To buy, or not to buy? : the effect of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness-to-pay, influenced by consumer innovativeness and the degree of hipsterness : restaurant industry

(1)

To buy, or not to buy?

The effect of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness-to-pay, influenced

by consumer innovativeness and the degree of hipsterness

- Restaurant Industry -

MSc. in Business Administration – Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries

Student: Lily Mineur Student number: 10636080

Course: Master’s Thesis Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries Institution: University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam Business School

Supervisor: Bram Kuijken Date: 29-06-2015 Student: Lily Mineur Student number: 10636080

Course: Master’s Thesis Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries Institution: University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam Business School

Supervisor: Bram Kuijken Date: 29-06-2015

(2)

2

Abstract

The aim of this research is to expand current knowledge about how product quality signals that appear during a product’s life affect consumers’ willingness to pay and whether this

effect differs for two important consumer groups, innovators and hipsters. This has led to the following research question: ‘what is the effect of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness to pay, and how is this influenced by consumer innovativeness and the degree to which the consumer is a hipster?’. The empirical setting of this research is the restaurant industry. In order to collect data, the online auction platform Veylinx is used. In this auction respondents were randomly distributed over four treatments (baseline, mainstream signal, newness signal or both) and were invited to bid on a 4-course dinner at restaurant Vijfnulvijf (Amsterdam). Results show no significant findings, but present interesting suggestions for future research. This thesis contributes in an exploration of differences between innovators and hipsters. In addition, a reliable hipster scale has been developed which is of great value for future research.

KEYWORDS: Diffusion of innovation, product life cycle, consumer innovativeness,

innovators, newness, hipsters, mainstream, signals, willingness to pay

Statement of originality

This document is written by Lily Mineur who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

Because a certain lifestyle can be achieved by consumption, consumption needs to be adjusted to the desirable identity (Nancarrow, Nancarrow & Page, 2001).

1.1 Motivation and Research objectives

Previous research on consumer behavior argued that consumers differ in their identities, behaviors, and goals (Berger, 2008; Valente, 1996; Rink & Swan, 1979; Tibben-Lembke, 2002; Arsel & Thompson, 2011). Referring back to the opening line based on the study of Nancarrow et al. (2001), those differences occur because consumption reflects a lifestyle. It is therefore of great importance for organizations to utilize proper signals to the targeted

consumer groups. This thesis aims to research different consumer groups’ reaction to various signals.

Two recognized consumer groups are innovators and hipsters (Nancarrow et al., 2001; Nordby, 2013; Hendlin, Anderson & Glantz, 2010). Innovators are consumers who adopt new products immediately after their introduction to the market (Rogers, 2010). Their role in the innovation process is essential. They take the risk of trying new products without knowing the exact value of it. They will subsequently transfer their evaluations to the public, which will have a big influence on the reputation of the innovation (Nancarrow et al., 2001). They pave the way for products becoming mainstream, meaning that whether the innovators recommend the product will influence how large consumer groups might perceive the product. Therefore, innovators are also known as ‘style leaders’ (Nancarrow et al., 2001).

The other consumer group who receive frequent media attention is hipsters (Nordby, 2013). Hipsters embrace their own individuality while avoiding being a part of the mass consumer culture (Nordby, 2013). Hipsters have become a widespread culture and a globally recognized consumption collective. They seek to be the first to discover and expose new things. They strive to be the ones to be on the forefront of what is ‘cool’ before the rest of the

(6)

6

world even has the slightest notion (Greif, 2010). This indicates that they are more experimental in adopting innovations. With their valuation of distinction and creative expressions, hipsters are an example for many youngsters (Nordby, 2013). Therefore, the group of hipsters is interesting for marketers because they tend to function as style leaders and are able to turn innovations into new trends (Nancarrow et al., 2001; Nordby, 2013; Hendlin et al., 2010). Nevertheless, there is no clear understanding of the exact differences between hipsters and innovators and how to approach and arouse these two consumer groups.

As already mentioned, it is of great importance for organizations that those prominent consumers adopt their innovations. The diffusion of innovations refers to how information of new innovations is communicated to consumer groups (Rogers, 2010). The communication between the organization and the consumer determines their relationship and if this eventually results in interaction and product adoption (Rogers, 2010). This leads to the assumption that consumption is not only based on product attributes, but also on the way products are

introduced and communicated to them. Marketers communicate regularly with consumers and play a great role in consumer behavior, because of their ability to seduce consumers (Rogers, 2010; Kirmani & Rao, 2000). Marketers often use signals, observable features attached to products, in their communication (Spence, 1973). This poses a useful strategy because signals can show unobservable quality and are easy to manipulate (Kirmani & Rao, 2000). Therefore, many companies and brands in various industries use signals to attract consumers.

So far little is known about the effects of these observable signals on different types of consumers with contrasting needs. Prior research analyzed quality signals, such as brand name, price and warranty (Kirmani & Rao, 2000). In this research, literature on the product life cycle (PLC) is used in order to define the signals emerging during a product’s life. The PLC represents a product from the first day it is introduced to the day it is removed from the market (Rink & Swan, 1979). The start of a PLC is the introduction of a new product, an

(7)

7

innovation. In this stage, sales are low because only a few consumers are aware of the

innovation. Once the innovation is seen as valuable, more consumers adopt the innovation and it will subsequently transfer into the growth stage. The product that started its life cycle as new and innovative, is now becoming more mainstream. This means that a large group of consumers is adopting the product (Rink & Swan, 1979). A product being new and innovative or widely adopted and mainstream, expresses different information and a different image to consumers. For example, the risk of trying innovative products is a lot bigger than trying mainstream products because the latter already proved to have value for a group of consumers (Arsel & Thompson, 2011). Yet, there is no clear understanding of the effects of these new- and mainstream signals.

Rink and Swan (1979) recommend further research on various characteristics of the PLC, among others involving type of consumer and degree of product newness. In addition, Danneels and Kleinschmidt (2001) suggest future research to explore how innovativeness affects new product acceptance. Arsel and Thompson (2011) put forward to further

investigate to what extent consumers make identity investments, especially consumers with a higher level of cultural capital such as hipsters. The aim of this research is to combine these suggestions and expand current knowledge on how quality signals that appear during a product’s life affect consumers’ willingness to pay and whether this effect differs for

innovators and hipsters. Besides the attempt to solve a scientific knowledge gap, this study shows importance for marketing departments in order to have a good understanding of which signals to use in their advertisements.

This leads to the following research question:

RQ: ‘What is the effect of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness to pay, and how is this influenced by consumer innovativeness and the degree to which the consumer is a hipster?’

(8)

8

1.2 Contributions

This thesis attempts to create a clear picture of how new- and mainstream signals influence consumers’ willingness to pay, specifically the willingness to pay of two important types of

consumers, innovators and hipsters. The theoretical contribution of this research is that it explicitly distinguishes innovators and hipsters. Moreover, this study is the first to develop a scale that provides a reliable representation of the extent to which a consumer is a hipster. The practical contribution is that the results give organizations, and in particular marketers,

insights of the effect of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness to pay of multiple consumer groups. The willingness to pay is an accurate way to measure an individuals’ valuation of a good (Homburg, Koschate & Hoyer, 2005). The focus on signaling in a marketing context helps marketers to develop effective marketing campaigns.

1.3 Method and Structure

By means of an online auction platform (Veylinx), an experiment is conducted. In this research we auctioned off a 4-course dinner at restaurant Vijfnulvijf that recently opened its doors in Amsterdam. Four different treatments were designed and the respondents were randomly assigned to one of them. The treatments are as follows: a baseline, a mainstream signal, a newness signal, and both mainstream- and newness signals. Upon placing a bid, several questions were asked in order to find out to what extent the respondent is an innovator or a hipster. The bid amount of the respondent indicates the consumers’ willingness to pay.

The structure of this thesis is as follows; firstly in the literature review, the concepts innovation, newness, consumer innovativeness, mainstream, and hipsters will be discussed. That information together leads to four hypotheses. Secondly, the methodology will be explained, followed by the results obtained through the experiment. In the last section, practical implications are discussed and some directions for further research are suggested. This paper ends with a summarizing conclusion.

(9)

9

2. Literature review

2.1 Diffusion of Innovation

Innovations are in this research referred to as products that are perceived as new by an individual (Rogers, 2010). If there wouldn’t be innovations, consumer behavior would be totally different. Their actions would be routinized and there wouldn’t be any new

experiences (Hirschman, 1980). To get a clear picture of innovations and how they find their way into society, literature on the product life cycle (PLC) and of diffusion is used. Rink and Swan (1979) describe the PLC as a representation of the unit sales curve of a product, starting from the day it is first placed on the market and ending on the day it is removed. It exposes the several stages a product passes.

The introduction of a new product is characterized by low unit sales, because only a few consumers are aware of the new good. With the start of consumer recognition and acceptance, the sales begin to increase (Rink & Swan, 1979). This indicates the start of the growth stage in which a critical mass of consumer awareness is reached (Tibben-Lembke, 2002). After a certain time, unit sales reach a plateau and the product enters a sustained period characterized by slow growth or leveled sales (Rink & Swan, 1979; Tibben-Lembke, 2002). This is the maturity stage. In this stage most of the mass market has already purchased the item. Eventually consumers will replace the product and it will disappear from the market (Rink & Swan, 1979). As described above, the product life cycle contains four stages: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline (see figure 1).

(10)

10

Every stage has different types of consumers. The process starts in general with an innovative style in the introduction phase that offers an alternative to the everyday middle-class lifestyle. The consumers that buy the good immediately in the introduction stage, are early adopters and are the opposite of mainstreamers who prefer to wait until others have tried it (Valente, 1996). Mainstreamers will be found in the growth- and maturity stage where the sales volume is high. As figure 1 shows, a mass of consumers is reached in this stage. This indicates that the product, service or style has proved to have identity value for a broad group of consumers. The potentially heterogeneous consumer group can be reduced to a prototypical group (Arsel & Thompson, 2011).

Before an innovation is widely adopted, it often undergoes a very long process. Therefore, many organizations value opportunities to speed up this process (Rogers, 2010). Previous research of Rogers (2010) shows that the adoption of an innovation, or product in general, is a very social process. Consumers frequently look at the experiences of others before they make the purchase themselves. Therefore, it is useful to look at the diffusion of innovations. Diffusion is “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (Rogers, 2010, p.5). That

communication process is crucial in transferring the knowledge concerning the innovation to individuals or organizations who are unfamiliar with the product. The most common and often most efficient way to transfer knowledge is through mass media channels because they are able to reach many (Rogers, 2010). It is therefore of great importance that the right signals, the observable features attached to products, are communicated in order to cause the right effect (Spence, 1973).

2.2 Newness signaling

In the first stage of the product life cycle, new products are introduced to the market. As consumers recognize product newness, this subsequently influences consumers’ newness

(11)

11

perception. A newness perception is a consumers’ perception of how unique, different, innovative, creative or new a product is (Goode, Dahl & Moreau, 2013). Previous research argued that product newness is often received well by consumers because it is associated with superior product advantages and uniqueness (Danneels & Kleinschmidt, 2001; Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994). The associated advantages emerge because consumers reason that a new product has the ability to provide features that other, or older, products don’t contain. Uniqueness is a potential direct antecedent of the willingness to pay a premium price, which indicates that consumers highly value this (Netemeyer et al., 2004). Bloch (1995) argued that it is important to trigger newness perceptions because consumers rank product newness as a vital asset. Therefore, products with remarkable new features lead to more success than products that solely show small differences or imitations (Schmidt & Calantone, 2002).

Research of Szymanski, Kroff and Troy (2007) suggest that products that are new, compared to alternatives, can lead to greater trial. Newness triggers consumers to seek for variety and can lead to an increase in purchasing new goods. In addition, newness causes consumer excitement and greater satisfaction.

The willingness to pay (WTP) is used as an indicator of the effectiveness of the newness quality signal. The WTP is the maximum amount, expressed in money, a consumer is willing to pay for a good or experience (Netemeyer et al., 2004). The WTP is seen as an accurate substitution for actual behavior and is a way to measure an individuals’ valuation of

a good or experience with money (De Pelsmacker, Driesen & Rayp, 2005; Homburg et al., 2005). Results of the study of Netemeyer et al. (2004) suggest that perceived quality, perceived value cost and brand uniqueness potentially have a direct influence on the WTP a price premium.

(12)

12

In sum, literature shows that newness is highly valued by consumers. Based on previous findings, the willingness to pay is a good way to measure the effect of newness as a quality signal.

This leads to the first hypothesis:

H1: Newness signals have a positive effect on the willingness to pay

The expected positive effect might be different for different types of consumers. Previous research argued that not every consumer has the same appreciation towards novelty (Szymanski et al., 2007).

2.3 Consumer innovativeness

Everybody tries new things during his/ her life but not everybody tries them immediately upon their introduction into the market. The consumers who do, are known as early triers, early adoptors or innovators (Donnelly & Etzel, 1973). In this research, further referred to as innovators. Innovators play a very important role in the innovation diffusion process and the further adoption of the innovation (Im, Bayus & Mason, 2003).

Im et al. (2003) make a distinction between innate consumer innovativeness and actualized innovativeness. Innate consumer innovativeness refers to the predisposition of consumers towards innovations, for example liking to vary set routines. On the other hand, actualized innovativeness represents the actual collection of new information, ideas or products. Their results demonstrate that consumers with a high income, of younger age, and having innovative predispositions incline to have a higher adoption of new products.

Dickerson and Gentry (1983) describe demographic characteristics of early adopters that could explain several reasons for their openness to innovations. They mention that early adopters in general have a better education, a higher income and higher status livelihoods. Again income seems to play a part in consumer innovativeness. This is supported by those characteristics evolving in a lower financial risk, more experience and a better understanding

(13)

13

of the innovations features. Together this decreases insecurities of adopting an innovative product.

Donnelly and Etzel (1973) state that demographic characteristics as an explanation of early adoptive behavior, has several limitations. Early trial is, for example, often studied on one single product, which is often a luxury item. This is not a good representation for

adoptive behavior of other products. Furthermore, new products are not all equally new, some are radical innovations, while others just represent small differentiations. Therefore, their study examines the relation between the degree of product newness and early trial. Results show that besides demographic characteristics, fundamentals of the product might be as important in identifying innovators. Their study is an attempt in proving that degrees of newness differentiate products and affect early trial.

Hirschman (1980) is also interested in the interrelationships among innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. He declares that trying an innovation begins with an intrinsic motivation of seeking for new information and goods. This is comparable to the innate innovativeness of Im et al. (2003) mentioned above. An explanation could be that innovators like variation in order to avoid, for example, boredom. Hirschman (1980) found that consumers who have a high intrinsic motivation of novelty seeking, would subsequently also engage in actual novelty seeking behavior. Novelty seeking behavior in turn results in a high exposure to innovation information and eventually innovation adoption. Nonetheless, it is important that the innovators also gain relevant information of the innovation (Hirschman, 1980).

In sum, literature shows a combination of demographic characters, such as a higher income, product attributes, for example the degree of newness, and behavioral characteristics, their motivation of novelty seeking, as important attributes of innovators that can result in a higher willingness to pay.

(14)

14

This leads to the second hypothesis:

H2: The positive relation between newness signals and the willingness to pay is positively moderated by consumer innovativeness

2.4 Mainstream

With a product following the stages of its lifecycle, it changes from being innovative in the introduction stage to becoming mainstream in the growth- and maturity stages. As mentioned earlier, in these stages a large group of consumers buy the same good (Rink & Swan, 1979). Because of this, consumption homogeneity and a prototypical consumer group will evolve (Nordby, 2013; Arsel & Thompson, 2011). These phenomena are characteristics of becoming mainstream.

One of the most obvious reasons that products become mainstream is the increase in awareness that arises when the product is adopted by the first consumers. When considering adoption of an innovation, most consumers highly value the experiences and evaluations of other consumers (Rogers, 2010). This results in a lot of adoption that is solely based on imitation. Furthermore, it has been found that consumers do not only make consumption choices based on the products’ utilities, but also based on the symbolic meanings of goods

(Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998). Consumption plays a very important role in consumers’ personal- and social life because a desired lifestyle can be achieved and shown to the rest of the world by selective consumption. This enables them to construct and maintain an identity. This identity varies from expressing one’s own identity, as well as one’s desirable connection with others (Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Kleine et al., 1995). This can lead to communal consumption activities to create and maintain collective identifications (Cronin et al., 2014). Nancarrow et al. (2001) point out how this can influence buying behavior with an example of Levi’s clothes. When Levi’s launched a new design, they sent samples to ‘style leaders’ and

(15)

15

the hip and young consumers’ of Hoxton were all starting to wear Levi’s’ products. A lot of

manufacturers use this type of advertising. By referencing to popular culture they improve the image of their brands and look appealing to consumers. This can lead to products becoming mainstream because more people want the same.

Arsel and Thompson (2011) describe how the commercial mainstream of consumer culture is constituted by “corporate-controlled global media, transnational brands, and large

retail chains and whose promotional appeals and commercial offerings are predominantly geared towards middle-class tastes and preferences” (p. 4). They emphasize the role of, among others, marketers and advertising agencies in having a great influence in the rise of iconic cultural types (Arsel & Thompson, 2011). When new things have been discovered as valuable, media starts to write positive things about it which in turn leads to others wanting to have the same. Positive media attention and popularity give consumers a safe feeling by reasoning that they wouldn’t be popular if they aren’t good (Plog, 2001). In addition, media is

able to signal the unobservable quality of products (Kirmani & Rao, 2000). A way to do so is on the basis of current buyers. They can signal quality by engaging in repeat purchase or by functioning as opinion leaders and influence others’ buying behavior because of increased

attraction (Kirmani & Rao, 2000). Consequently, the product will be adopted by a larger group of consumers and the sales volume will increase (Rink & Swan, 1979). This in turn makes the product more mainstream, which then signals quality because it is seen as a product that has proved to be valuable (Rink & Swan, 1979). These signals of quality are important for sellers, especially under the condition in which the pre-purchase information about the quality of the good is scarce. Therefore, this results in leaving buyers in uncertainty about the true quality of the seller’s good which will have a negative effect on the willingness to pay

(Kirmani & Rao, 2000). Signals can decrease this uncertainty because they are able to indicate quality and are therefore expected to increase the willingness to pay.

(16)

16

In sum, literature shows a positive relationship between goods that are already

consumed by a lot of consumers (mainstream goods) and consumers’ appreciation for it. This

could be caused by the product’s increased awareness, increased symbolic meaning and increased quality perceptions. It is therefore expected that mainstream signals function as quality signals.

This leads to the third hypotheses:

H3: Mainstream signals have a positive effect on the willingness to pay

2.5 Hipsters

Nordby (2013) describes hipsters as those who “seek to be the first to uncover or create

obscure cultural influences and then turn them into the latest trend. Though they take on many trends and personas, hipsters have one goal: to embrace their own individuality while

rejecting the cookie-cutter consumer culture that overwhelms society today” (p.1). Because of their rejection of the mainstream they show the youth the value of expressing individuality instead of the blind following of the mass trends (Nordby, 2013). They follow a creative process of discovery, constantly looking for something new and avoidance of the mainstream (Nordby, 2013; Cronin et al., 2014; Arsel & Thompson, 2011). This avoidance immediately shows a big difference between hipsters and other consumer groups, for example innovators. At first glance, both consumer groups look quite similar. Both like to be the first to uncover and try new products (Nordby, 2013; Nancarrow et al., 2001). However, they have different motives to do so. As described earlier, innovators adopt new things because of their high intrinsic motivation of novelty seeking (Hirschman, 1980). On the other hand, hipsters want to be the first to uncover new products because they want to show that they are different from the rest of the society. They want to show their deposition and rejection of the mainstream consumer culture (Nordby, 2013). This results in them having a constantly changing style in order to stay original and avoid that their style becomes widely adopted (Nordby, 2013). It

(17)

17

mainly revolves around having a superior taste, because taste is personal and unique. Taste becomes a strategy to show superiority and distinction (Greif, 2010). The analysis of Cronin et al. (2014) shows prove for hipsters making specific consumption decisions to show

communal resistance to mainstream consumerism. They research how food and alcohol is used to express this resistance and find that this is expressed by brand choices, shopping venues, recipes, preparations and social rituals.

The literature of hipsters described above shows hipsters preference for distinction. This makes it difficult to gain more knowledge about hipsters. Hipsters don’t see themselves as hipsters and don’t like to be called hipsters (Greif, 2010; Nordby, 2013). Besides, they are

often imitated because of being known for setting trends and having a superior taste (Nordby, 2013). This results in an even bigger ambiguity of being a hipster or not. There are even researchers that state that the culture is insincere and consisting of imitators (Greif, 2010; Nordby, 2013). The imitators are actual outsiders trying to integrate but subsequently change the entire image of the culture (Berger, 2008). Imitation by itself already shows the fakeness of many so-called ‘hipsters’, because it goes against the overall consensus of hipsters aiming to be the first to invent or adopt. This shouldn’t cost too much effort either, trying desperately

to show a superior taste means that it is not a natural quality (Greif, 2010).

By saying that hipsters embrace their own individuality, it is expected that there is not a single way to approach a hipster since they all have their own way of life and preferences. Nonetheless, analysis of Cronin et al. (2014) shows that hipsters are communities who show a collective resistance through collective practices. In addition they mention that hipsters establish norms of expected consumer behavior with members of their culture. This indicates that even though they promote individuality and are against homogeneity, they do share values and beliefs, but only with each other. Furthermore, Nordby (2013) mentions that becoming a hipster goes together with the creation of own tastes instead of developing it from

(18)

18

advertisements, media, or peer pressure. This gives the idea that targeting them with marketing campaigns is useless. However, Hendlin et al. (2010) do show evidence of effectiveness. They find that there is a way to target hipsters, but in order to do so, advertisements should be conform their aesthetics and values.

As mentioned before, hipsters attach importance to something new and seek to be the first to uncover (Nordby, 2013). The reason for that preference is because it helps in creating their own style rather than imitating the market of ‘coolness’. They focus on the exclusive, the

alternative and the authentic. They want to express superior taste and disdain for the mass-produced. They are against the mainstream (Nancarrow et al., 2001) In order to stay unique, they constantly have to change their style once it becomes more popular among other groups.

In sum, there is agreement on hipsters aiming for distinction by being the first to discover. At the same time, they want to avoid the mass and only develop styles by themselves or peers rather than the media.

This leads to the forth hypothesis:

H4: The positive relation between mainstream signals and the willingness to pay is negatively moderated by the degree to which the consumer is a hipster

The results of the four hypotheses provided in the literature review above, will help to answer the research question: ‘What is the effect of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness to pay, and how is this influenced by consumer innovativeness and the degree to which the consumer is a hipster?’

(19)

19

3. Methodology

The empirical setting of this research will be discussed in this section, divided in the following sub-headings: research design, sample and variables.

3.1 Research Design

Experiment

An experiment is created and performed in order to answer the research question and test the hypotheses. This method is chosen because research tries to find how one variable influences another and an experiment is the best method to study causal relations. On top of that, an experiment gives the possibility to examine manipulation of the independent variable and measures the effect on the dependent variable. In this research, the independent variables are newness- and mainstream signals and the dependent variable is the willingness to pay. Experimental studies are the highest obtainable on the levels of evidence which means that they have a high internal validity and are therefore less biased (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).

Empirical setting

Although hipsters stand for authenticity and independency, their market is also embedded in a sociocultural system of networks, social distinction and hierarchies. Hipsters express their identity and taste with consumption of, for example, clothes, but also by visiting specific bars and restaurants (Arsel & Thompson, 2011). Moreover, food plays an important role for hipsters in expressing themselves (Cronin et al., 2014). Signaling is most useful for products whose quality is unknown before purchase, but is quality sensitive, such as food (Kirmani & Rao, 2000). This leads to the empirical setting of this research: restaurants.

Vijfnulvijf

Restaurant Vijfnulvijf agreed to cooperate with this research project by allowing us to use their 4-course dinner. Vijfnulvijf just recently opened for business in Amsterdam. Vijfnulvijf

(20)

20

has an Asian kitchen and serves its specialties in the form of tapas and sushi. Even though Vijfnulvijf is open for business, it is still in the pre-opening phase and very busy getting ready for the official grand opening. Decorating has not been completely finished and the website is not yet live. These facts make Vijfnulvijf a perfect new restaurant candidate for this

experiment. Because there are always early discoverers, some bloggers have already tried the restaurant. They describe it as a ‘new foodie hotspot’. This will be very helpful in creating the

mainstream treatment. They decorated the restaurant with vintage furniture which makes them trendy and different.

Veylinx

This experiment will be conducted with Veylinx. Veylinx is an online platform that examines how people value new products and services with their money. This information is gathered by online auctions. The following steps describe the process.

Participating in the auctions is only available by invitation. In order to receive the invitations, respondents first need to register with their name, email address, and date of birth. Upon registration they will receive an email-invitation twice a week. These emails only announce a new auction. They can join the auction by using a hyperlink – which is only active for a limited time.

Respondents are only able to place one bid. They are not able to see the biddings of the other respondents. Similarly to other auctions, the highest bidder will win the auction. That leads to the final step, where the winner will receive the product but pays the price of the second highest bid.

Besides gaining information based on the bid amounts, it is possible to ask the respondents several questions after the bid has been placed. In order to obtain information about the target group as well as the product and the communication signals, questions do not only have to pertain to the participant, but can also relate to the auction itself. This makes

(21)

21

Veylinx a very good tool to collect the specific information needed.

It is also possible to make several auctions for the same product or service with different communication items. When this option is used, different auctions will be shown randomly to the participants. This gives the possibility to test which of the auctions, and consequently treatments, is best received.

Veylinx is a perfect tool to measure the dependent variable of this research, the willingness to pay, since respondents truly have to place a bid which will result in a payment obligation when placing the winning bid. By avoiding the risk to spend too much money or not to win the auction, respondents are not very likely to place a bid which is, in their opinion, too high or too low: it will give a true insight in their maximum willingness to pay.

Treatments

Newness Signal

Mainstream Signal

No/No (baseline) No/Yes

Yes/No Yes/Yes

To test the effect of newness- and mainstream signals, copy will be added to the auctions. The line ‘Visited by a wide audience’ will be used to signal that the restaurant is mainstream. The line ‘Only open for 4 months’ will signal how new the restaurant is. Both signals are easy to

manipulate in an experiment because they can easily be added or deleted to the auction.

This will create the following treatments:

Treatment 1 - Baseline: will show the auction without any signals added to the good. Treatment 2 - Mainstream: the signal ‘Visited by a wide audience’ will be added to the auction.

(22)

22

Treatment 4 – New and mainstream: both the signals ‘Only open for 4 months’ and ‘Visited by a wide audience’ will be added to the auction.

Every respondent will receive a link to one of the four treatments (randomly divided). Other elements of the auction that are expected to play a role in the willingness to pay, such as a picture of the restaurant, are kept constant over all the treatments. In all the auctions some information about Vijfnulvijf was revealed to inform the respondents about the item that is being auctioned off. The not varying text is: ‘Vijfnulvijf is a restaurant in Amsterdam Oost with an Oriental cuisine. The menu consists of “Asian street bites”, sushi and main dishes.

The restaurant is decorated with lovely vintage furniture’.

3.2 Sample

Veylinx, the platform used for the data collection, already has a vast number of participants who will also receive an email that invites them to participate in the auction of this research. This participants base makes 3.200 potential respondents available. Specifically for this research project 147 extra respondents were recruited.

A total of 850 unique people opened the email and clicked on the link to join the auction. Out of this group, a total of 717 respondents (84.4%) placed a bid and answered all the questions asked afterwards. Several variables used in this research, for example consumer innovativeness, where measured in an earlier auction. Therefore, only part of the panel answered these questions. After filtering invalid or unusable entries, in particular because of missing values, a total of 510 respondents remain. The sample of 510 respondents consists of 265 men (52%) and 245 women (48%). The youngest respondent is 19, and the oldest is 77 years old. The average age of all the respondents is 44. Further, the respondents were asked about their highest educational level is. For every treatment the mode was either 4 or 5, which means that most of the respondents has done a higher professional- or academic education. Table 1 shows the distribution of age, gender, and education specific for each treatment.

(23)

23

Table 1: Age, gender and educational level per treatment

Treatment N Age (Average) Gender Education

1 Baseline 121 42.3 51,2% male 3,86 2 Mainstream 126 45.2 52,4% male 3,94 3 New 125 42.5 54,4% male 3,90 4 Both 138 44.0 50,0% male 4,05 3.3 Variables Independent variables

New- and mainstream signals: the effect of these variables will be measured by the addition of the signals. The line ‘Visited by a wide audience’ will be used to signal that the restaurant is mainstream. The line ‘Only open for 4 months’ will signal how new the restaurant is. Afterwards, the respondents have to rate the statements ‘Vijfnulvijf is a new restaurant’ and ‘Vijfnulvijf is a mainstream restaurant’ to control if the signals were perceived well. Both

statements can be answered on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from ‘I totally disagree’ to ‘I totally agree’.

Dependent variable

Willingness to Pay: the willingness to pay will be measured on the basis of the price the respondents bid for the auction. This shows precisely how much money they are willing to spend on the good.

Moderators

Consumer innovativeness: in order to measure the effects of consumer innovativeness, it is necessary to measure to what extent the respondent is innovative. This is measured by the following 4 statements: ‘I like to buy innovative and new products’, ‘new products receive my

(24)

24

attention’, ‘I’m one of the first who tries new products’ and ‘I think I know more about new products than others’. All statements can be answered on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from ‘I totally disagree’ to ‘I totally agree’. The consumer innovativeness scale was found to be highly reliable (4 items; α=.832).

The degree to which the consumer is a hipster: to measure the effects of the degree to which the consumer is a hipster, a hipster-scale is developed. The respondents answer the following statements: ‘I’m constantly looking for new products’, ‘I consciously avoid products that are purchased by a lot of consumers’, ‘I prefer to buy/consume products that distinguish me from others’ and ‘as soon as something becomes trendy, I don’t like it anymore’. Again, the

statements can be answered on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from ‘I totally disagree’ to ‘I totally agree’. The developed hipster-scale was found to be reliable (4 items; α=.710).

Pre-test

To measure if the treatments were recognized and if the variables measure what they are supposed to measure, a pre-test was conducted. In this pre-test, one of the treatments was showed to a respondent, who subsequently had to answer the questions regarding his/ her new- and mainstream perception. In addition, respondents were asked if they were familiar with the restaurant. A total of 25 respondents participated to the pre-test, whereof 9 males (36%) and 16 females (64%). The youngest respondent is 20, and the oldest respondent is 55 years old. The pre-test showed that only 3 out of the 25 respondents (12%), had ever heard of Vijfnulvijf, but none of the respondents had ever visited the restaurant. The treatments were well recognized, although it showed that some of the respondents who saw the mainstream treatment, also thought of Vijfnulvijf as a new restaurant. This can be explained by the unfamiliarity of the restaurant.

Measurement

(25)

25

4. Results

A frequency test for all items is run first, to make sure there are no errors in the data. There were no errors found. Second, missing values were excluded by ‘excluding cases listwise’ in

order to only analyze cases without missing data.

Normality

The skewness and kurtosis are measured to check the normality of the distribution. Both seem to indicate that there is a normal distribution (skewness=1.217 and kurtosis=1.343). However, results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality indicate that the willingness to pay is significantly different from a normal distribution (D=.187, p=.00) (Field, 2007). This could be explained by the large amount of people (34,8%) who place a zero bid because they are not interested in buying the auctioned product.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics of the dependent variable related to the different treatments are provided in this section.

The dependent variable ‘willingness to pay’

As already shown before (section 3.3 sample), the N value is high enough for every treatment and sufficient distributed over the treatments: baseline (N=121), mainstream (N=126), new (N=125), and both (N=138). The participation of the respondents has led to the following mean bids per treatment: baseline (M=14.55, SD=17,81), mainstream (M=17.51, SD=19,56), new (M=15.38, SD=17,84), and both (M=17.33, SD=19,50). The mean bid overall is 16.19 euro.

‘Willingness to pay’ without zero bids

A lot of zero bids were found in this experiment (34,8%). This could mean that they have no interest in the product at all. Therefore, it could be interesting to also take a look at the

(26)

26

willingness to pay excluding these bids. This would give an image of the willingness to pay among respondents that are interested in the good. The N value is still high enough for every treatment and sufficient distributed: baseline (N=68), mainstream (N=83), new (N=78), and both (N=88). The mean bids per treatment found when the zero bids are excluded are a lot higher than when the zero bids are included: baseline (M=26.10, SD=16,33), mainstream (M=26.57, SD=18,42), new (M=24.85, SD=16,69), and both (M=27.18, SD=18,12). The mean bid overall is now 26.18 euro.

4.2 Manipulation check

It is important to know if the treatments with newness- and mainstream signals, were well recognized by the respondents. Therefore, respondents were asked after their bid if they think of Vijfnulvijf as a mainstream and/or new restaurant. In order to test effectiveness of the treatments, an independent sample t-test was conducted.

First, the efficacy of the newness treatment is tested. There is a significant difference in the scores for the newness (M=3.58, SD=1.019) and the baseline (M=3.35, SD=.938) treatments; t(353)=-2.28, p<.05. These results suggest that the newness treatment has an effect on the newness perception of the respondents. Specifically, results show that respondents in the newness treatment, rank Vijfnulvijf more often as a new restaurant than respondents in the baseline treatment. Concluding that the newness treatment is (probably) well recognized.

Second, the efficacy of the mainstream treatment is tested. There is a no significant difference in the scores for the mainstream (M=2.92, SD=.827) and the baseline (M=2.81, SD=.844) treatments; t(358)=-1.301, p=.194. These results suggest that the mainstream treatment has no effect on the mainstream perception of the respondents. This leads to the conclusion that the mainstream treatment is (probably) not recognized.

(27)

27

4.3 Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 predicts that newness signals have a positive effect on the willingness to pay. First, an one-way between subjects ANOVA is conducted to compare the effect of the treatments on the willingness to pay in baseline, newness-, mainstream- and both treatments. The Levene Statistic = .05, which means that the analysis is reliable. There is not a significant effect of the treatments on the willingness to pay at the p<.05 level for the four treatments [F(3,846)=.298, p=.83].

Even though no significant result is found, a Post Hoc test is computed. It might still be possible that one of the treatments differs significantly from another treatment. Post Hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test results in no significant mean difference between the new- and baseline treatment ( p=.975). Taken together, these results suggest that the newness treatment has no effect on the willingness to pay.

Next, the zero bids are excluded from the dependent variable willingness to pay, to see if this may change the result. The Levene Statistic = .06, which means that the analysis is reliable again. Still, there is not a significant effect of the treatments on the willingness to pay at the p<.05 level for four treatments [F(3,550)=.11, p=.96]. Again a Post Hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test results in no significant mean difference between the new- and the baseline treatment (p=.997). This suggests that the newness treatment has no effect on the willingness to pay, not even after exclusion of the zero bids.

Hypothesis 2

The second hypothesis expects that the positive relation between newness signals and the willingness to pay is positively moderated by consumer innovativeness. Because there is no significant effect found of a newness signal on the willingness to pay, it is not possible to measure any moderations.

(28)

28

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 predicts that mainstream signals have a positive effect on the willingness to pay. As mentioned in hypothesis 1, there is not a significant effect of the treatments on the

willingness to pay at the p<.05 level for the four treatments [F(3,846)=.298, p=.83]. Even though no significant result is found, a Post Hoc test is computed. It might still be possible that the mainstream treatment differs significantly of the other treatments. Post Hoc

comparisons using the Tukey HSD test results in no significant mean difference between the mainstream- and baseline treatment ( p=.954). Taken together, these results suggest that the mainstream treatment has no effect on the willingness to pay.

It is acquainted that there is neither a significant effect of the treatments on the willingness to pay when zero bids are excluded at the p<.05 level for four treatments [F(3,550)=.11, p=.96]. Nevertheless, a Post Hoc comparisons is computed to focus

specifically on the mainstream treatment. The Post Hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test results in no significant mean difference between the mainstream- and the baseline treatment (p=.993). This suggests that the mainstream treatment has no effect on the willingness to pay, not even after exclusion of the zero bids.

Hypothesis 4

The fourth hypothesis expects that the positive relation between newness signals and the willingness to pay is positively moderated by consumer innovativeness. Because there is no significant effect found of a mainstream signal on the willingness to pay, it is not possible to measure any moderations.

Some additional, alternative, analyses are conducted.

Additional analyses

Beside testing the hypotheses, some other interesting results are found. A linear regression is used to test if consumer innovativeness significantly predicts the willingness to pay. The

(29)

29

results of the regression indicate that consumer innovativeness explains 16% of the variance (R2=.018, F(1, 583)=10.42, p<.01). This result suggests that consumer innovativeness significantly predicts the willingness to pay (β=.132, p<.01).

Another regression analysis is conducted to test if there is an interaction effect of the newness treatment and innovators. The results of the regression indicate that the interaction term consumer innovativeness and newness treatment explains 27% of the variance (R2=.029,

F(1,525)=15.689, p<.01). This result proposes that the positive relation between consumer

innovativeness and the willingness to pay, is positively moderated by the newness perception (β=.170, p<.01).

Third, a linear regression is used to test if the degree to which the consumer is a hipster significantly predicts the willingness to pay. The results of the regression indicate that the degree to which the consumer is a hipster explains 10% of the variance (R2=.012, F(1, 724)=8.681, p<.01). This result suggests that the degree to which the consumer is a hipster significantly predicts the willingness to pay (β=.109, p<.01).

A final regression analysis is conducted to test if there is an interaction effect of the newness treatment and hipsters. The results of the regression indicate that the interaction term hipsters and newness treatment explains 9% of the variance (R2=.011, F(1,717)=7.816,

p<.01). This result proposes that the positive relation between hipsters and the willingness to

(30)

30

5. Discussion

This research tried to examine the effects of the new- and mainstream signals on the

willingness to pay, and how that is influenced by consumer innovativeness and the degree to which the consumer is a hipster. This was measured on the basis of four hypotheses. In order to find support or rejection for the hypotheses, an experiment was conducted. The experiment consists of an online auction of a 4-course dinner at restaurant Vijfnulvijf on the online auction platform Veylinx. Four treatments (baseline, newness signals, mainstream signals, and both signals) were designed to influence the new and mainstream perception of the dinner. Afterwards, the respondents were asked several questions to measure to what extent they are a hipster. The bid amount represents their willingness to pay. A total of 850

respondents joined the auction and a total of 510 respondents remain after cleaning the dataset of missing values. The implications and contributions of the results found are discussed in the next section.

5.1 General discussion

Based on the literature, it was expected that newness signals have a positive effect on the willingness to pay. The results, however, fail to provide support which suggests that there is no effect of newness signals on the willingness to pay. This is against expectations because previous literature found that product newness is often received well by consumers because it is associated with superior product advantages and uniqueness (Danneels & Kleinschmidt, 2001). Danneels and Kleinschmidt (2001) drew that conclusion based on research using a new product. In this thesis, signals are tested using a new restaurant. The latter might be

considered more as an experience rather than a product. A new restaurant might not

necessarily be associated with advantages relating to the food, while a new product is often associated with advantages relating to the product.

(31)

31

Furthermore, the expectation of newness signals positively affecting the willingness to pay, was also based on research of Szymanski et al. (2007), who found that newness triggers consumers to seek for variety. Subsequently variety seeking results in greater trial. Expected is that variety seeking is less dependent on the empirical setting. Nonetheless, this could not be confirmed in the current study.

Previous research proved that when considering adoption of an innovation, most consumers highly value the experiences and evaluations of other consumers (Rogers, 2010). A lot of consumers adopting a product could then be considered as a quality signal (Kirmani & Rao, 2000). It was therefore expected that a mainstream signal has a positive effect on the willingness to pay. No significant results were found. An explanation of the non-significant result could be the mainstream signal that is used in this experiment. Even though recognition of the treatments was measured in a pre-test, the mainstream signal is probably not well recognized. The pre-test might have been too small (N=25). Another explanation could be that during the pre-test, respondents were only asked to look at a treatment and state if they perceived Vijfnulvijf as new or mainstream. In the actual auction respondents are asked to bid on the 4-course dinner. The respondents’ attention may be focused on their willingness to pay rather than the mainstream signal. The newness signal, on the other hand, was perhaps easier to recall during the questions afterwards because of their unfamiliarity with the restaurant. Non-recognition of the mainstream signal will subsequently not result in a mainstream perception of the restaurant. Without a mainstream perception, it is not likely to affect the willingness to pay in any way.

Literature further showed how a desired lifestyle can be achieved by selective consumption (Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998). This is possible because with specific

consumption, people are able to construct an identity (Kleine et al., 1995). That identity is, for example, shaped by peers, media or transnational brands (Arsel & Thompson, 2011). This can

(32)

32

lead to communal consumption activities in order to create and maintain collective identifications (Cronin et al., 2014). In this research the mainstream signal is not likely to signal a desirable identity because it doesn’t say anything about the previous guests. This could be another explanation of the non-significant result.

Another explanation is that mainstream products are often consumed because of an increased awareness (Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998). A mainstream signal is not able to create the same awareness or frequent confrontation as a product that becomes mainstream in practice.

Beyond the predefined hypotheses, some additional results were found. Firstly, that consumer innovativeness has a positive effect on the willingness to pay. This result is in accordance with past literature that stated that innovators have a higher income and higher status livelihoods (Dickerson & Gentry, 1983). These demographic characteristics result in innovators having a lower financial risk, more experience and a better understanding of features of innovations or products in general (Dickerson & Gentry, 1983; Im et al., 2003).

Secondly, that the positive relation between consumer innovativeness and the higher willingness to pay is positively moderated by the newness perception. This finding is in line with the study of Donnelly and Etzel (1973) who state that product attributes, such as the degree of newness, play an important role in the product’s introduction stage. Results of this research show that innovators have a higher willingness to pay for a good that is perceived as new. Further, literature showed that innovative behavior begins with an intrinsic motivation for novelty which eventually results in adoption of the innovation (Hirschman, 1980).

Thirdly, that the degree to which the consumer is a hipster has a positive effect on the willingness to pay. Hipsters’ high appreciation for distinction and aim to be the first to invent, led to the expectation of them having a higher willingness to pay in order to achieve these

(33)

33

goals (Nordby, 2013). Nevertheless, previous studies did not show an actual significant finding of these assumptions. Therefore, this result contributes to current literature.

Finally, that the positive relation between being a hipster and the willingness to pay, is positively moderated by the newness perception. This effect was expected because previous studies showed that hipsters are constantly seeking new things to become and stay exclusive (Nancarrow et al., 2001). On the other hand, literature also stated that hipsters prefer to create their own tastes rather than developing it from advertisement or the media (Nordby, 2013). The setting of this experiment could be comparable to an advertisement and therefore scare hipsters away. On the other hand, there is also support for effectiveness of marketed products on hipsters buying behavior as long as they are conform their aesthetics and values (Hendlin et al., 2010). Results of this thesis show support for the latter.

5.2 Theoretical implications

In this section the implications are taken together in order to create a better picture of the overall contributions and implications.

A great theoretical contribution is the development of a reliable hipster-scale. The four questions: ‘I’m constantly looking for new products’, ‘I consciously avoid products that are purchased by a lot of consumers’, ‘I prefer to buy/consume products that distinguish me from others’ and ‘as soon as something becomes trendy, I don’t like it anymore’ result in a reliable

representation of the degree to which a consumer is a hipster. This scale could be used in future research.

The hypotheses show no significant effects of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness to pay. As stated in the literature review, these effects were expected because previous studies suggest that both these signals carried significant stimulus with the

consumers. Based on the data conducted during this research, these signals don’t seem to have a stimulating effect. In addition, literature defined the willingness to pay as an accurate

(34)

34

measure of an individuals’ valuation of a good or experience. However, this thesis indicates

that the willingness to pay might not be a suitable measurement. A reason could be that the willingness to pay is an incentivised measurement and therefore creates a predetermined monetary value of the auctioned good (4-course dinner), subsequently limiting the effectiveness of the signals.

Additional analyses showed several significant results. These results are not

representative outside of this study, however, they show some interesting implications. Even though previous studies found innovators’ higher income a reason for their openness to new products, these findings were not yet combined and related to the willingness to pay. The same significant positive effect is found between hipsters and their willingness to pay. As of yet this has not been examined and could be useful in future research. Despite innovators and hipsters having a higher willingness to pay in this specific experiment, it doesn’t mean they have a higher willingness to pay for every product or service.

The positive moderating effect of perceived newness on the positive relation between consumer innovativeness and the willingness to pay contributes to the literature. So far literature discussed innovators’ motivation for seeking new information and how that

subsequently leads to actual innovation adoption. In this thesis, innovators are not searching for new information themselves, they are confronted with a newness signal. This means that it is not only the novelty seeking that interests innovators, it is an interest in novelty overall.

5.3 Managerial implications

Through this research, it has been proven that innovators and hipsters are two different

consumer groups. Based on the scales developed to measure consumer innovativeness and the degree to which the consumer is a hipster, an innovator’s ultimate interest lies in newness, whilst a hipsters primary interest is uniqueness. Knowing this, marketers can insure that they appeal to the interests of the consumer group they are targeting.

(35)

35

Based on the results of the hypotheses, it is found that there are no significant effects of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness to pay. The fact that there was no

significant relationship found indicates that, in the restaurant industry, these signals make no difference. Therefore, it is assumed that within this sector, consumers need to be targeted with different signals. According to literature, mainstream goods do have a positive influence on consumers for several reasons. Only mentioning that a good is mainstream might not result in the same effect as a good that has truly become mainstream in practice (by an increased sales volume and awareness). Therefore, it is assumed that companies should also use symbolic signals, related to a certain lifestyle or identity, in their external communication. This is an interesting topic for future research.

Additional analyses found significant positive effects of consumer innovativeness and the degree to which the consumer is a hipster on the willingness to pay. For companies, especially the marketing and sales department, it could be interesting to target these two consumer groups. They are able to help a company to get started during the introduction stage by adopting their products. This is financially beneficial, but also increases the awareness among other consumers. Furthermore, a significant positive moderation effect of a newness signal on the positive relation of innovators and hipsters on the willingness to pay is found. Based on this result, companies might consider to use newness signals in their communication and strategy. They can attract innovators’ and hipsters’ attention by using these signals. This is not only an opportunity for companies during the introduction stage: companies that have products which have already reached the maturity stage could, for example, think of

promoting changes, adjustments or new additions.

5.4 Limitations and further research

This research has several limitations that should be taken into account. Some of these limitations result in suggestions for further research. In this current research, the hypotheses

(36)

36

did not result in statistically significant findings. This implies that no effects were found of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness to pay. This could mean that there are no effects, but it could also mean that the research design was not appropriate to measure these effects.

The first limitation of this research is on the dataset that is non-normally distributed. This could mean that the results can’t be translated to conclusions for the entire population or, in this case, consumer group or culture.

The second limitation of this research is the mainstream treatment. The mainstream signal in this research was simulated by the text ‘visited by a wide audience’. Even though the

pre-test showed effectiveness of the signal, it appeared that the mainstream signal was probably not well recognized by the respondents. Further, literature describes that a

mainstream product or service could lead to increased buying behavior because of the quality it signals but also because of increased awareness (Elliott & Watttanasuwan, 1998). This increased awareness arises because the product is more prevalent in the environment and allows more confrontation. In the auction only a quality signal is provided and might not be as useful as the combination of multiple elements that a mainstream product or service in

practice contains. In addition, a product could become mainstream because, for example, adoption by a style leader or media paying extra attention. This can result in an increased interest among consumers because of their interest in the identity or status that the product or service now represents. This emphasizes that only adding a mainstream signal might not be able to create the same effect of a good that becomes mainstream in practice. This could be an explanation for the non-significant result of the third hypothesis.

A third limitation of this research is the empirical setting ‘restaurants’. In general, people are aware of the value of a dinner and therefore might bid an amount reflective of this leading to many equal bids. Other explanations for low- or zero bids could be the presence of

(37)

37

participants who don’t like Asian food or going out for dinner in general. Also, a 4-course dinner might differ from the effects of products because it is experience driven rather than tangible. A dinner probably leads to different associations and expectations than a tangible product. Further research should test if there are stronger effects for, for example, a highly innovative product.

Netemeyer et al. (2004) suggest that, among others, perceived quality has a direct influence on the willingness to pay. This might be another point of discussion. In the auction, a picture of the restaurant rather than of the food is used. Therefore, respondents might be unable to establish any expectations concerning the quality of the food.

The focus of this research is mainly on innovativeness and newness, while hipsters want to distinct themselves from others in any possible way. This could mean that they also have a high interest in products that are located in the last stages of the PLC; the decline or cancellation stage. In these stages, consumers and mainstreamers are tired and bored of the product. This could be a cue for hipsters, to re-adopt the product again. This can lead to interesting insights for companies. Further research is recommended.

(38)

38

6. Conclusion

The aim of this research was to expand current knowledge of the effects of quality signals, specifically new- and mainstream signals, on the willingness to pay. In addition, this paper examined whether these effects differ for innovators and hipsters. Four hypotheses were designed to collect data on the topic and eventually answer the research question. Current research fails to provide support for the hypotheses. However, this research attempts to draw attention to the need of further investigation on the current topic. In addition, a reliable hipster scale is developed which could be very useful in other studies.

To date, the research question ‘what is the effect of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness to pay, and how is this influenced by consumer innovativeness and the degree to which the consumer is a hipster?’ is not yet answered. Current study was unable to provide support for any effect of the signals on the willingness to pay. Future research should further investigate this topic.

Referring back to the opening of this thesis ‘because a certain lifestyle can be

achieved by consumption, consumption needs to be adjusted to the desirable identity’, it is yet

to be fully established which signals a product must emit to be desirable to innovators and hipsters.

(39)

39

7. Acknowledgements

I would like to thank several people who have helped me to make this thesis become a reality. It was a process of trial and error and would not have been possible without the help of the following:

 Bram Kuijken, my thesis supervisor, who has been a great support during brainstorm

sessions and provided me with feedback and assistance throughout the entire process.

 Veylinx, especially Anouar El Haji, who let me make use of Veylinx to conduct my

data.



Vijfnulvijf, in particular Joost Hu and Jan Hu, who allowed me to use their 4-course dinners for my auctions on Veylinx and provided me with the necessary materials.



My parents, boyfriend and friends, for always believing in me, supporting, and motivating me during my entire study.

To buy, or not to buy? : the effect of new- and mainstream signals on the willingness-to-pay, influenced by consumer innovativeness and the degree of hipsterness : restaurant industry