a recently launched internet-

based social network – “Joining”.

The findings suggest that the characteristics of early adopters are

changing, since they are less “tech savvy” than previously believed. They are

less interested in becoming early adopters per se and more interested in

exploring different possibilities to fulfil their needs. They are very demanding, and

can quickly switch to another social network, making the time frame to serve

them very short.

This paper seeks to spark some new ideas related to early adoption

among consumers and attempts to look at early adopters in a different way. They

are the first group of consumers that any product or service finds, and knowing

how to motivate them can be crucial for a successful idea. The study represents,

therefore, an opportunity to expand knowledge of early adopter consumers and

how they interact with social networks: - two important areas of interest for

academics and practitioners.

Keywords: Social Networks, Social Media, Consumer Motivations, Early

Adopters, Technology Marketing

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my family, friends and

colleagues for their support during these two years and especially my last 6

months with my thesis. It was a very challenging period and it was great to count

with the support of everyone.

This thesis was possible thanks to the early users of Joining in the

Netherlands that were very helpful. Special thanks to Evert Schraven, Joining’s

founder, who supported me during these months and allowed me to use Joining

as a case in point for this study.

I am also thankful to Prof. Ian Richardson, who guided and helped me to

get the best thesis possible. Thanks and good luck for all the rest of the thesis

group, and my program colleagues!

Stockholm, June 2013

Leonel Silva

4

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................... 6

1.1. Technology Marketing ........................................................................................................ 6

1.2. Literature ............................................................................................................................ 6

1.3. Research Question ............................................................................................................. 7

1.4. Motivation ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.5. Sample ............................................................................................................................... 8

1.6. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.7. Findings .............................................................................................................................. 9

2. Literature Review .................................................................... 10

2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.2. Diffusion of innovations .................................................................................................... 11

2.3. Early Adopters .................................................................................................................. 15

2.4. Consumer motivation literature ........................................................................................ 17

2.5. Networks/Social Networks................................................................................................ 19

2.6. Research Question and Theoretical Framework ............................................................. 21

3. Research Design ..................................................................... 23

3.1. Research Methodology .................................................................................................... 23

3.2. Sample ............................................................................................................................. 23

3.3. Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 24

3.4. Interview Guide ................................................................................................................ 25

3.5. Data collection .................................................................................................................. 26

3.6. Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 27

4. Findings ................................................................................... 29

4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 29

4.2. Findings ............................................................................................................................ 30

5. Discussion ............................................................................... 39

5.1. Determinants .................................................................................................................... 39

5.2. Patterns ............................................................................................................................ 40

5.3. Outcomes ......................................................................................................................... 41

5

6. Conclusion ............................................................................... 45

6.1. Theoretical implications .................................................................................................... 45

6.2. Future Research ............................................................................................................... 46

6.3. Managerial Implications.................................................................................................... 47

7. References ............................................................................... 49

Appendices .................................................................................. 52

Appendix I: Interview Guide .................................................................................................... 52

Appendix II: Case study Joining .............................................................................................. 53

List of Tables

Table 1: Customer Purchase Decisions ............................. 11

Table 2: Adapted Use-Diffusion Model ............................... 13

Table 3: Big Five Factors ..................................................... 17

Table 4: Participant’s List .................................................... 27

Table 5: Findings’ Domains and Themes ........................... 30

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Adopters’ Curve ............................................ 15

Figure 2: Theoretical Framework ........................................ 21

6

1. Introduction

1.1. Technology Marketing

Technology marketing has become more important than ever in these

past years. The increasing importance is directly related to phenomena such as

globalization and wide access to computers (especially with the emergence of

the internet). This change has not gone unnoticed by academic researchers, or

practitioners. There is a big focus on understanding technology from a marketing

point of view, in order to successfully launch more products and services at

businesses and consumers. The promise of technology is, itself, nothing new.

Schumpeter in 1942 refers to the fact that technology is not a zero-sum game,

because it creates unlimited opportunities for development.

“Technological possibilities are an uncharted sea. We may survey a

geographical region and appraise... that the best plots are first taken into

cultivation, after them the next best ones and so on. At any given time during this

process it is only relatively inferior plots that remain to be exploited in the future.

But we cannot reason in this fashion about the future possibilities of technological

advance. From the fact that some of them have been exploited before others, it

cannot be inferred that the former were more productive than the latter. And

those that are still in the lap of the gods may be more or less productive than any

that have thus far come within our range of observation... There is no reason to

expect slackening of the rate of output through exhaustion of technological

possibilities.”

Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, p.118, 1942

Technology increases the possibilities of bringing new solutions to our

problems. So it is interesting to analyse the first group of consumers that adopt

these new technologies. They will be the ones triggering the rest of the adopters,

making an idea to succeed or fail.

1.2. Literature

This work was divided into six sections, starting with this introduction,

reviewing the literature background, designing and explaining the research

process. Then the findings are presented and discussed, reaching our conclusion

where some managerial implications are introduced. The token of this study was

around perceptions of consumers when adopting a new social network. The

7

motivations that build the decision of adoption are the most interesting, though

challenging aspects to investigate. This has been a neglected area of study,

probably due to difficulties in gathering data, or the complexity of the subject. The

first section shows what has been discussed in theory for the past years in four

areas. Firstly, the Diffusion of Innovations literature gives a rich overview of

how innovations develop and pass from one person to another. Several

characteristics interfere on the diffusion and are reviewed and evaluated.

Secondly, the Early Adopters literature analyses both academically and for

practitioners how important it is to understand what drives these users. They are

the first users that start to build the adoption curve, and are highly important,

since they begin the wave of adoption (Rogers, 1995) and impact the innovation

improvement and diffusion (Moore, 1991). Thirdly, Consumer Motivations

literature directs this study towards the consumer’s perspective. Business to

business is a valuable field of study, and has been more covered than the

business to consumer side. This way, it is an interesting opportunity to go further

with the understanding of consumer’s motivations as individuals. Finally, the

Networks literature provided the final connection needed to build a coherent

piece of theoretical background. Since the case in point was about Social

Networks, literature about this theme was needed to frame the study. These four

areas might seem separated, though they have all been used to build a

consistent piece of work. They will be connected in order to understand how

early adopters join social networks. There should be strong motivations behind

the decision of adopting a new social network before others, and what moves

these first users became the subject of study.

1.3. Research Question

The research question of this study has the purpose of understanding

the motivations that moved adopters to join new social networks with no prior

contacts. Explain why the first members appear with no apparent connection to

anyone. From the motivations, two sub-questions followed: The first one was to

understand if there was any particular difference between utilitarian and non-

utilitarian motives, and the second one to know if being an early adopter

influenced the decision of adopting before others. Most of the times – if not

always – users do not clearly state their motivations thus it is important to be able

to read “between lines”. Four areas for further research were also presented, on

the last section of this work, as well as some managerial implications of this

study.

8

1.4. Motivation

The decision to research about the adoption of social networks arose

from the current discussion around this topic and the relevance it can have for

future studies. Currently, thanks to the internet, several virtual social networks

appeared thus expanding from the traditional physical view of social networks. In

the past years many studies have tried to understand several aspects of social

networks, such as its causes and consequences. Nevertheless, it has been

overlooked the fact that social networks have not changed in essence, but only in

format. So not only from a sociological perspective this theme can be studied.

This new format opens many possibilities for businesses to adapt their models,

and also new companies to appear, taking advantage of this unchartered

territory.

1.5. Sample

It is usually difficult to get access to early social networks, since they are

very secretive for competition purposes. In this case the researcher had access

to the information, due to its work in the organization. This proximity made it

easier to reach the participants for interviews and to analyse data from the

platform. Joining, a very early stage start-up with less than one year was used as

case in point. Very few people knew about the platform before signing-up, and it

was a very recent social network. This proved to be the perfect landscape for this

study, because it enabled to interact with early adopters in person, and ask

directly about their motives. The fact that the researcher was close to the

network, allowed to perfectly understand all the characteristics of the platform

when interacting with the users.

1.6. Methodology

An interpretative study was followed in order to avoid losing social and

cultural aspects that are important to understand the motivations of early

adopters (Myers, 2011). The framework for research and discussion was based

on prior work from Shih & Venkatesh (2004) with some adaptations to fit more

specifically this group of users. The research question served to guide the study,

and the sub-questions led to answer more specific aspects. In this case utilitarian

and non-utilitarian motives were analysed as well as if early adoption was a

cause to join a social network. The author applied a qualitative methodology, in

the form of semi-structured interviews, with an inductive analysis of the data.

9

1.7. Findings

A set of ten findings are presented on Table 5, and explained

thoroughly. These findings emerged from the data collected and were then

analysed with the aid of the theoretical framework. This led to the discussion

section where some suggestions were presented to explain the findings. For

instance early adopters tend to be explorers, seeking for new solutions to solve

their needs. They also tend to be less tech savvy as previously early adopters

were described. In addition to that, early adopters are very demanding, quickly

changing their interests and switching for alternatives.

10

2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

Online networks have spread throughout the World Wide Web in the

past years. They are now part of the landscape that anyone encounters when

going online. Belonging to one or more online networks is part of people´s lives

that carefully curate them, choosing the right information to be shared. There are

different networks for different purposes, professional (LinkedIn), hobbies

(Meetup), dating (Match.com), pets (Catmoji) amongst others. Inside each

network users can choose who has access to what, separating the information

available for friends, colleagues, and family members (e.g. Google Plus Circles).

It is relatively easy to understand why someone would join Facebook

now - currently the biggest online social network. All the friends are there,

everyone “pulls” to come; there are events, photo sharing, and discussions that

just happen inside Facebook. Not being there is not very comfortable for a

healthy social life. This paper does not want to discuss why someone would

enter an existing online network, but more interestingly why someone would

enter a “non-existing” online network. Non-existing, in the way that it does not

have a large network of members and with the risk that it will not provide with

what it promises. Therefore, this paper wishes to participate in the discussion of

the motivations of adopters of new social networks. Why do they participate

before others? What attracts them? What are the gains?

The focus of this study will be based on four areas of academic

literature. Firstly, the diffusion of innovations theory mostly based on Rogers

(1995) and the Technology Acceptance Model, since it is important to understand

how something new (an idea, a product, a service) flows from one person to

another. What are the drivers, what influences the speed of diffusion? Secondly,

the concept of early adoption and early adopters, who are they, what are their

characteristics, so we can better understand who are the first users of a network.

In what way they differ from later adopters? Do they influence them? Why are

they so important?; Thirdly, consumer motivations literature is reviewed to

understand more in a consumer point of view what are the psychological reasons

to consume; Lastly, networks literature are presented focusing on social

11

networks, since this was the object of the study and important to frame the case

in point.

Yeo (2012) discusses why users interact or participate in social media.

This work aims to understand the motivations to first interact, before anyone else

participates and before there is a clear understanding of what the platform is

capable (technically and socially). Current research presents a rather brash

perspective of the discussion, as if users did not personally interfere in the

interaction with online platforms. It is suggested by Yeo (2012) that much

emphasis is put on how companies can attract more users, instead of trying to

understand what drives consumers to feel attracted.

2.2. Diffusion of innovations

In order to understand what the diffusion of innovations is we will divide

it in what is diffusion and what is innovation. Concerning the first, it is the process

that “an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among

the members of a social system” (Rogers, 1995:5). The second is “an idea,

practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of

adoption” (Rogers, 1995:12).

During the process of adopting an innovation, Rogers (1995) argues that

users go through five steps: 1) knowledge; 2) persuasion, 3) decision, 4)

implementation, and 5) confirmation. The main goal of the user is to gather the

most information possible before adopting a product or service. The idea of

reducing the risk is what drives the user, increasing the possibility of adoption of

a product or service. Mohr et al. (2010:236) based on Rogers (1995), propose

the following table:

1 Relative Advantage

2 Compatibility

3 Complexity

4 Trialability

5 Ability to communicate product benefits

6 Observability

Table 1: Six Factors Affecting Customer Purchase Decision. Source: Mohr et al. Marketing of High-

Technology Products and Innovations, 2010.

Basically what is presented here is a description of an innovation. It

should provide an advantage compared to other options, including the option of

12

not adopting anything at all and staying the same. The innovation should be easy

to use, without requiring much effort in adapting to it, rather having it already

adapted to the user. It should also be complex enough to clearly solve a specific

need, but again not making it too hard to be used. The possibility to try it out, or

at least to see it before adopting, is another characteristic that should be present.

Finally, it should be easy to share its benefits with others and to easily

understand what the user gains. Innovations to be successful should “offer

improvements over previous ideas, consistent with needs of adopters, easy to

use, allowing experimentation, and visible to others so they are adopted more

quickly.” (Hixon et al. 2012:102). This is perhaps the most widely analysed

theory, and Rogers work has influenced many papers (Lu, 2009; Ding & Han,

2009, Garrison 2009, Hixon et al., 2012, Campbell et al., 2012).

2.2.1. Use-Diffusion Model

Some researchers put in question the Adoption-Diffusion Theory from

Rogers (1995). Shih & Venkatesh (2004:59) label it as “the adoption-diffusion

(AD) paradigm [whilst] an innovation reaches a critical mass of adopters, the

diffusion is accelerated, and innovation is considered successful”. They continue

by pointing out that the AD paradigm is not complete without analysing the user-

diffusion (UD) processes. The well-known “S-shaped” theory that many authors

suggest (Rogers, 1995; Mohr, 2011) that the life cycle of a product depends on

1) introduction, 2) growth, and 3) maturity, do not take into account the level

individuals use a product or service. They focus only on the timing of the

consumption.

The UD model is built from three key components 1. UD determinants;

2. UD patterns; 3. UD outcomes (Shih & Venkatesh, 2004). There are four

determinants that affect the UD patterns: 1) household social context, where the

user operates; 2) the innovation technological dimension; 3) the personal

dimension, i.e. if the person is tech-savvy; and lastly external factors, such as

external communication and media exposure (Shih & Venkatesh 2004:61). The

UD patterns explain how the users influence the adoption of a product. It has two

main variables, one is the Rate of Use, how much time an individual spends with

the product; and the other one is the Variety of Use, what ways the individual

uses the product. Finally the UD outcomes are related to how satisfied an

individual is after using a product or service. Shih & Venkatesh (2004) argue that

the more intense a user, the more satisfied he or she is. This might not be the

case, if the low usage of an innovation brings a positive experience to the user.

For instance, having an innovative tool that allows one to quickly deactivate a

13

bomb brings more satisfaction for not having the need to use that innovation.

Nevertheless, Shih & Venkatesh (2004) conclude that the UD outcomes can be

in the form of the 1) perceived impact of the technology; 2) satisfaction with the

technology; 3) interest in future technologies. So depending on how these three

outcomes appear, one can understand the willingness of users to adopt or not a

product based on its usage.

2.2.2. UD Adapted Model

To answer the questions of this study the UD model was adapted:

Adopter´s Determinants Patterns Outcomes

Household social

context

Rate of use Perceived impact

Technological

dimension

Satisfaction with the network

Personal dimension Variety of

use

Interest in future

development

External factors

Table 2: Adapted Use-Diffusion Model. Original in Shih & Venkatesh (2004)

1. Adopter´s determinants

a) Social context based on three axes. The first is the household

communication, which refers to how close the family members and

friends are concerning information sharing. The second is about the

limited resources to spend on technology (i.e. time, money, etc.) The

third axis is the prior experience with technology, and knowledge

from previous experiences;

b) Technological dimension concerns the sophistication of the

technology. How evolved and easy to use it is, and how users feel

about it;

c) Personal dimension takes care of two aspects. How innovative is a

user, and how frustrated he or she might be with technology. This

can affect the willingness to adopt;

d) External factors are peer or social pressure. For instance friends at

school that are always talking about innovations. Part of the network

effects.

14

2. Patterns

a) Rate of use is how much time the user spends with the network;

b) Variety of use is which different manners and purposes can a

network be used.

3. Outcomes

a) Understand the impact of belonging to these networks, i.e. the

benefits that they can achieve;

b) How satisfied are the users with the network, and how well it fulfils

its service. This can help understand if the expectations are in line

with what is offered by the network;

c) The interest in future developments of the network, can allow us to

understand more in depth the motives of the users. If the user wants

to be the first ones to adopt a network, in order to take future

benefits of its expansion for instance.

The adopter’s determinants characterize the users, making it an

important tool to understand adopter’s motivations. If the users are highly

educated, tech averse, and have low social skills, this can bring interesting

results to the analysis. Also the pattern of usage can allow us to understand how

committed the early adopters are with the network. And finally, the outcomes will

enable a cross check or filtering for the real reasons of participating in the

network.

2.2.3. Other studies

Some authors (Robertson & Gatignon, 1986; Jung, 1990; Lee et al.

2002) propose additional methods of analysing innovation diffusion taking into

account the competitive landscape, functional reasons such as perceived risk,

technology availability, and organizational structures. Most of the diffusion debate

is around the producer’s side (Bunduchi et al, 2011) considering adoption and

implementation of innovations a sole task of organizations. They overlook the

important role of consumers, as individuals, in this process.

Other authors (Sandström et al, 2008; Ding & Han 2009) also point out

that most literature focuses on industry level, rather than brand level. For the

purpose of this study, this will not be a limitation since the subject of study is the

industry and not a specific brand.

But the current dominant paradigm is still the TAM - Technology

Acceptance Model. It “links user acceptance of new technology to consumer

perceptions of innovation usefulness and ease of use” (Parry et al., 2011:955).

Perceived usefulness is the level a user thinks the innovation can solve his or her

15

needs. Ease of use is the level of complexity adopting an innovation requires.

One should not overlook the total cost of innovation adoption, which is not only

the monetary price but also the effort the individual spends to use it (Parry et al,

2011).

2.3. Early Adopters

Rogers (1995) offers a categorization of users that adopt a new

technology. The first 16% are the innovators and early adopters. These are

people that are committed to new technologies, and always try to be at the

forefront. According to Moore (1991) the early adopters are the group that will

allow innovations to cross the chasm between the early market and the

mainstream market. At the mainstream level, first the early majority accounts to a

big percentage of the users (34%) that usually turn to be the cash cow of

innovative companies. The second part of the mainstream is the late majority that

accounts to the same relative number of users, but this time less committed to

technology and very price sensitive. Lastly, in the curve there are the laggards

who are usually the sceptics of new technologies.

Fig. 1: The Adopters’ Curve. Source: Based on Rogers (1995) Diagram from Idea

Couture by Morgan Gerard

Following Rogers (1995) adoption curve, early adopters become the first

group of users innovations have to face. Mohr et al. (2011:241) refer to them as

“visionaries in their market”. Because of that, usually the production of

innovations is done in parallel with these users. As Bunduchi et al. (2011:507)

state “lead users and early adopters tend to become involved in innovation

during the early stages of evolution, when the take-up is generally slow.”

16

2.3.1. Characteristics

Early adopters are generally described as “younger in age, willing to

take risks, more positive about the usefulness of an innovation, very social, and

are often viewed as opinion leaders in relation to the new innovation.” (Hixon et

al., 2012:102). This group can be used to polish the final innovation, and to get in

touch of what the mainstream market is willing for. The early adopters struggle

against the uncertainty of new technologies, which is one of the factors that

impede later adopters to embrace an innovation. They “develop and contribute to

a collective knowledge base concerning instructional technology. Early adopters

make an innovation visible to the mainstream and decrease its uncertainty. ” (Lu,

2009) They are opinion leaders, and can influence the mainstream users to

embrace it (Rogers, 1995).

Non-early adopters, or late adopters of technology, search for additional

information to reduce risk. They look at early adopters as “testers”, and trust their

experience. Bennet & Bennet (2003:60) say that “offering demonstrations of how

the technology can be utilized” is very important to promote adoption.

2.3.2. Expectations

Users also build expectations about what the new innovation can and

cannot give. Early adopters can be used to show specifically its advantages.

Thus, it is highly important to discover what types of information consumers use

to build their opinion. This opinion will affect the decision of accepting or rejecting

an innovation (Motohashi et al., 2012). Motohashi et al. (2012) continue, by

pointing out four assumptions. 1) innovativeness is different from firm to firm; 2)

early adopters are distinct from the late adopters, with specific characteristics; 3)

the different categories of adopters can interact/communicate with each other

with relative ease (Park, 2004); and 4) early adopters are effective opinion

leaders, and capable of influencing other adopters.

This way, early adopters are defined by the first users of a new

technology, which can affect the adoption of the innovation by other users. The

reasons that motivate the action of adopting before others will be studied further

on this paper.

17

2.4. Consumer motivation literature

“To be motivated means to be moved to do something.”

Ryan & Deci (2000:54)

Yeo (2012) discusses the motivations of consumers by pointing out the

Metatheoretic model of motivation and personality (3M) from Mowen (2000) that

uses four traits to analyse behaviour. They are the following (Yeo, 2012:298):

elemental traits (e.g. the Big Five factors);

compound traits (e.g. need for play, need for information);

situational traits (e.g. susceptibility to influence); and

surface-level traits (e.g. healthy-diet lifestyles).

Even though this model may be seen too complex and difficult to use in

order to achieve a proper analysis, Yeo (2012) and Baumgartner (2002)

recommend the use of a framework with broader personality traits. This focus

brings us to the “Big Five” personality dimensions (Yeo, 2012:299):

Extraversion Tendency to be sociable, talkative, confident, and enjoy change and excitement.

Agreeableness Tendency to be trusting, sympathetic, and cooperative.

Conscientiousness Degree of organization, conformity, diligence, and socially prescribed impulse control in an individual.

Neuroticism Tendency to experience chronic negative emotions and to display

related behavioural and cognitive characteristics.

Openness Willingness to consider alternative approaches, be intellectually curious, and enjoy artistic pursuits.

Table 3: Big Five Factors from Yeo (2012:299)

These reflect different personality, and behavioural characteristics of

consumers. In connection with the personality traits, there are motives that

involve the consumers. These can be presented in two types:

● Utilitarian - rational and task-oriented (Babin et al., 1994)

● Non-Utilitarian - concerned with experiential aspects such as pleasure and

escape (Yeo 2012:300 from Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).

In the same study Yeo (2012:306) continues that the motivation to

contribute with content for websites like Amazon and Wikipedia have self-

oriented or utilitarian motives (“self-expression, and personal development”) and

other non-utilitarian oriented motives such as hedonism (“social affiliation,

altruism, and reciprocity”).

18

2.4.1. Early adopters motives

Concerning early adopters’ motives, Lu (2009:82) quotes Geoghegan

(1998) who advises that “relative advantage is the most important factor in early

adopter acceptance”. The following 4 factors of Rogers (1995) - complexity,

compatibility, and trialability - affect in a much broader extent the mainstream,

who tend to be a “more deliberate, pragmatic, and sceptical group.” (Lu 2009:82).

Early adopters can build on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations

(Mohammad & Som, 2010) to be attracted to adopt an innovation. The intrinsic

motivations relate to true motives that express honest interest or joy on that

particular aspect. For instance, playing football, simply for the fun or adopting a

technology just for the pleasure of playing with it. On the other hand extrinsic

motivations are motives that express interest in a resulting indirect outcome, for

instance, to play football just to make a lot of money. Another example is to adopt

an innovation with the purpose of becoming famous for being the first one to use

it. So the main difference is the instrumental value that extrinsic motivations have

(Ryan & Deci, 2000).

2.4.2. Word-Of-Mouth

Word-of-mouth (WOM) has been studied by many authors (Godes, et

al., 2004; Keller & Fay, 2012; Berges & Schwartz, 2011) as highly influencing

consumers towards positive or negative feelings about a product or service.

WOM can be described as the power of information communicated between

adopters and potential adopters. Due to the development of the internet, and

globalization in general, consumers are increasingly connected with each other.

It is quick and easy to search for reviews about a specific product or even an

innovation. Users share their information publicly very quickly through blog posts

and tweets, making the WOM flow in extremely high speeds all across the globe.

The fact that many social networks (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) rely on

user generated content increases the amount of information that is shared

amongst users. Katona et al., (2011) believe that the traditional revenue sources

of these online networks are having poor results. This is moving the attention to

“influencers”, users that influence a large amount of other users in online

platforms. One can make the difference between personal and virtual WOM -

pWOM and vWOM (Parry, et al. 2012). The former refers to exchange of

information between people, during conversation mainly amongst acquaintances,

whilst the latter is the exchange of information online usually without knowing the

person. pWOM does not mean it cannot be online, in fact instant message

systems can allow friends to communicate through a computer. So the main

19

difference is between interacting with friends or strangers. vWOM tends to be

more powerful thanks to the almost unlimited sources of information that are

available to the user.

Late adopters feel unsafe with new products or services so they tend to

look at early adopters as an assurance before stepping into something new

(Katona et al. 2011). The late adopters tend to follow early adopters, since the

latter provide valuable user information to the former, thus making them feel

safer in adopting an innovation. References are very important for this

conservative group of adopters (Godes, 2012). WOM can be very important to

connect these two groups of users.

2.5. Networks/Social Networks

In literature it is very common to see the term networks used extensively

in many areas. Social networks, business networks, biology networks, spatial

networks are just a few examples. What tends to be more difficult is the raw

definition of a network. Håkansson and Ford (2002:133) define it as a “number of

nodes that are related to each other by specific threads.” They continue by

describing a business market as a network. Business units, such as

manufacturers and service providers are the set of nodes, whilst the relationships

between them are the threads. Meaning that the better relationships - due to

partnerships, investments - the stronger these threads will be. Networks exist

thanks to relationships, the link between two nodes is basically a relationship,

and the interaction between the nodes may change the threads. There might be

tangible and intangible relationships (Håkansson and Ford, 2002) which will

result in more or less complex interactions between the nodes.

2.5.1. Networks

The complexity of networks can help firms get a lead in their market.

Alliances can increase the strength of particular threads, gaining advantage

against competitors. But this is never a one-way decision. At least two nodes

have to be connected, and both parties can share efforts, and gain benefits. So if

one fails, the other one will lose too, there is a dependency relationship. One

party cannot completely ignore the other. Håkansson and Ford (2002:134) point

this out as the first network paradox which states that “the stronger the threads

are, the more important they will be in giving life to the node, but the more they

will also restrict the freedom of the node to change.” The second network

paradox is that one party is simultaneously influencing and influenced. A node is

20

not valuable without the thread, but the thread is useless without the nodes. So a

network always affects both nodes, meaning that none can be egocentric to a

point to not believe it is not influenced. The third paradox of a network is that the

more a network is attempted to be controlled, the less it effectively is. This results

in the fact that in a network many nodes exist, which develop strong and weak

ties. These exist because each node has different threads that connect to

different nodes. In practice the goal to control a network might result in

crystallization, and the development of other threads connecting the nodes. A

more anecdotic evidence of this is Microsoft and Nokia trying to control their

network, which ended up stopping their evolution whilst other parties developed

in other ways.

2.5.2. Network-marketing

Network-marketing is a concept coined by Katona et al. (2011) referring

to the possibility of identifying influencers and forecast early consumer’s adoption

patterns. There are three factors that influence user’s adoption using the

Network-marketing concept:

1. Network effects - the power of the structure of connections between

already adopters and potential adopters;

2. Influencer effects - influential power of the current adopters;

3. Adopter effects - adopter’s individual characteristics, both

demographic and the adopter’s global network position.

Additionally Katona et al., (2011) found that the diffusion of adoption is

also influenced by many other effects that arise from the network interaction of

individuals. The “number of connections an individual has (degree effect) (…)

and the density of connections in a group” (Katona et al., 2011:426) affect

adoption. Meaning that not only the more connections a user has with current

adopters can affect the decision of adoption; but also the number of adopters in

specific groups (circle of friends, work) can do so as well. A tighter group can

also enforce a quicker adoption than a loser social group (clustering effects).

Ritvala & Salmi (2010:906) also refer to the different levels of power in

networks, where not the number of connections matter, but the value each

connection has. Some adopters can influence more strongly others to adopt a

social network. This is the case of some bloggers and popular personalities that

do not just rely on the number of connections they have, but also on how they

are connected in their network. Curiously, Katona et al., (2011:426) say “that the

average influential power of individuals is lower the larger their social network is”.

This describes the fact that having many followers is not a guarantee of social

influence.

21

2.6. Research Question and Theoretical Framework

2.6.1. Research Question

“What are the motivations to join a social network before anyone else?”

The mix between the concepts of social network and early adopters is

purposeful. The idea is to understand what the reasons that move early adopters

to join a new social network are, before any network effects take place. In order

to go deeper in the main question, two sub questions follow:

1) Is there any relevant difference between utilitarian and non-utilitarian

motives?

2) Is being an Early Adopter influencing the decision to adopt?

With this study motives will be clustered in utilitarian and non-utilitarian

groups, and then their importance will be analysed. In order to reach the answers

for this study we will use this research question, with the relevant sub-questions.

An adaptation of the work of Shih & Venkatesh (2004) and their Use-Diffusion

model will serve as the framework.

2.6.2. Theoretical Framework

The framework follows the Use-Diffusion model (Shih & Venkatesh

(2004) which will influence the entire master thesis. One might ask adoption or

usage? It is hard to separate these two concepts, but this study will focus on the

usage of early adopters of social networks. This is due to the fact that by simply

adopting a new network that will not show the true motivations and interests

behind it. The actual usage (even if it is low or high) is a better factor of analysis

and make sure that the actual users will provide a more valuable input than

random adopters.

Figure 2: Theoretical Framework (adapt.)

22

This study will cluster the early adopter’s motivations into Utilitarian and

Non-Utilitarian motives. The latter relates to a more pleasure side, mainly

emotional aspects, of the decision to adopt. Whereas the former is more on the

reason side of the decision, is the adoption instrumental, is the adoption a mean

to something more? It is probable that the motives can encompass both areas.

Nevertheless, it is intended to verify if there are significant differences between

the groups or if one is more relevant than the other.

Clustering these motivations is interesting to find if there are different

drivers for these early adopters. In addition to that the ability to understand how

different motivations are from each other and their different levels will bring us to

a new level of comprehension of early adopters’ behaviour.

23

3. Research Design

3.1. Research Methodology

This will be an exploratory study about early adopters’ motivations, with

an inductive approach. An interpretative method will be followed in order to allow

a more flexible analysis of an almost “uncharted” space for early adopters'

motivations. This qualitative method will help analyse a smaller number of

interviews in more detail. Hence avoiding losing “many of the social and cultural

aspects” (Myers, 2011:9) of the individuals, which are very important to discover

their motivations. As Myers (2011:8) puts it “qualitative data can help us

understand people, their motivations and actions, and the broader context within

which they work and live”. Thus, a pure positivistic approach was not followed

because it could miss the opportunity to find unseen motives of the early

adopters. The researcher shares Myers (2011) view that the best way to “access

reality is through social constructions such as language, consciousness, shared

meanings, and instruments.” As the study will have an inductive nature, the

research will rely on the social construction of the reality instead of a defined

positivistic view of it. There is a lack of research about early adopters’

motivations and the unstable nature of this group makes it harder to have any

defined reality (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008).

3.2. Sample

Fifteen early adopters of the recent social network Joining were

interviewed. The early adopters were chosen using a random selection between

the first one hundred active early users. Active users are those that are

registered members in the Joining platform, and 1) planned an activity or 2)

joined an activity. This way we will remove the members that joined with no

reason at all and give emphasis to those members that are effectively interested

in using Joining. The choice will fall not only on active users, but also on the first

hundred. We can then guarantee a selection of the “first of the first” that joined,

hence reducing to a residual rate the network effects. Technically, a list was

created with the first one hundred active users of Joining in sign-up date order.

Each participant then received a number, and the 5th was contacted. If after

24

reaching the 100th there was still space for more interviews the 5th-1 would be

contacted, and so on. Following this, we could assure that the selection of

participants was done in a completely random manner in order to reach the most

unbiased group possible. The result was a group of the earliest active members

that could share their expectations and experiences. The interviews were held in

the English language, since many of the users of Joining are expats - working or

studying in English. Thus, it is assumed that they are comfortable with the

language.

The researcher stopped interviewing on the 15th participant because the

amount of new information each user was bringing was starting to repeat itself.

Thus, a level of saturation was reached. There were three reasons to choose

Joining as the social network of study. First, as it is a very recent social network,

with less than a year it was easier to find and contact early adopters. The fact

that still very few people know about it, avoids network effects to be already

present in their decision. Second, this particular network has low resources

allocated to communication of the platform, which means that the majority of the

early adopters searched for it and not randomly joined without any relevant

interest. Finally, the author of this paper has direct access to these users, since

he is one of the launching members of this organization. This enabled to reach

the users faster and also to understand better how this social network works.

The interviews were anonymous, with only three demographic

characteristics. Of a total of 15 interviews, 60% of the participants were female

and the rest male. The average age was of 27.8 years old, which the youngest

was 24 and the oldest 37. The members did not know who the other participants

in this survey were. As the participants were part of the first 100 active users,

everyone had signed-up within the first months of activity of the website. None of

the users were previously related to the researcher, or had joined the platform

only because he or she was connected with someone from the Joining team.

This strongly validates the information gathered from this study. The findings are

related to how users expected and effectively interacted with the platform.

3.3. Interviews

The interviews were conducted by the thesis author, and their duration

was between 15 and 30 minutes. They took place wherever the interviewee felt

more comfortable, in some cases at their homes, others at a café, library, and

also through Skype. Asking the interviewees to choose the environment ensured

a more relaxed environment and made the meetings much more informal. A

recorder was used, as well as a notebook. The notes were used to follow up

25

some aspects that the interviews could point out. These notes allowed going

more in depth in some topics brought up by the participants.

The five grand questions asked followed the Theoretical Framework:

1) Technological Background and past experiences in social network

platforms. This way we could assess and contextualize the participant’s profile;

2) Getting to know. The second questions allowed understanding how

the participant got to know Joining. Also we could know what were the immediate

expectations and thoughts about this new platform;

3) Getting to sign up. After knowing about the platform, what reasons did

the participant have to sign up and use Joining. This is important to understand

the motivations of registering in a new social network;

4) Getting to use. Here we could find the motivations of becoming an

active user, which led to start joining and planning activities. We could assess the

benefits that the user found when using Joining and if it was what he or she

expected.

5) Perception of being an Early Adopter of Joining. With this final grand

question, the participants could share their knowledge of being an early adopter.

In addition, it was also assessed if knowing that they were early adopters did

influence their behaviour on the platform.

These grand questions are based not only on the theoretical framework

but also on the literature review that served as a secondary source of data.

Although framed in five questions, the interview was not a fixed script. The goal

was to have a conversation with the participant and let him/her comfortable to

explain his/her motivations. These grand questions served as themes that helped

keeping the conversation on track, but still allowing to discover new findings.

3.4. Interview Guide

In order to structure the interview an interview guide has been

developed (Appendix 1). It is not only used to structure but also to avoid potential

problems that could arise. One of these is related to possible lack of trust, since

the interviewees do not know the interviewer, which can limit the transfer of

information. The ambiguity of the language may be another issue, since the

interviews will not be held in the native language, which might bring difficulties in

expression (Myers & Newman, 2007). Nevertheless, as the language of the

platform is English it is assumed that the participants are fluent.

Some other practical suggestions were followed to develop the interview

guide (Myers, 2011:133): “[having] short, clear questions that lead to detailed

responses”. Ergo the interviewer can get the most information possible and have

26

the participant comfortable in sharing his/her experiences: “questions that ask

participants to recall specific events or experiences in detail encourage fuller

narratives”. This is another way to let the interviewee comfortable with the

conversation and get the richest possible outcome: “a few broad open-ended

questions work better than a long series of close ended questions”. It is very

important for a semi-structured interview to allow open-ended questions and let

the session flow. If new information arises from the conversation it will strengthen

the study.

3.5. Data collection

In order to collect data from Early Adopters, a set of interviews was

prepared to reach the early members of a new social network. Five grand

questions were prepared, which could be combined, and allowed the

interviewees to freely speak about their motivations. These grand questions were

organized as semi-structured questions that offer consistency without taking the

freedom of adding new questions (Myers, 2011). The decision of not having

unstructured questions was made due to the risk of losing control of the

interview. Also unstructured questions would be very time consuming. The

researcher was merely a facilitator that guided the participants and sought for the

“real” motives underlying users’ adoption.

The interviews would start with a brief explanation of some formalities of

the research: The fact that it was an academic study, the thesis topic,

confidentiality terms and exchange of contacts. It was important to let the

participants know about the methodology in order to avoid short and direct

answers. After understanding that an interpretative method was being used they

agreed to be as explanatory as possible with their answers. The first questions of

the interview were direct, for demographic purposes - age, gender, and current

occupation. After that the interviews could start to talk about their relationship

with technology and social media in general. These broad themes had the clear

intent of allowing free space for the participants to explore what areas they found

more relevant. Depending on what the participant would talk about, some other

ideas for discussion were introduced. This guaranteed that the interview would

fulfil its purpose. Below is a list of the participants:

27

Number Age Occupation

1 24 Teacher

2 24 Engineer

3 37 Lawyer

4 28 Engineer

5 27 Business Developer

6 25 Project Manager

7 28 Engineer

8 29 Financial Specialist

9 25 Teacher

10 24 Student

11 25 Consultant

12 31 Engineer

13 31 Engineer

14 25 Student

15 34 Engineer

Table 4: Participant’s List

The interview guide was never showed to the participants to avoid

influencing their answers. It covered the users’ technological background and

interest, usage of social media, and the particular use of Joining. It also analysed

their relationship with this new social network and the fact they were early

adopters. In the end all the interviews were transcribed, and analysed gathering

the major themes that appeared from the respondents input. The interview

transcripts are available upon request.

3.6. Limitations

There are of course limitations to this study, as in any other. Some of

these limitations are related to the lack of resources to make a wider and more

complete study. Other limitations are related to the difficulty to really understand

which motivations drive adopters. The fact that some adopters might cover or

even unwillingly hide their motives can be a complex issue to solve. The early

adopters might have also “second interests”, that are not purely related to the

adoption of the social network. They could be about friendship, or have financial

gains on it. The concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can help minimize

this limitation.

28

The fact that the researcher is himself working in the organization being

studied might be an obstacle for a less biased overview of the situation.

Nevertheless, as it is impossible to be unbiased, the fact that the researcher is

close to the data brings benefits that clearly overcome the liabilities. Some of the

findings derived from the experience and closeness of the researcher to the data,

not only from the interviews, which strengthens the whole study. As the

researcher is active in the technology industry, many times social networks and

online social networks appear interchangeably. It can be discussed that online

social networks are more specific than social networks, but for this study there is

no benefit on separating both, therefore it will continue to be used

simultaneously.

Another aspect that can call attention is the fact that products, services,

ideas, innovations, and technologies appear very often interchangeably as well.

The scope of this study is not to understand the differences between these

words. The state of the development, their characteristics or specifications will be

ignored in this paper. They all refer to the same for the sake of simplicity. It is not

being said that simplicity overcomes rigorous writing however, their differences

are not important for the message of this master thesis.

29

4. Findings

4.1. Introduction

The perception of the participants in the study about being an early

adopter of Joining was very interesting. 50% of the respondents perceived

themselves as early adopters. Some even clearly stated that they knew they

were one of the first users of the platform, even though that information was

never public. The other half did not have any clue, and were even surprised with

that fact. From the ones that knew, most of them guessed it was a new platform

because they had never heard about it before - (“If it was older I would probably

have heard about it.” – #8). There is no clear indication on the Joining platform

about the number of registered members and the launch of the platform was

made softly with no big apparatus. However, there were some signs pointed out

by the participants that they knew they were early users. Firstly, the counter of

number of planned activities on the homepage would give the feeling that there

was not much activity. Secondly, in some cities, especially in smaller ones, there

were not many planned activities. Lastly, when activities were planned, not many

people joined them, reinforcing the early stage of the website. Another aspect of

relevance is that even though this is an online social network, one third of the

respondents perceived him or herself as a conservative user of technology. The

other two thirds are considered active users of technology, mostly for work

purposes. It is safe to conclude that this group was not technologically savvy and

generally not heavy users of social networks.

Whilst interviewing the participants, three domains were covered: 1) The

relationship with technology, with a special focus on social networks; 2) The

experience with Joining, and how they interacted with the platform; and 3) How

they perceived the Early Adoption. From these domains, several themes were

brought up. These themes emerged from the set of responses, and from the

researcher’s interpretation of the data. Whilst analysing the data, the author

clustered the responses in ten themes, and three domains. These three domains

showed three key findings from the interviews’ data. The first is that almost none

of the participants are heavy users of technological and/or social networks. They

are comfortable with technology, especially because they have to use some tools

at work, but they are neither expert users nor influential individuals. The second

30

key finding was that most of the users came to the platform thanks to

recommendations of friends or other people. They needed some kind of proof of

the trustworthiness of the platform to join. The third key finding was that the

majority of the members did not have any special feeling about becoming an

early adopter. In fact, being an early adopter was seen as a consequence, rather

than a cause to join, for most of the interviewees. The majority ended up

subscribing to Joining due to personal reasons, such as moving from one city to

another, or being an expat. In “normal” conditions most would not have joined it.

Below these findings are covered in more detail.

4.2. Findings

Domains Themes Quotes

Relation with technology

The importance of being new

“If something catches my interest, in the sense that I think it will really be useful for me yes! I am not somebody who will go for the latest thing, just because it is a new gadget” - #3

“Or my camera, as long as it is a good camera, it doesn’t matter it is the latest, and a DSLR is a DSLR.” - #11 referring to a second hand camera

Listening to others

"Not only reviews on the web, but people that I trust. If they tell me you should definitely buy this particular brand, this type of product is good. I go further from what is written on the internet, it is more like a human contact you know..." - #8

“I would like to see reviews first, before I try out or use it.” - #9

The main reason to use social networks

“I use different social networks with different motivations” - #2

“I'm a member of all social networks” - #6

Joining as an example of early adoption

First wave

” [I noticed I was an early adopter] a little bit. Because the number of activities wasn’t as huge as I had expected. But I didn’t have an idea if I was the user 100, user 10 or 1000000.” - #8

"I would react the same way. For me, because I have a clear reason to use joining, I want to plan activities. So yes it doesn’t matter if I am joining early or later. For me it doesn’t matter." - #9

Being recommended

“I have to say that I hardly find websites on my own.” - #10

"For me it is important to have a recommendation ,especially in this kind of online... oh when comparing joining I call it an online dating for friends and so I would never go to an online dating unless a friend of mine, I mean I have never been there, but unless a friend of mine recommended it or so." - #11

31

The Message

“Everything is location based. So I can see it can be useful for me if I want to try or try to discover some events which are new to me it is very convenient.” - #13

“I like the fact that it is very clear when you just look at the homepage you can see a lot of things at once. And it is simple, it is not cluttered you just look and it is very obvious” - #1

The Feeling “I liked the looks of it!” - #1

“The reason I signed-up was that it was genuine.” - #5

Downside

”I wouldn't use that much since I don't have many connections” - #4

“Like the restaurants. If they are not busy when it is supposed to be... It is clear that it doesn’t attract the people. For me without trying it is the best judgement. I was more cautious probably... I would have joined more events straight away. In the end I would expect more events to happen. If you search for one city it really narrows down.” - #10

Becoming an Early Adopter

Discovery

“I started immediately; I just filled my profile, my picture, everything about me, my interests. Because I thought I’d like to try to use it. (...) So I started to search if there was something to do in Rotterdam and I found something, but at first I didn't like something. Another time I didn’t have time. At a certain point I liked and then I joined.” - #7

"Of course if there aren’t many people, you think would there be enough to do? Or to connect with? If people don’t know about... well you don’t know you just try." - #7

Not Tech Savvy

“Definitely, definitely the late majority adopter. Especially from the industry I am interested in. I feel that I should really be a sort of an early adopter at least.” - #10

"I would say I use it for the basic things. Checking email, WhatsApp, but I am not so into technology that I use very fancy features. More the basic." - #14

Table 5: Findings’ Domains and Themes

4.2.1. The importance of being new

Joining was launched in the end of August 2012, with a low profile

promotion. Due to several reasons (mainly financial and technical) it was a soft

launch, so not many people got to know that the platform was new. The

participants generally stated that being a new platform does not interfere on their

decision of subscribing or not to a platform:

"If something catches my interest, in the sense that I think it will really be

useful for me yes! I am not somebody who will go for the latest thing, just

because it is a new gadget" - #3

However, their level of activity can be in fact influenced by the

knowledge, or not, that it is a new website. Being a new platform brings risks,

and not knowing anyone that is also participating in it makes it less interesting to

become active:

32

“It doesn’t matter [to be new] as long as I can get to know it is

trustworthy and people have used it. For me the fact that it was new didn’t matter

because I got to know it from some friends. If it was something completely new,

with no connection or recommendation from these people… For example if I had

seen an ad in the tram station or at the grocery shop I would probably have had a

look but not necessarily joined.” - #14

Thus, being new presents more risks than benefits. Some members

pointed out the high price of new technology (“I believe new technology comes

with a big premium.” - #10). Whilst others referred that older technology can

deliver the expected results, and still perform very well. ("My [old] camera, as

long as it is a good camera, it doesn’t matter if it is the latest one, and a DSLR is

a DSLR.” - #11

4.2.2. Listening to others

When promotion is low, and network effects are difficult to take off since

the network is still small, there are very few ways to grow. One of these few ways

is through recommendations. Most of the participants value recommendations as

the most important aspect when adopting a new technology, or more specifically

a social network. The fact that someone, supposedly, more expert than them can

share their knowledge is highly valuable. However, in some cases

recommendations value differently from where they come from:

"Not only reviews on the web, but people that I trust. If they tell me you

should definitely buy this particular brand, this type of product is good. I go

further from what is written on the internet, it is more like a human contact you

know..." - #8

So for some of the respondents knowing who is recommending is more

important than their search. The closest and more direct the recommendation is,

the more willing the participants will be to adopt a technology or join a network:

“For these people [friends] to have recommended it to me I assumed

they had used it for a while.” - #11

Furthermore, a combination of comments can also increase time

efficiency, since it diminishes the time one spends searching for information. It is

easier to read from several comments, rather than testing all the possibilities one

by one:

“The comments of the website are a collective thing from lots of different

people. They are quick to read so you can kind of see what it is about.” - #15

33

4.2.3. The main reason to use social networks

Generally all the respondents assumed that they will only adopt a

technology if it is useful for them. In very few cases the researcher found more

mundane reasons related with the “coolness” of something. One participant even

pointed out:

“I am in to it [new technology], but not enough to pay the premium they

ask” - #10

One of the goals of the interviews was to assess the level of “coolness”

that a member gives to a particular choice. From the participants, it is safe to say

that it is not enough to like something, to actually use it. Adopting a new

technology requires spending money, time to understand it, and commitment to

take the most out of it. Thus, if a new technology does not score high on its

“practical utility”, the members will not adopt it.

Nevertheless, the participants are very opened concerning social

networks, probably due to the fact that there are less entry barriers in the online

world. It is usually easy, and most of the times free to join social networks. Thus,

many participants join many social networks:

"I'm a member of all social networks" - #6

However, they do not consider themselves heavy users, most of the

times the participants join a social network, use it for a bit and then leave. This is

a way to assess its “practical utility”. So most of the users join a platform, use it

for a bit and then if it is useful they continue, once it becomes useless they

immediately leave:

“Another example is Joining. I feel like I want to see more people,

expand my social life. So it is very much purpose driven.” - #3

4.2.4. First wave

As pointed out previously only half of the respondents knew they were

early adopters. But even from this half, only very few were 100% sure about it.

This fact makes us believe that early adoption was not a motivation to join the

social network. When asked if they knew for sure they were early adopters, if

they would have had a different reaction all of the participants clearly stated that

they would not have changed their behaviour. Thus, they would not have joined

sooner or later than they did:

"I would react the same way. (...) because I have a clear reason to use

Joining, I want to plan activities. So yes... it doesn’t matter if I am joining early or

later. For me it doesn’t matter." - #9

34

Some responses were quite curious, because even though not having

any particular pleasure to be one of the first, they do not tend to join with the

mainstream, preferring instead to not join:

“I usually don’t join in the first wave, but more the second wave, third

wave. Or else I don’t adopt at all.” - #15

4.2.5. Being recommended

Recommendations are very important, and to join this new social

network they played a crucial role. When questioned about how they got to know

about Joining, all of the participants referred to someone. Or that they had read a

post about an activity there, or that someone directly told them. So even though,

the network is quite small, some network effects were present.

With very low promotion, the only way people could get to know about

the platform was through others. People that they knew, or as in many cases,

people that would just post on other networks:

“I went to this expat blog or some kind of network and there I saw an

activity from Joining and someone else before had mentioned it to me... a Dutch

person, whose name I can’t remember now” - #15

“Basically a friend of mine (...) had a friend in The Hague that used

Joining. So it was random, because I don’t think I would have found it on the

internet, really.” - #11

“One of my friends told me and I went to the link. And there I saw

Joining. I swathe potential right away” - #13

4.2.6. The Message

The transcriptions confirmed that the users got very clearly the

message, and utility of the website. Most came back, because they found it

useful for their needs, and even recommended to others. When asked about their

experience entering for the first time the website almost all of the respondents

said that they understood it was a place to meet people for social activities. With

several activities going around in a sliding bar on the homepage, the users could

easily click and join these events. But before they could join, they had to sign-up,

and so they did. The participants made clear that the process was quick and

simple. Some respondents even pointed that, even though there were not many

members the concept was so good that sooner or later it would start to have

more people:

“I like that it is very clear when you just look at the homepage and you

can see a lot of things at once. And it is simple, it is not cluttered you just look

35

and it is very obvious. You just click through and if something catches your eye

you just click it” - #1

“It is just starting. I saw the potential. Give it some time; I am quite sure

that people will find more about this website. They will see the benefits of it. So I

just gave it some time. And it has grown a lot.” - #13

4.2.7. The Feeling

The feeling that the user got from the platform, was another aspect that

came up from the transcripts. Many participants pointed out the looks of the

website, and how it convinced them about its value:

“Because it looked like a nice website and the perfect place for social

events.” - #3

Most of the websites that provide a similar experience to meet new

people, are based on forums or outdated websites. So the image of the Joining

website also helped to form the perception of the utility of such a platform. With

the light blue colour, and friendly interface the website inspired trust to these

members. The fact that the website shares many design features from other well-

known websites, shows maturity and trustworthiness:

“I like the layout of the website, it is quite straightforward. It is also clear

and very user friendly.” - #9

“Yes. I found the website very clean and clear. So it was very easy to

get the message.” - #3

“From the layer of the website, my first experience it seemed much more

useful and matured than I think it actually was. It is nicely designed.” - #15

4.2.8. Downside

The transcripts also showed some disappointment about the small

network. Social networks benefit from connections: If a new member does not

have connections, or it is hard to connect with others, their experience tends to

decrease, according to the data collected. The majority of the participants

admitted that the network wasn’t a reason to decide whether to join or not. It is

seen more as a certification of the website, especially to become active. So, in

order to be practical to plan or join activities most of these members preferred if

the network of connections was bigger, or if it could increase more easily:

“I think it was more when I saw there were not that many activities, that I

just didn’t use it that much. The relationship was directly related to the number of

activities.” - #2

36

Some of the transcripts however, suggest an interest in continuing to be

an exclusive platform and that it is easy to make connections. Since the idea of

Joining is to bring people physically together it is easier to make contacts that

don’t extend to the Joining website:

“I feel comfortable to plan an activity over there because it is not really

mainstream. If it becomes really big and everybody can access that... It raises

some types of worries.” - #7

“I don’t think [a large network would benefit], because it is relatively easy

to bring people together. It is just to make a connection. No, I don’t think it would

change my expectations.” - #11

4.2.9. Discovery

The research participants affirmed that most of the times they signed-up

for new platforms that they had not heard before, they did it for discovery

purposes. They wanted to know what it was, and see if these websites could be

useful for them or not. Most of the times signing-up is made by impulse, but

becoming active is a more complex process. Participants also mentioned that

they entered the website, checked the activities in their city, and left:

“I searched for Rotterdam and looked at the activities.” - #12

“I searched for the current events offered... there weren’t many that

interested me. When I got back I saw an event that got my attention. […] it was a

photography event in Rotterdam. When I saw that event I registered in the

website, and signed up for the event. That’s how it all started.” - #13

“From my experience, there aren’t many members in Joining especially

in my area.” - #9

It was a process of exploring what the website could bring them. Joining

has a Learn More page completely dedicated to its benefits, and what it is made

for. This page is generally seen by all the users that try to search for activities,

who are still not logged on. So when a non-member tries to go around the

website, he or she is redirected to this page or is asked to register:

“I searched more or less on Joining. I read through the website to know

a little bit about what Joining is. And I browsed activities at that time before

joining.” - #9

So even after signing-up, the discovery period continues. Members

continue to look for activities in their city, or try to see which contacts are already

using it. When asked about when the participants signed-up and effectively used

it - joining or planning an activity - they tended to separate these two moments.

Firstly they would sign-up, almost instantly, by impulse. The second moment

37

came when they felt they could benefit somehow of these activities. In some

responses these benefits were about meeting new people, trying new activities,

and also promoting activities.

In addition to that, some responses showed that this Discovery period is

characterized by different behaviours. In the first moment after signing-up there is

a period of a more passive behaviour. The participants say they search but don’t

interact that much, just try to understand what is happening on the website. The

second moment, right before joining or planning, is characterized by a more

active behaviour. Becoming eager to meet people, to comment on pages, and

invite friends.

“When you come to a new place, including a cyber-place, in the

beginning you don’t know exactly what is going on. And I think many other

adopters, not only from Joining but other networks too, are a bit more passive in

the beginning.” - #3

4.2.10. Non-Tech Savvy

Another aspect that can be found on the results is that even though two

thirds of the respondents consider themselves active with technology, it was not

obvious that they had any special interest with technology. Very few cases had

an IT background, and the majority clearly stated their computer expertise arouse

from work experience:

“Concerning computers I know how to work with them! I am good with all

the programs I use for work.” “I am [present on social media channels] but mostly

for work. For example Joining, I created an account because I am working for an

international comedian and that’s why I try to be online, in expat organizations.” -

#6

Not being a tech-savvy group can be seen as a limitation or an

interesting finding from the data. The data from this group of respondents

suggests that non-tech savvy users are quite active on social networks by

searching, interacting, and reviewing. The fact that they did not need any specific

skills allowed them to browse around the website and use it as they wish:

“First of all because it is easy to [plan activities] on the website” - #3

It is not a prerequisite of an early adopter to be extremely tech-savvy,

and this suggestion lowers down the expectations that only tech experts can be

part of this group. It is easier now to participate in early platforms, and these non-

tech experts become very valuable since they are a closer match to the

mainstream market group, usually the cash-cow for any organization. It becomes

easier to search online, and as practically everyone in the western world has

38

connection to the internet it is also easy to take advantage of these social

networks. Due to the relatively low age of the respondents, many are digital

natives, people that grew up with several types of technology especially

computers and internet. They tend to be very comfortable and familiar with high-

tech, easily learning about new improvements. Again, not only IT experts will

become early adopters, more and more people will enter this group.

39

5. Discussion

The following section will discuss the findings, using the theoretical

framework discussed previously. The Determinants - Patterns - Outcomes

adapted diagram will enable us to understand the motivations of early adopters

of social networks. The analysis will take into account the consumer perspective

of adopting the recent social network Joining. Finally a connection with the theory

will be made to strengthen the discussion.

5.1. Determinants

5.1.2. Internal Factors

After analysing the results of the study, the determinants of the group

showed well-educated, young, and active technological users. This group

characterization is important because it allows describing a potential group of

early adopters of social networks. The fact that this group shares these

characteristics cannot be overlooked when studying early adopters. The

determinants influence the more or less likelihood of some phenomenon to

happen. The social context of the group suggests that a young, educated, and

tech aware group of people is more likely to try new social networks. However,

the fact that they become early adopters is not a special motivation for them.

From a consumer point of view new social networks are highly reviewed in order

to understand their usefulness. The fact that these consumers are usually highly

educated demonstrates that they are very demanding with the platforms they

use. Even though almost none is a tech expert, most are active with different

types of technology. This makes them aware of what is available, and at ease

searching for alternatives. In the theory section, we have seen that early

adopters are more risk taking, and Joining’s early users tend to follow that path

to.

Even if social networks benefit from Network effects, this study showed

that it was not critical to build an initial base. This was mainly thanks to Adopter

effects. Their demographic characteristics made them a more risk taking group,

reducing the importance of having other connections already in the platform. In

40

some cases, participants even realised the prospect that the platform would soon

grow, so the size of the network was not an issue.

5.1.2. External Factors

As Joining is present only live in the Netherlands and Belgium, two of

the most developed and safe countries in the world might have also influenced

adoption. Only activities in these two countries can be placed on Joining,

enhancing the chances of people to adopt the network. The adopters’

determinants also evaluate the personal context. As Joining is a platform to meet

new people, most of the respondents were expats. They all wanted to build a

network of friends in their new city. Following this token, Joining was exactly

made for that. So this aspect of being an Expat increased the likelihood of

adopting such network in an early stage.

Even though Joining is a recent social network, and not many resources

were used to promote it, recommendations still played an important role in

bringing people to the website. Prior experience of some users enabled others to

join. By sharing planned activities on other social networks, or by word-of-mouth.

Organizers of activities would benefit if more people joined their activities, so they

were happy to share on their network the links. These made it easy for more

people to get to know about Joining, and to reinforce the reliability of the

platform. It was perceived from the findings that physical word-of-mouth was

stronger than virtual word-of-mouth. When the participants heard about the

platform from someone they met they would be more strongly motivated to join,

as compared to when they would just see the link on Facebook or a Blog.

Naturally when current users recommend to others, the latter will be more likely

to become active. The experience on Joining increases when more people join

activities, and more activities are planned. If friends join too, that is even better;

nevertheless other social networks are more established in connecting friends.

5.2. Patterns

As previously stated in the theoretical section, the usage pattern help

understand the commitment and interest of using social networks. From the

participants involved two groups stand out, since there are two clear groups with

different behaviours. On one hand, the Joiners, who are simply interested in

joining and searching activities in their city or nearby cities. They might also

interact with other users by posting comments on activities, and sending

messages to organizers. They also visit regularly the website to find out if new

41

activities were planned. However, they generally have some aversion to plan

activities. On the other hand the Planners, mostly interested in one aspect of the

website - to plan activities. They use the platform to promote their activities,

usually by earning some kind of reward or payments in the end of the activity.

They tend to plan several activities, and have a less personal approach. No

demographic aspects were found that could help us identify who are Joiners and

who are Planners before they actually used the platform.

So depending on the variety of the use of the platform, two types of

users can be found. Their rate of use is also different. Joiners tend to come more

frequently to the website, and spend less time simply checking their cities’

activities. The Planners, come less times but spend more time when they come.

They plan activities, which take more time than searching and they respond to

users that are interested in their activities. Nevertheless, the variety of use is

generally the main differentiator in the usage pattern. It is important to have a

healthy ratio between Joiners and Planners. For the former, they need planned

activities to join so a wide choice is beneficial. For the latter, knowing that many

people can join is also beneficial. If Planners plan activities, and no one joins, the

motivation to plan again decreases. Their driver (e.g. financial, status) is stronger

when the number of potential users that can join is bigger.

5.3. Outcomes

5.3.1. Introduction

This discussion section is based on the adapted methodological

framework that was used to guide the research. It proves useful to understand

the connections between individual choices, societal pressures, and background.

Following the diffusion of innovation literature that aims to help us understand

how users adopt a new technology, we can see how the data gathered relates to

that. The early adopter’s literature classified users according to the moment of

adoption. In addition to the time horizon, the type and frequency of use was also

analysed. Clearly adopting a social network before others, and more than others,

affects early adoption. Concerning the relation with consumer motivations

literature, we were able to correlate user’s adoption with specific motivations.

Although these motivations were not all the time obvious, the interpretative view

enabled to discover some interesting points for further research. The fourth area

of theoretical research was about networks. And this literature together with the

data collected proved very useful to understand the relations between members.

Social networks become richer with more users, but they still are able to grow

42

from almost zero. The majority of the members of Joining are expats which make

them more willing to meet new people.

5.3.2. Utilitarian vs. Non-Utilitarian motives

Two of the main questions of this research were concerning early

adoption and utilitarian and non-utilitarian motives. It was quite clear that every

user had a specific reason to join the network. They did not state, however, that

early adoption was a factor that motivated them to join the platform. They joined

at this early stage, because it was when they heard about it. Nevertheless, their

experience was affected by this fact, making them more or less active due to the

low number of users, and activities. More specifically about utilitarian and non-

utilitarian motives, the two groups of users had different results. Joiners were

both motivated by irrational and rational motives. The former was related to the

fact that they wanted to simply have a good time, not expecting any particular

outcome besides a hangout. They would just create a profile to gather with

people and have a good time. There were also, in the latter case, motives of

increasing professional networks by joining networking events. Thus, Joiners

were both emotionally involved, but also in some cases rationally interested in

the hangouts. The planners are mostly interested in getting dividends of their

activities, so they use the platform as an instrument to reach other outcomes.

These outcomes can be in the form of getting more people to bars, to sell more

tickets for shows, to promote theatre plays, or to increase the status of an event

organizer.

5.3.2. Early Adoption

As social networks need members to grow, the fact that there are some

nodes that come first, with no apparent connection, is quite interesting. Social

network adopters, especially on Joining, tend to try out different platforms. Using

one does not mean they will not use another one, or that they will simply stop

searching for more. They are looking to satisfy a need, but a need that can be

constantly changing. Also due to the low barriers of entrance - usually these

platforms are free or have free trial periods - it is easy to change from one to

another. Users are very demanding because of the many competitive platforms

that exist, and also because they usually have experience with other platforms. If

they don’t find what they want on platform A, they can easily try B, or C. The

same happens with Joining - members try to find activities with people that they

can meet, and have a good time with. If they find this on Joining they will be

satisfied, or else they will try on another website. So exploring is an important

43

reason for users to try out new platforms. Joining’s early users tend to research

about the utility of the platform, through recommendations, or reading reviews

about it on a website. They tend to read the Learn More page of Joining, and

very frequently send e-mails for feedback, compliments and suggestions to

improve. Ergo any user can assess how genuine the platform is, and know if it

can be useful or not. Motivation requires someone to be interested in something:

Joining members are interested in meeting new people, try new activities, or

promote their events. It is quite straightforward for users to get this message.

Following this token, it is easier to find motivation to use the platform. However,

the concept may be good but it depends on a variable that is not at all controlled

by the organization. The number of people joining and planning is random, and

that can affect the motivation of the early members to continue to use it.

5.3.3. Expectations

To more comprehensively understand the motivations of joining an early

social network users have to see potential of current benefits or future growth.

Since users form expectations according to what the innovation can and cannot

give, it is important that the platform provides a clear message. This message

can be direct or indirect, for instance a direct message would be a list of benefits

in the form of a booklet or a web page. Whilst an indirect message, more difficult

to control, would be the feeling the users have in the design or images used.

Another reason to adopt an early stage network is that it can be used to

get close to the organization behind it. It is possible that some users join before

others to get a closer connection to the management of the platform. This can

happen for several reasons. Getting close to the founders or team managing the

platform can enable people to get privileged information that can be used for

status purposes but also for monetary gains. The possibility of future employment

or partnering can be another motivation to participate early on these social

networks. It can also be the case that users have a pure sense of helping out a

start-up and enjoy taking part of the testing period. Even though not directly

stated by the interviewees, it is possible to conclude that the users tend to get

close to the social network team. For an early stage social network as Joining

this is valuable since feedback comes quicker and iterations are more often.

There is a correlation between the motivations and the behaviour of the early

adopters. The more motivated these users are the more active and close they

become to the Joining team. The reverse does not have the same relationship.

So most of the times, users with no connection at all with the platform are the

44

most willing to test and give feedback with the interest of exploring and getting

closer to the organization.

45

6. Conclusion

The final goal of this study was to answer the question about what are

the motivations behind adopting early stage social networks. Deriving from this

main question, two other questions were brought up. The first was if there were

differences between the motives, if they are more or less utilitarian and

instrumental for the users. The second question was to explain if the fact of being

an early adopter had any influence in the motivation of joining early stage social

networks. Following an interpretative method, with an inductive mind-set it was

able to build up some results from the data gathered. This data was collected

through semi-structured interviews with the first active users of the Joining online

social network website.

6.1. Theoretical implications

This study intended to prove the theoretical implications of early

adopters’ motivations. Studies concerning early adopters have been scarce, and

hopefully with this work, more will follow. Especially from a consumer’s point of

view, this issue deserves a more in depth interest and thorough discussion.

Consumer motivations are dynamic and change over time, the analysis of the

first group of adopters can be very rich to understand the causes and

consequences of specific choices. Social networks are a central theme of our

society, the way we behave with each other, how we interact, and finally how we

live our life. Now, more than ever, we consume social networks: we consume

what social networks bring us, we “sow” for future benefits, we curate them with

all the instruments we now have at our reach. Social networks are around us,

and even though they were always present we see an increase of possibilities to

create or multiple more. With this in perspective, the choice of analysing social

networks from an early consumer’s point of view proved to be very useful.

Ten topics were found from the research, which can be clustered in the

following three topics: 1) Perception; 2) Interaction; 3) Experience. The first

involved the perceived meaning of social networks for users. The rationale

behind what the value of a social network can be plays an important role in

motivating users to join one. We could see from this work that recommendations,

46

the message, and image of the platform create an idea about the benefits that

users can get from the social network. Independently of the actual benefits, the

expectation of future gains is a very strong driver to join. Thus, it creates an

interest of promoting the social network and making it grow. Trust is built from the

perception that is created prior joining the platform. This was an aspect pointed

out by many respondents that they could feel that it was a genuine platform, with

trustworthy goals. Secondly, the interaction was vital to become active on a

recent social network. As seen in the theory section, a social network needs

nodes to be connected. In order to become active, these nodes have to be able

to find each other. Interaction here shows the importance of connecting these

nodes. In the end if users can’t find others, they will not use or even leave the

network. Therefore it is important to find ways of increasing the interaction of the

users, and just giving the opportunity to interact will be enough. In the research,

users could connect with each other through their Facebook profile which was

embedded on the Joining profile. This feature was not clearly stated anywhere,

however most of the users found it and made use of it. In a chronological order,

first users get to know about a social network, then join it and finally they use it

and become active. This last point is related to what users experience from the

social network. Most of the experience of joining an early stage social network is

related to the interest of discovering new things. As an explorer, these users tend

to test and try out different things, different combinations, and travel all around

the platform. They tend to be very demanding, since there are many other

platforms that they can use. Also the perceptions created in the beginning, make

these users expect outcomes that sometimes might not occur.

6.2. Future Research

The starting point for this study was the lack of importance that previous

research has made concerning the motivations of early adopters. However, this

landscape motivated the author to seek aspects of interest about this theme, and

as a final note that has been achieved. After selecting a case study and

interviewing random participants, the results found can be validated. This can be

a first step for future studies in the Technology Marketing field. The intended

results of this piece of work were achieved. As a first achievement, we were able

to start a discussion around the importance of early adopters from a consumer’s

perspective. That can allow academics and also practitioners to understand the

motivations that drive consumers towards early stage social networks. In addition

to that achievement, a second one was also achieved concerning more

specifically the motivations behind early adopters. Despite not having found a

47

relevant difference between utilitarian and non-utilitarian motives, the first steps

are given to further these findings. Even though there were some individual

reasons, it was clear that some of the motives could be seen as a collective

force. Finding these motives can help us understand more what drives early

adopters, and from there extrapolate to other fields.

Future research can be explored through multiple dimensions. The

author would refer four specific themes for further understanding. The first would

be to expand the study to products instead of services. Social networks can, in

some cases, be seen as services thus it would be interesting to analyse how

early adopters behave when adopting physical products before others. We

had the opportunity to discuss early adopters of social networks, but early

adopters of specific products (e.g. cars, clothes, food) could help forward the

knowledge about consumers. The second and third themes are related to each

other. We could discuss the importance of early adopters throughout the life

of social networks. How important are early adopters to sustain social networks

growth and maturation? Do they play an important role in helping these social

networks to continue strong? Will they grow more easily if early adopters stick to

it? These questions lead to the third theme which is about the consequences of

early adopters leaving the social networks. What happens to the network after

the first users leave? What kind of impact can we expect from that? The fourth

and last recommended theme is about the new demographics of early

adopters. As seen in this study Joining’s early adopters are not so tech savvy,

does that mean that the general profile is changing? A more in depth research is

welcome so we can discuss further if the DNA or ID of an early adopter is

different now with the proliferation of technology.

6.3. Managerial Implications

For managerial purposes the results found can be used as a starting

point for further studies. The theoretical framework can easily be adapted to help

managers understand the motivations of their early adopters. Many practitioners

use social networks as the base of the success of their ventures. They may be

social media, theatres, bars, or basically any organization that benefits from

social interaction. Thus, it is important to know what drives their users or

customers, in order to serve them better and keep on improving with valuable

offerings. However, the results of this study can open some possibilities of

getting to know better their adopters. For future early stage social networks,

understanding that users do value discovering new platforms is important, but

showing a committed community already in place, almost as a small tribe, can

48

trigger the interest in becoming active. What might sound like a contradiction

makes sense in the way that early users don’t like to “join in the first wave, but

more in the second or third wave” (#15). A social network has to be social from

the first moment, not meaning that it is expected to be crowded.

The author hopes that the first step of this discussion of early adopter’s

motivations has been done, and from now on research can be directed towards

developing it. As seen on this piece there are many interesting points that could

benefit from a more in depth research. Both for the academia and the business

world, these are themes that will become more present in our discussions about

consumer motivations.

49

7. References

Babin, J., W. Darden, and M. Griffin. (1994): Work and/or Fun:

Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. Journal of Consumer

Research 20(4), pp. 644–656.

Baumgartner, H. (2002): Toward a Personology of the Consumer.

Journal of Consumer Research 29(2), pp. 286–292.

Berger,J. & Schwartz, E. (2011): What Drives Immediate and Ongoing

Word of Mouth? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), pp. 869-880.

Bunduchi, R., Weisshaar, C., and Smart, A. (2011): Mapping the

benefits and costs associated with process innovation: The case of RFID

adoption. Technovation, 31, pp. 505-521.

Campbell, A., Ryley, T. and Thring, R. (2012): Identifying the early

adopters of alternative fuel vehicles: A case study of Birmingham, United

Kingdom. Transportation Research Part A, 46, pp. 1318-1327.

Ding, S. & Han, Z. (2009): Research on the Brand Diffusion of the China

Mobile Communication Industry Based on the Innovation Diffusion Theory.

International Journal of Business and Management, 4(2), pp. 36-40.

Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2008): Qualitative Methods in Business

Research. London: Sage.

Garrison, G. (2009): An assessment of organizational size and sense

and response capability on the early adoption of disruptive technology.

Computers in Human Behavior, 25, pp. 444-449.

Geoghegan, W. (1998): “Instructional Technology and the Mainstream:

The Risks of Success,” In D. G. Oblinger and S. C. Rush (Eds.), The Future

Compatible Campus. Anker Publishing Company, MA: Boston.

Gerard, M. (2013): Innovation & Early Adopters: Beyond The Bell Curve.

See at http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/innovation-early-adopters-beyond-the-

bell-curve/

Godes, D. (2012): The Strategic Impact of References in Business

Markets. Marketing Science, 31(2), pp. 257–276.

Godes, D. & Mayzlin, D. (2004): Using Online Conversation to Study

Word-of-Mouth Communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), pp. 545–60.

50

Håkanson, H. and Ford, D. (2002): How should companies interact in

business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55, pp. 133-139.

Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Feldman, L. and Zamojski, H.

(2012): Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant

majority. Internet and Higher Education, 15, pp. 102-107.

Holbrook, B., & Hirschman, E. (1982): The Experiential Aspects of

Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer

Research, 9(2) pp. 132–140.

Katona, Z., Zubcsek, P. and Sarvary, M. (2011): Network Effects and

Personal Influences: The Diffusion of an Online Social Network. Journal of

Marketing Research, 48, pp. 425-443.

Keller, E., & Fay, B. (2012): Word-of-Mouth Advocacy: A New Key to

Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(4), pp. 459-464.

Lee, E. J.; Lee, J. K.; and David, W. S. (2002): The influence of

communication source and mode on consumer adoption of technological

innovation. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36(1), pp. 1–27.

Lu, Y., Quan, J. and Cao, X. (2009): The Perceived Attributes of Wi-Fi

Technology and the Diffusion Gap among University Faculty Members: A Case

Study. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(5), pp.

69-88.

Mohammad, B. & Som, A. (2010): An Analysis of Push and Pull Travel

Motivations of Foreign Tourists to Jordan. International Journal of Business and

Management, 5(12), pp. 41-50.

Mohr, J., Sengupta, S. and Slater, S. (2010): Marketing High

Technology Products and Innovations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Motohashi, K., Lee, D., Sawng, Y., and Kim, S. (2012): Innovative

Converged Service and Its Adoption, Use and Diffusion: A Holistic Approach to

Diffusion of Innovations, Combining Adoption-Diffusion and Use-Diffusion

Paradigms. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13(2), pp. 308-

333.

Mowen, C. (2000): The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory

and Empirical Applications to Consumer Behavior. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Myers, M. (2009): Qualitative Research in Business & Management.

London: Sage Publications.

Myers, M. & Newman, M. (2007): The qualitative interview in IS

research: examining the craft. Information and Organization, 17(1), pp. 2-26.

Park, G. (2004): A Study on the characteristics of early adopters in

digital satellite broadcasting services. Korea Press Journal, 48(1), pp. 84–111.

51

Parry, M., Kawakami, T. and Kishiya, K. (2012): The Effect of Personal

and Virtual Word-of-Mouth on Technology Acceptance. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 29(6), pp. 952-966.

Ram, S., Jung, H. (1990): The conceptualization and measurement of

product usage, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18(1): 67–76.

Ritvala, T., & Salmi, A. (2010): Value-based network mobilization: A

case study of modern environmental networkers. Industrial Marketing

Management, 39(6), pp. 898-907.

Robertson, T., & Gatignon, H. (1986): Competitive effects on technology

diffusion. The Journal of Marketing, pp. 1-12.

Rogers, E. (1995): The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000): Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic

Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, pp.

54–67.

Sandström, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P. and Magnusson, P.

(2008): Value in use through service experience. Managing Service Quality,

18(2) pp. 112-126.

Schumpeter, J. (1942): Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper &

Brothers Publishers, New York.

Shih, C. & Venkatesh, A. (2004): Beyond Adoption: Development and

Application of a Use-Diffusion Model. Journal of Marketing, 68, pp. 59-72.

Yeo, T. (2012): Social-media early adopters don't count. Journal of

Advertising Research, 52(3), pp. 291-308.

52

Appendices

Appendix I: Interview Guide

I. Introduction

- Thank you for giving me this opportunity

- Explain purpose, address terms of confidentiality, explain format,

how long will it take

1. Background, past experiences, openness to technology

- Age and occupation

- How would you consider is your relation with technology

- And social networks in particular?

2. Getting to know

- How did you hear/know about Joining?

- What did you expect from Joining before using it?

3. Getting to sign up

- Why becoming a member?

- What were the thoughts of benefits you could have in using

Joining?

4. Getting to use

- Why did you joined or planned an activity? What were your

expectations before becoming active?

- Did you realize you were one of the earliest users? Why?

- What do you consider are the main benefits of Joining?

- What would be the negative aspects of it?

- Would you recommend Joining, why?

II. Clarify any doubts, provide contact details.

Transcriptions of the 15 interviews are available upon request.

53

Appendix II: Case study Joining

www.joining.com – is an online social network based in the Netherlands

and launched in the end of August 2012. It aims to be the place for people to

plan and join others for social activities. It is an online network where users can

participate in activities with friends and meet new people. It is currently live in two

countries, Netherlands and Belgium, and preparing the launch of a third market

in the United Arab Emirates. After signing-up the members of the network can

search for activities in their city, or select from the ones that are recommended

on the homepage sliding bar. These activities are created by users, so

depending on how many activities are planned more or less activities will show

up.

After clicking on one activity the user is directed to the Activity Page

where he or she can learn about the time, location, and participants of the event.

Then by clicking on the button I want to Join, the user shows interest to the host

who can accept or reject that request. There are also Partner Accounts, which

are suitable for organizations and where there is no requirement to accept or

reject requests. Once a user says he or she wants to Join, he will automatically

be accepted. This account is not accessible to every user, requiring an upgrade.

Most of the Joining user’s base is made up of Expats, so it is with no

surprise that the most popular activities are bar crawls and expat meetings.

Stockholm University School of Business

106 91 Stockholm

Telephone: +46 (0)8 16 20 00

www.fek.su.se