Consumers, retailers and the

adoption of innovation.
What is the role of retailer brand equity in the consumer’s adoption decision?

Rens Verweij (1839829)

Faculty of economics and business administration

Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Master thesis

Supervisor: Dr. E.A. Mooi

July 2010
Rens Verweij, 2010
2
 Management summary
Despite of extensive previous research, innovation adoption is still a subject that brings up
questions. It frequently happens that a new product isn’t purchased by consumers, despite of the
benefits the new product has to offer (Gourville; 2006). One of the limitations that
manufacturers face in convincing their consumers to adopt the innovation, is that the
manufacturer does not sell the innovation directly to the end-consumer. Most products are sold
indirectly through retailers (Baldauf et al.; 2009). The retailer has an important role in the
quality assessment and the risk reduction of consumers in the purchase decision for common
products. Especially in situations in which consumers perceive a high level of risk or uncertainty,
consumers are inclined to use their retailers’ image as an important decision determinant in
their purchasing decision (Chu & Chu; 1994). A situation with a high degree of uncertainty, and
therefore high risk, is the purchase of an innovation. However, despite of extensive literature
that describes the influence of the retailer on the consumers’ purchase decision for common and
know products, no previous research looked into the influence of the retailer on the consumer’s
adoption of innovation. This research therefore aimed on answering the following research
question:

‘What is the influence of the retailers’ reputation on the consumers’ evaluation of the perceived
attributes of an innovation?’

To answer this question, we conducted an experiment that researched the influence of the
Retailer brand equity level of the retailer that sells the innovation, on the evaluation of the
innovation attributes described by Rogers (1995) and Ostlund (1974). We hypothesized that
consumers perceive the innovation attributes more positive when the perceived Retailer brand
equity was high. This assumption was based on literature about the effects in consumer-retailer
interaction. This showed that consumers use the retailer brand name as a heuristic in quality
assessment and risk reduction. The literature study provided sufficient evidence to hypothesize
that consumers perceive the Compatibility, Relative advantage, Observability and Trialability of
the innovation as higher when the innovation was sold through a retailer with High Retailer
brand equity. In the contrary, we predicted the scores for Complexity and Perceived risk to be
lower when the innovation was sold through a retailer with High Retailer brand equity. We also
hypothesize that this effect implies for the attitude toward the whole innovation by the
evaluation of all the innovation attributes together. In addition, we also found a theoretical basis
for expecting that the perceived product-category fit of the retailer would moderate the previous
mentioned effects. We therefore hypothesized that the innovation attributes will be evaluated
more positive when the retailer’s product-category also is seen as having a good and logic fit
with the product-category fit of the innovation.

Rens Verweij, 2010

3
To measure the effects we hypothesized, we developed four conditions in which we manipulated
the retailer’s level of Retailer brand equity and perceived product-category fit. We manipulated
these effects by using existing retailers for which we assumed to meet the desirable condition.
We confirmed these assumptions by measuring the levels of Retailer brand equity and perceived
product-category fit of all four existing retailer in the pretest. This pretest confirmed our
assumptions and the four conditions were represented by the four following retailers:

- Retailer with high retail brand equity and a high product category fit: Bol.com
- Retailer with low retail brand equity and a high product category fit: Ereaderstore.nl
- Retailer with high retail brand equity and a low product category fit: Albert.nl
- Retailer with low retail brand equity and a low product category fit: Yourlookforless.nl

The main analysis was conducted via an online questionnaire that surveyed the six perceived
innovation attributes in all four conditions. We primed every condition with cues of the retailer
that we used as example for that condition. The goal of this analysis was to find different
responses in the evaluation of the perceived innovation attributes. By finding significant
differences between the evaluations of the perceived innovation attributes across all four
conditions, we are able to conclude if our assumed hypotheses are valid.

The collected data and analysis showed support for several of the developed hypotheses. We did
not found significant differences between the samples for Relative advantage, Compatibility,
Complexity and Trialability. However, we did find significant differences for Perceived risk and
Observability. We also found significant difference for the perception of all the attributes
together between the high- and low Retailer brand equity conditions. Despite theoretical
foundation, we did not found proof to conclude that the perceived product-category fit of the
retailer with the innovation moderates the effects.

These results led us to conclude that the retailer is capable to affect the consumer’s perception
about the innovation. The degree of retailer brand equity affects certain attributes in the
consumer’s evaluation of the innovation attributes (Perceived risk and Observability). The
higher the consumer perceives the retailer brand equity to be of the retailer that sells the
innovation, the more positive these attributes are evaluated. We also found that previous
interaction with the retailer will stimulate this effect. These results contributes to the current
academic literature by showing that there are ‘mediators’ in the adoption process that can
enhance the likelihood of innovation adoption. It will also enable managers of retailers and
manufacturers to enhance their knowledge about the successful implementation of the
innovation.

Rens Verweij, 2010

4
 Table of content

Management summary ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Problem statement and research question ................................................................................................ 9
1.3 Delimitations ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Contribution ..........................................................................................................................................................10
1.5 Purpose and structure.......................................................................................................................................11
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework .....................................................................................................................12
2.1 Consumer-Retailer interaction ......................................................................................................................12
2.2 Adoption of innovation .....................................................................................................................................19
2.3 Product fit and retailer image ........................................................................................................................28
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................................................30
3.1 Type of research ..................................................................................................................................................30
3.2 Research design ...................................................................................................................................................31
3.2.1 Research subject: Ebook-reader .............................................................................................................31
3.2.2 Pretest ..............................................................................................................................................................31
3.2.3 Main analysis .................................................................................................................................................32
3.3 Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................................32
3.3.1 Questionnaire outline .................................................................................................................................32
3.3.2 Manipulations ...............................................................................................................................................34
3.3.3 Dependent variables ...................................................................................................................................35
3.4 Data collection ......................................................................................................................................................36
3.5 Sample......................................................................................................................................................................36
3.6 Data analysis .........................................................................................................................................................37
3.6.1 Pre-analysis....................................................................................................................................................37
3.6.2 Pre-test ............................................................................................................................................................39
3.6.3 Main analysis .................................................................................................................................................40
Chapter 4: Results.........................................................................................................................................................43
4.1 Pretest ......................................................................................................................................................................43
4.1.1 Factor analysis ..............................................................................................................................................43
4.1.2 Reliability ........................................................................................................................................................43
4.1.3 Data test: Kruskal-Wallis ..........................................................................................................................44

Rens Verweij, 2010

5
 4.1.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................47
4.2 Main analysis.........................................................................................................................................................48
4.2.1 Sample characteristics ...............................................................................................................................48
4.2.2 Factor analysis ..............................................................................................................................................49
4.2.3 Reliability ........................................................................................................................................................49
4.2.4 Hypothesis ......................................................................................................................................................50
Chapter 5: Conclusion and discussion...............................................................................................................56
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................56
5.2 Discussion...............................................................................................................................................................60
5.2.1 Academic contribution...............................................................................................................................60
5.2.2 Managerial contribution...........................................................................................................................61
5.2.3 Limitations & suggestions for further research ................................................................................62
References ........................................................................................................................................................................64
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................................68

Rens Verweij, 2010

6
 Chapter 1: Introduction

In this chapter, we will explain the ambition, purpose and direction of this research. A brief
introduction of the research will be presented. This will be followed by the problem statement
and the research question. After this, the contributions, academic as well the managerial
relevance and the delimitations of the study will be explained. The chapter is concluded with the
purpose of the research and a brief description of the content of the rest of the study.

1.1 Introduction

“Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so much, to so many, in so short a time.”
(Bill Gates, Founder of Microsoft)

This quote, by one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the last decade, emphasizes the
important role of innovations nowadays. Successful innovations can boost the revenues, sales
and profit-margins of organizations. That is why almost every organization strives to find the
new Windows, Ipod or Color-TV.

Finding the best way of introducing these new products has motivated an extensive amount of
marketing academics to conduct research in the field of adoption of innovations by consumers
(Henard & Szymanski, 2001; Arts, 2008; Boyd & Mason, 1999). Within the adoption literature,
the role of the ‘middlemen’ that sells the product to the consumers received less attention. It is
however known that the retailers’ reputation is used as a signal for product quality (Chu & Chu,
1994; Dawar & Parker, 1994; Chu et al, 2005; Corkindale & Belder; 2009;). Therefore, this
research follows the premise that the retailers’ brand equity affects the consumers’ adoption
decision of an innovation.

The purchase of an innovation is a difficult task for a consumer. The consumer has no prior
experience with the product to base their opinion on and is therefore incapable to make a
judgment about the quality and usefulness of the product before the purchase. In these
situations, consumers are engaged to rely on heuristics. Several marketing- and economic
scholars have found signals that consumers rely on heuristics when: the perceived risk of the
purchase is high (Olson; 1977), the consumer has limited knowledge about the product and
therefore is unable to assess the quality (Rao & Monroe; 1988) and the product is too complex to
make a fair judgment about the quality (Honch & Ha; 1986).

The decision process for innovations is marked by all these three issues for which consumers
rely on heuristics. Interestingly, Dawar & Parker (1994) identified the retailers’ reputation as an
important heuristic that consumers use for the quality assessment of a product. The vital role of
the retailers’ reputation is supported by Purohit & Srivastava (2001) who state that “retailer

Rens Verweij, 2010

7
reputation also plays an important role in many purchases, as retailers provide the interface
between consumers and manufacturers”. Bhatnagar et al. (2000) found proof that consumers
reduce their perceived risk in purchasing risky product by selecting retailers that minimize their
risk of buying.

The link to the adoption of an innovation is therefore easily made because the reduction of the
perceived risk of an innovation is one of the antecedents that consumers use in evaluating the
innovation. Ostlund (1974) and Bauer (1960) added Perceived risk to the five attributes that
Rogers (1995) described. The other attributes are Relative advantage, Compatibility,
Complexity, Trialability and Observability. These antecedents are called the Perceived
innovation attributes and are developed to describe the criteria that potential adopters use to
evaluate the innovation and have been proved to give a good indication of the consumers’
willingness to adopt the innovation (Holak & Lehmann, 1990; Arts, 2008).

Despite of previous research, innovation adoption is still a subject that brings up questions. It
frequently happens that a new product isn’t purchased by consumers despite of the benefits the
new product has to offer (Gourville; 2006). Sivadas & Dwyer (2000) state that nearly fifty
percent of the innovation-introductions fail to accomplish success. The main reason for this is
that manufactures of innovative products are not able to convince consumers to implement the
new product in their daily routine (Biyalogorsky, Boulding & Staelin; 2006).

One of the limitations that manufacturers face in convincing their consumers is that they often
don’t sell the innovation directly to the consumer. Most products are sold indirectly through
retailers (Baldauf et al.; 2009). As mentioned before, the retailer has a significant role in the
quality assessment and the risk reduction of consumers. Especially in situations in which
consumers perceive a high level of risk or uncertainty, consumers are inclined to use their
retailers’ image as an important decision determinant in their purchasing decision (Chu & Chu;
1994). A situation in which consumers perceive high levels of uncertainty and risk is in online
shopping. In an online retail setting, consumers lack the ability to evaluate the retailer based on
environmental and tangible factors. It is known that the physical environment in a traditional
retail store affects the consumers purchasing behavior and influences behavioral shopping
outcomes (Donovan et al.; 1994) However, despite of research about the effect of online
environmental cues (Eroglu et al.; 2001), there is no research that specifically address the role of
the online retailing environment in the consumers’ willingness of adoption.

Taking the previous into account, it is possible to make the assumption that the sales-
environment of an innovation can enhance/ decrease the willingness of the innovation adoption.

Rens Verweij, 2010

8
1.2 Problem statement and research question

So to sum up the previous paragraph, despite of extensive literature that described the role of
the retailer on the consumers’ behavior, no previous research investigated the direct influence
of the retailers’ reputation on the consumers’ perceived image of the innovations’ attributes. In
this research, we would like to address this gap in the current literature. The research question
that follows from this all is:

What is the influence of the retailers’ reputation on the consumers’ evaluation of the perceived
attributes of an innovation?

In addition, the attitude toward the products of in the retailer’s assortment is influenced by the
consumer’s perception of the “breadth of different products offered by a retailer under one roof”
(Ailawadi & Keller; 2004). Inman et al. (2004) showed that consumers connect certain types of
products with a belonging type of channel. They state that there are certain product categories
that have ‘signature’ associations with a specific channel. For example, Peanut butter is
associated with supermarkets whereas Cars are associated with special automobile dealers. So,
consumers will not be motivated to buy peanut butter at the automobile dealer and will not be
eager to buy their car in the supermarket. We hypothesize that this also implies for Ebook-
readers. We think that consumers perceive Ebook-readers to belong to bookstores and not to
retailers with other kinds of product-categories. Based on these findings and also exploring the
brand extension literature (Chowdhury; 2007, Aaker & Keller; 1990), we would therefore also
like to research the moderating role of the perceived product-category fit of the retailer with the
product-category of the innovation.

1.3 Delimitations

The adoption literature is too broad to research the whole phenomena. Therefore, this research
reflects a fenced area within the literature. It will specifically investigate the influence of the
retailer on the adoption decision of a consumer. It will therefore not address the adoption
decisions of organizations or the adoption decisions in a B2B environment. It will address the
perspective of the consumer that evaluates the innovation within a B2C environment.
Innovation adoption is a difficult process that consists of several stages (For a review, see
Gatignon & Robertson; 1991). This research will focus on the consumers’ intention to adopt the
innovation. According to Arts (2008), adoption intention refers to “a consumer’s expressed
desire to purchase a new product in the near future. It reflects the consumer’s state of mind
before actual purchase behavior has occurred, and is based on the information and perceptions
that s/he has at that time.” Because this research tries to identify the decision process of the
consumers before the actual purchase, adoption intention is the appropriate focus of this

Rens Verweij, 2010

9
research. The perceived innovation attributes (Rogers; 1995) are taken as subject for the
measurement of the adoption intention.

The influence of the retailer is measured by its retailer brand equity. It will not explain the effect
of distinct retailer attributes such as location, price, environment, etc. It will limit itself by
explaining the effect of the several constructs in the Retailer brand equity scale developed by
Pappu & Quester (2006).

1.4 Contribution

Our interest to add knowledge and understanding about the adoption of innovations is created
by Vasileiou et al. (2009). The object we will use as example of an innovation is the Ebook-
reader. Vasileiou et al. (2009) described that the successful adoption of the Ebook-reader will
have revolutionary implications for several players in the retail chain, e.g. users, retailers,
libraries, publishers and copyright regulation. That the Ebook-reader is actually adopted by
consumers is not certain at all. Sivadas & Dwyer (2000) state that nearly fifty percent of the
innovation-introductions fail to accomplish success. So, researching and revealing factors that
play a role in the consumer’s adoption of an Ebook-reader and finding evidence that this also
accounts for all other innovations, is therefore interesting. Vasileiou et al. (2009) state that it is
crucial that further research takes existing knowledge and models into account in order to
explain the adoption of innovation as good as possible.

Academic relevance

As we mentioned before, consumers are finding themselves more and more in retailing
situations and most manufacturers of innovations sell their merchandise through retailers
(Baldauf et al; 2009). The academic relevance of researching consumer phenomena within the
retailing context is emphasized by the editorial of Hardesty & Bearden (2009). Their Journal of
Retailing paid special attention to the consumer behavior within the retailing context in 2009,
because they want to promote and encourage marketing scholars to research the way
consumers use the retailer for their purchase decisions. Therefore, we want to explain the role of
the retailer in the adoption process. Our research will add academic knowledge in this field by
researching how the retailer’s brand equity affects the consumer’s adoption decision. In
addition, this research will provide ground for further research by providing evidence that
consumers evaluate products different among retailers with different levels of retailer brand
equity. This way, this research will not only bring up questions in the field of innovation
adoption but also in the field of brand equity research.

Managerial relevance

Rens Verweij, 2010

10
The managerial relevance for this research is twofold. It can have implications for the
manufacturer of the innovation, as well as for the retailer that sells the innovation. By providing
evidence that consumers evaluate innovations differential when the innovation is sold through a
high brand equity retailer, can encourage manufacturers with an unknown brand to sell their
innovation through high equity retailers. This way the innovation has the biggest chance of being
successful. It will also persuade manufacturers to adapt the retailer as a serious factor in the
introduction-plan of the innovation resulting that the advertising costs of introducing the
innovation can be reduced (Porter; 1974). This research takes a look into online retailing.
Prognoses state that the number of consumers that purchase their goods through online
retailing will grow rapidly in the near future. (Forrester Research; 2010). It will therefore also
provide ground for manufacturers to consider selling their innovation through this new channel
and allows it to benefit from the potential growth.

As this research tries to conduct conclusions that can benefit manufacturers, the findings can
also improve the performance of the retailer that offers the innovation. The results can show the
importance of the retailer’s degree of retailer brand equity. If it shows that consumers evaluate
the products of retailers with high retailer brand equity more positive, it can imply that retailers
should gain more retailer brand equity. Retailers with high retailer brand equity can also decide
to launch the innovation under the brand name of the retailer to enhance the chance of success.

Research has also shown that retailers loose profit when their assortment includes products that
aren’t purchased by their consumers (Simonson; 1999). Cutting out twenty percent of the
assortment will save millions of dollars (Ailawadi & Keller; 2004). In addition, products that fail
to attract the interest of the consumers are causing a decrease of the consumers’ favorable
attitude toward the retailer (Ailawadi & Keller; 2004). The findings of this research will
therefore give retailers directions about their decision whether they will offer certain
innovations to their consumers.

1.5 Purpose and structure

The purpose of this research is to provide a solid theoretical foundation for the influence of
retailer brand equity on the consumers’ adoption decision. The following chapter will describe
why we expect the retailer’s role as a influential on the consumers decision process. We do this
by describing existing literature. The third chapter will describe the methodology of this
research. It will show how we translated the research question and the hypothesis into a
research design that will allow us to draw conclusions. The outcomes and results of this
methodology will be discussed in the fourth chapter. This thesis will end by drawing conclusion
and a discussion of the found results.

Rens Verweij, 2010

11
 Chapter 2: Theoretical framework

In this theoretical framework, we will show how we developed our research question and
describe the current theory that supports this premise. We will also describe the constructs that
will be used in the research and the definition of the variables. We will first explain how
consumers use the retailer as a heuristic for merchandise quality, risk reduction and social/
psychological risk reduction. Thereby, we will explain why we use the retailer’s brand equity
variable for the measurement for the four research conditions. In the second part of this
framework, we will develop our hypothesis combining the adoption of innovation literature with
our findings of the consumer-retailer interaction literature.

2.1 Consumer-Retailer interaction

Retailers spend a lot of money and effort on convincing the consumer of their power, quality and
service. They develop TV-commercials, set up projects to bond with the consumer and a variety
of other marketing mix elements. A very important marketing tool is the store environment
itself. Kotler (1973) state that “the store itself can offer a unique atmosphere and environment
that may influence the consumer’s patronage decision.” In addition, the retailing environment is
very important because of the frequency of the consumers’ interaction with the store
environment. During almost all household purchases, consumers find themselves in a retailer
environment (Sarel; 1981) and therefore most purchase decisions are made within a retailing
context (Keller; 1987).

It is well known that perceptions about an object is affected by what is associated with that
object (Aaker; 2007). Because consumers don’t already have perceptions of an innovation, the
associations that can be formed about the innovation are very important for consumers. Because
innovations are often evaluated in a retailer setting, we predict that the retailer environment has
some effect on the consumers’ adoption decision. However, current literature has lacked to
explore the context of the environment were the adoption decision takes place. We will
therefore first explain how the retailer affects the consumers’ perception of the products quality,
risk and social/ psychological risk.

There are two main streams of research about the role of the retailer in a consumer’s perception
about the retailer’s merchandise. One stream focuses on in-store attributes and the other stream
focuses on the retailer’s reputation. Purohit & Srivastava (2001) labels the two previous
mentioned conceptualizations as High scope versus Low scope cues. They state that these cues
enable consumers to determine the product’s quality. According to them, high scope cues are
cues “that evolve over time such that their valence cannot be changed instantaneously.” The
retailer’s reputation is an example of such a high scope cue. In contrast, low scope cues are

Rens Verweij, 2010

12
“transient in nature such that their valence can be changed relatively quickly and inexpensively”.
Low scope cues can be things like free trial offers, warranties, etc. Purohit & Srivastava (2001)
states that low scope cues are more powerful in assessing the product’s quality, in situations
where High scope cues are evaluated positive. So, if the retailer’s reputation is perceived as
positive by consumers they should be more inclined to evaluate the low scope cues as positive.

Baker, Grewal & Parasuraman (1994) also provide evidence for the role of Low scope cues on
the consumer’s product evaluation. They highlight the importance of elements in the store
environment. According to several marketing scholars, an important role of the store
environment is providing cues to consumers that inform them about the quality of the products
and the service (Zeithaml; 1988, Olson; 1977, Mazursky & Jacoby; 1986, Kerin et al.; 1992).
Baker (1986) identified three broad groups of environmental cues that affect the product quality
perception of consumer: Ambient-, social- and design factors. Ambient factors include elements
like the store’s music, lightning and smell. Social elements involve the personnel of the retailer,
whereas design factors represent elements like the store’s layout, colors & signs (Baker, Grewal
& Parasuraman; 1994).

In this research we will not focus on the low scope cues, but rather on the high scope cues. We
are aiming to discover the role of the (online) retailer on the consumer’s adoption decision. In an
online retail environment, consumers aren’t confronted with tangible, low scope cues that
enables them to assess the products quality (Eroglu, Machleit & Davis; 2001). So, in online
retailing situations, the retailer’s reputation is important for the consumers to evaluate the
product quality and to reduce the perceived risk (Bhatnagar et al; 2000, Chu et al.; 2005).
Therefore, the theoretical framework will be limit to find previous literature that shows the
influence of ‘high-scope cues’ on the product’s evaluation.

Quality inferences

Manufacturers without any prior established corporate reputation (or brand equity) can offer a
very good product with several advantages over the established product, but still fail in the
marketplace. Corkindale & Belder (2009) state that this is a direct effect caused by the new
organization’s lack of intangible assets such as brand equity or corporate reputation. Reputation
is “an aggregate composite of all previous transactions over the life of the entity, a historical
notion and requires consistency of an entity’s actions over a prolonged time” (Herbig &
Milewicz; 1997). Reputation is important for the success probability of the firms’ actions.
Shapiro (1982) showed that a positive reputation has a direct positive relationship with the
firms’ revenue. This is mainly driven by the effect of reputation on the consumer’s perceived risk
and perceived quality (Shapiro & Moriarty; 1982).

Rens Verweij, 2010

13
Retailers also hold a reputation among consumers. Consumers use the retailer’s reputation for
assessing the perceived quality and risk of purchasing product of that retailer. Wei Ming Ou et al.
(2006) state that consumers perceive retailers with good reputations as “among other things,
ethical, offer customer good value, communicate honestly and are well managed”. Consumers
that hold a positive retailer reputation are more loyal to that retailer (Nguyen & Leblanc; 2001),
have higher shopping expenditure and are willing to travel further to visit the store (Wei Ming
Ou et al.; 2006)

What differentiates the retailer’s reputation from the manufacturer’s reputation is that
consumers use the retailer’s reputation as a tool to assess the quality of the manufacturer’s
product (Dawar & Parker; 1994). Several studies have reported evidence for the positive
relation between the retailer’s reputation and the increased purchase intentions of products
(Dodds et al.; 1991, Grewal et al.; 1998). The increased purchase intentions are mainly caused by
the increased quality perception of the products. Several scholars have showed that favorable
store reputation increases the consumer’s quality perception about the products that they sell
(Jacoby & Mazursky; 1985, Chu et al; 2005, Biglaiser & Friedmann; 1994).

In light of our research, Chu & Chu (1994) researched the effect of selling a product via a
reputable retailer. They found proof that unknown products are ‘renting’ the retailer’s
reputation to signal product quality. This is caused by the fact that consumer’s believe that
manufacturers of high quality products will sell their products through a retailer with a good
reputation and that the retailer will assess the quality of the product and will only sell products
that deliver high value and high quality. As we see it, the consumer rely on the retailer as a
‘Gatekeeper’ (or as Chu & Chu label it: Quality certifier) to make sure that they only get
acquainted with high quality products in their retailing environment.

In their research, Chu et al. (2005) describe the use of extrinsic cues by consumers to assess the
products quality. They support the previous findings by stating that the retailer’s reputation is
an extrinsic cue. Their findings also show that consumers are more dependent on extrinsic cues
when they have to buy quickly, when they have difficulty assessing the quality of the product its
attributes or when they have no prior experience with or knowledge about the product
(Zeithaml; 1988).

To summarize the previous section, we can conclude that the product that is sold through a
reputable retailer is perceived by consumers as having higher quality. Especially when the
consumers have no prior experience with or knowledge about the product or when they find it
hard to assess the product’s quality.

Rens Verweij, 2010

14
Risk reduction

With every purchase, consumers perceive some level of risk (Cox; 1967). The perceived risk of
consumer can take several forms. Types of risks that consumer perceive are financial-, product-
and performance risk. In accordance with this research, we reduce the several types to two
categories: product-related risk and psychosocial risk. In this section we will discuss the product
related risk. The psychosocial risk is discussed in a separate section.

Several strategies are applied in marketing to reduce the consumer’s level of perceived risk, such
as brand reputation, warranty and product trial (Tan; 1999). The strategy we like to focus on is
the retailer’s reputation. Several marketing scholars acknowledge the importance for consumers
to use the retailer’s reputation in order to reduce the perceived risk of their purchase with the
retailer (Roselius; 1971; Hawes & Lumpkin; 1986, Mitchell; 1998). Purohit & Svriastava (2001)
stated that selling the product via a retailer with a good reputation, provides the consumer with
more assurance about the product performance. This is mainly driven by the perception that
consumers are able to return the product to a good retailer in case of product failure or
dissatisfaction.

Olson (1977) found that consumers use a heuristic in case they perceive high purchasing risks.
One of these heuristic is the retailer’s reputation. In online retailing, consumers perceive more
risk than in offline purchasing. The absence of a tangible store environment and the
impossibility of trying out the product increases the consumer’s uncertainty about the product’s
value and quality (Chu, Choi & Song; 2005). So, consumers are more inclined to use the retailer’s
reputation in an online retail environment as a patronage tool against possible risks (Tan; 1999).
This is supported by research of Bhatnagar et al. (2000) and Korgaonkar (1982) that say that
consumers “reduce their purchase risk by selecting risky products at stores that minimize their
risk of buying”(Korgaonkar et al.; 2006).

To summarize the previous section, we can say that consumers use the retailer’s reputation as a
heuristic to reduce the perceived risk of their purchase. The better the perceived reputation, the
less the consumer perceive risk.

Social- and psychological risk reduction

As we mentioned before, we explain the role of social- and psychological risk in a separate
section. We pay special attention to this type of risk because of th close relationship with two of
the Perceived Innovation Attributes (compatibility and perceived risk), as we will discuss later.

Rens Verweij, 2010

15
When consumers are uncertain about the opinion of their social environment (like friends,
family) and how they will judge the purchase, consumers perceive psychological and social risk.
Social- and psychological risk not only applies to the purchased product, but also to the retailer
because “where one shops can be socially judged as much as what one buys” (Mitchell; 1998).

Research has also showed that a consumer’s attitude toward a product is affected by the fit
between the product’s user image and the image the consumer holds about itself (Sirgy; 1982).
The product symbolic cues represent the user’s self-concept. For example, BMW is seen as
bragging whereas Volvo is seen as confined. This is not only limited to products. Also retailers
can represent some congruence with the self-image. For example, consumers that do their
groceries at Albert Heijn perceive themselves to be different than consumers that do their
groceries at Lidl. Sirgy et al. (2000) explain this as “shoppers perceive stores differently in terms
of the store’s typical clientele or patrons.” The greater the match between the consumers self
image and the image they hold about the clientele of the retailer, the more positive the attitude
toward the retailer is. This is of course a very subjective dimension and is different for every
consumer. However, certain factors such as age and culture are less subjective. The improved
compatibility of the retailer with one’s self image will result in an increased purchase intention
of the products, because it reduces the social risk of the purchase (Dodds et al; 1991).

Prasad (1975) showed that consumers perceive ‘socioeconomic product risk’ when making a
purchase decision. They state that when a product is perceived as having a high level of
socioeconomic risk, consumers are inclined to transfer this to the retail store that sells it. In such
situations, consumers are tending to use the retailer image as a risk-handling strategy (Perry &
Hamm; 1969). Consumers are than able to defend their purchase to other members of their
social environment by relying on the reputable image of the retailer. Perry & Hamm (1969) also
found that the perceived social risk was more important than the economic risk. So, when a
consumer perceives a high level of socioeconomic risk, consumers use the retailer to mediate
that risk.

To summarize the previous section, we can conclude that the retailer affects the consumer’s
perceived social- and psychological risk. The more the consumer sees the retailer as ‘matching’
with their self image and the more consumers can defend their purchase to other members of
their social environment, the less they perceive social- and psychological risk. This will then lead
to increased purchase intention of the products.

Rens Verweij, 2010

16
Research condition: Retailer brand equity

In the previous review of the current literature, we acknowledged the effect of the retailer’s
reputation on the customer’s product perception. In this research, we use the Retailer brand
equity to measure the retailer’s reputation. Erdem & Swait (1998) provide a foundation for this
assumption. In their research they state that brand equity is used as a “signal of the product’s
position that increases the perceived quality, decreases information costs and perceived risk for
consumers”. They also show that brand equity involves the credibility of the brand. When
consumers think the claims that the brand makes are credible, they will perceive more brand
equity. We think that this credibility is very important in the adoption of an innovation because,
as we stated before, consumers are unable to assess the product based on knowledge from their
own experience. Credibility from high-scope cues, like retailer reputation, is therefore more
important. This assumption is supported by Christodoulides et al. (2006). They state that a
credible brand signals customer value by reducing information search costs, reducing perceived
risk and the creation of positive attribute perceptions.

In addition, brand equity is not limited by only reflecting the retailer’s reputation. Although
there is allot of discussion about the antecedents of brand equity, most of the researchers agree
about the multi-dimensional character of brand equity (Yoo & Donthu; 2001).

We chose the model of Pappu & Quester (2006a) to explain the retailer brand equity. This
decision was followed after several considerations. First, Pappu & Quester (2006a) developed a
brand equity model especially for retailer equity. Although there has been allot of research on
brand equity, there is less known about the retailer’s brand equity. Ailawadi & Keller (2004)
already stated that despite of several important branding implications of regular brand equity
theory on retailer brand equity theory, it is distinct in several ways. We therefore think it is
essential to use the Retailer equity variable, so we can increase the validity of this research.

Secondly, research by Rios & Riquelme (2008) showed that there were no significant differences
in measuring online brand equity and offline brand equity. We could therefore also rely on an
offline brand equity model to measure the brand equity of the online retailers in our research.
Several researches on retailer brand equity were how based on low-scope cues like store access,
store atmosphere, pricing and service quality (Ailawadi & Keller; 2004, Arnett et al; 2003). Like
we mentioned before, this research involves online retailer and people rely more on high-scope
cues in the online retail environment. Pappu & Quester (2006a) did focus on high-scope cues
that are applicable for online retailing.

Rens Verweij, 2010

17
Third, the model of Pappu & Quester (2006a) was closest to the most influential brand equity
models developed by Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993). Pappu & Quester (2006a) define retailer
brand equity the same as Aaker (1991): “the value consumers associate with a retailer, as
reflected in the dimensions of retailer awareness, retailer associations, retailer perceived quality
and retailer loyalty.” Like the definition reveals, the model consists of four dimensions. We used
these four dimensions for measuring the consumer’s retailer brand equity and we will describe
their effect on the retailer’s brand equity shortly.

Retailer awareness involves the consumer’s capability to recognize certain characteristics about
the retailer, like the retailer product-category or the store name. Baldauf et al. (2009) express
the importance of retailer awareness on the retailer’s brand equity by saying that “the trade has
less uncertainty dealing with a proven brand name that has already achieved recognition and
association”. Jinfeng & Zhilong (2009) say that retailer awareness also increases the likelihood
that the retailer will be included in the consideration set of the consumers. So, an increase in
retailer awareness should decrease the perceived risk of the consumers and will increase the ir
purchase intention.

Retailer associations are all the attributes and benefits of the retailer that are linked to the
retailer’s name in the mind of the consumer (Keller; 1993). Retailer associations can contribute
to a higher retailer brand equity because it provides the consumer with more information about
the retailer, like the quality and the commitment of the retailer (Jinfeng & Zhilong; 2009). It is
not just important that consumers have associations about the retailer, but it is more important
that these associations are strong and provide consumer with a clear reason to buy (Baldauf et
al; 2009).

Perceived retailer quality is defined as “a consumer’s judgment about a retailer’s overall

excellence or superiority” (Zeithaml; 1988). As the definition expresses, it isn’t a neutral
assessment of the retailer’s quality but it show the quality perception in the mind of the
consumer. The relationship between a consumer’s perceived retailer quality and the increase in
retailer brand equity is obvious. The higher the perceived quality, the more brand equity the
consumer perceives.

Retailer loyalty is defined as “the tendency to be loyal to a retailer as demonstrated by the

intention to buy from a retailer as a primary choice”(Pappu & Quester: 2006b). Pappu & Quester
(2006a) see retailer loyalty as a dimension of retailer brand equity, whereas others see it as a
consequence of higher retailer equity (Jinfeng & Zhilong; 2009). However, we chose to include
loyalty as a dimension of retailer brand equity because several other brand equity scholars also

Rens Verweij, 2010

18
found prove for the conclusion of Pappu & Quester (Keller; 1993, Baldauf et al; 2009, Yoo &
Donthu; 2001)

2.2 Adoption of innovation

This research holds implications for the adoption of an innovation, but how is an innovation
conceptualized? As mentioned before, innovation adoption is a popular topic among
researchers. As a result of this popularity, several definitions are developed over time. In
marketing research, it is most common to describe innovations in a consumer perspective. So, it
is not the manufacturer or retailer but the consumer that determines whether a new product is
seen as an innovation. Rogers (1995) also uses this conceptualization and describes an
innovation as “an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit
of adoption.”

The major difference between an innovation and a common-purchase-product is showed in the

differential response in their purchase decisions. Whereas the established product is already
known, the utility of the innovation is not yet clear to the consumers what will result in an
increased level of uncertainty about the performance of the innovation. This will lead to a
different approach consumers use to make a decision about buying the innovation (Fisher, Luce
& Jia; 2000). This difference is most significant with discontinuous innovations (Robertson;
1971). Discontinuous innovations represent “the creation of previously unknown products that
usually require a significant amount of new learning” (Saaksjarvi; 2003). Because consumers
lack existing knowledge when evaluating the innovation, they evaluate the innovation by using
existing knowledge that they can relate with the innovation. This knowledge can exist of both
relational and attribute-based knowledge (Roehm & Sternthal; 2001). The relational aspect
supports the previous paragraph where we already explained how consumers use the retailer
(as a relation) to evaluated the product value. We will follow by explaining the effect of the
attribute- based knowledge on the innovation adoption.

In their evaluation of the product, consumers pay attention to the innovation’s attributes
(Rogers; 1995, 2003). The perceived value of the innovation is determined by the consumer’s
assessment of the innovation attributes and several researchers have found that this is a key
driver of the consumer’s adoption decision. Most researchers even state that the perceived
innovation attributes are stronger predictors of innovation adoption, than psychological- or
demographic predictors (Holak & Lehmann; 1990, Agarwal & Prasad; 1997, Mitall et al.; 1999,
Arts; 2008). Especially, the evaluation of the attributes affects the rate of adoption. So, the more
positive the consumer evaluates the innovation attributes, the more he/she is inclined to adopt
the innovation (Rogers; 1995). This evaluation is subjective because every consumer holds its

Rens Verweij, 2010

19
own perception about the importance of an attribute. This makes the innovation attributes a
fascinating subject to research in marketing. In his book, Rogers (2003) explains this by saying:
“It is the receivers’ perception of the attributes of innovations, not the attributes as classified by
experts or change agents, that affect their rate of adoption.”

That consumers use attributes in their evaluation of an innovation has received significant
support in the marketing literature. The most influential research in this area was performed by
Rogers & Shoemaker (1971). They introduced five dimensions of attributes that consumers use
in evaluating the innovation. The five attributes are Relative advantage, Complexity, Trialability,
Compatibility and Observability. Rogers & Shoemaker (1971) laid the foundation for more
research in this area. Based on conceptualization of Bauer (1960), Ostlund (1974) added an
additional sixth attribute; Perceived risk of the innovation. We chose these six attributes as
subject for our research, because these are the most frequent mentioned attributes to influence
the adoption decision. So, we concluded that the six attributes received sufficient support about
their influence on the adoption decision. Table 1 provides an overview of supporting research
that provides evidence for this statement.

Relative advantage Compatibility Trialability

- Rogers (1995. 2003)
- Rogers & Shoemaker (1971)
- Ostlund (1974)
- Holak & Lehmann (1990)
- Eastlick (1996)
- Gatignon & Robertson (1991)
- Tan Tsu Wee (2003)
- Meuter et al. (2005)
Complexity
- Rogers (1995. 2003)
- Rogers & Shoemaker (1971)
- Ostlund (1974)
- Holak & Lehmann (1990)
- Eastlick (1996)
- Gatignon & Robertson (1991)
- Tan Tsu Wee (2003)
- Meuter et al. (2005)
Table 2.1: Support for innovation attributes.
- Rogers (1995. 2003)
- Rogers & Shoemaker (1971)
- Ostlund (1974)
- Holak & Lehmann (1990)
- Eastlick (1996)
- Gatignon & Robertson (1991)
- Tan Tsu Wee (2003)
- Meuter et al. (2005)
Observability
- Rogers (1995. 2003)
- Rogers & Shoemaker (1971)
- Ostlund (1974)
- Holak & Lehmann (1990)
- Eastlick (1996)
- Gatignon & Robertson (1991)
- Tan Tsu Wee (2003)
- Meuter et al. (2005)
- Rogers (1995. 2003)
- Rogers & Shoemaker (1971)
- Ostlund (1974)
- Holak & Lehmann (1990)
- Eastlick (1996)
- Gatignon & Robertson (1991)
- Tan Tsu Wee (2003)
- Meuter et al. (2005)
Perceived risk
- Ostlund (1974)
- Holak & Shoemaker (1990)
- Tan Tsu Wee (2003)
- Ellen Bearden & Sharma (1991)
- Arts (2008)

In the following section, we will explain the six innovation attributes and develop the hypothesis
for this research.

Rens Verweij, 2010

20
The six attributes all have their impact on the perceived value of the innovation in the minds of
the consumers. Increased levels of Relative advantage, compatibility, Trialability and
Observability all have a positive impact on the perceived value, where increased levels of
perceived risk and complexity have a negative impact on the perceived value. Several
researchers concluded that compatibility and relative advantage are the most important
predictors of innovation adoption, but that the other attributes also have a significant impact on
the adoption. In addition, they showed that the six attributes also have interrelations and affect
each other (Holak; 1988, Holak & Lehmann; 1990, Ostlund; 1974). So despite of higher
importance of some attributes, all the attributes have their use in forming the perceived
innovation value (Labay & Kinnear; 1981). All together, the six attributes explain 49% to 87% of
the variance in the adoption rate (Rogers; 1983)

Improving the consumer’s perception of the innovation’s attributes can lead to the increased
chance of success of the adoption of innovation. Holak & Lehmann (1990) showed the direct
relation between the positive evaluation of the innovation attributes and the increased purchase
intentions that consumers hold. The higher the perceived value of the single innovation
attribute, the higher the purchase intention of the total innovation is. We can therefore conclude
that the consumer’s attitude toward the innovation is more positive when they perceive the
innovation as high in Relative advantage, Compatibility, Trialability, Observability and low in
Perceived risk and Complexity.

As we explained before, consumers use the retailer as a gatekeeper for quality assurance and
risk reduction (product-related risk and psychosocial risk). Consumers that perceive their
retailer as having high retailer brand equity, think the products in that stores have high quality,
are trustworthy and they perceive lower social- and psychological risk. In the following section
we will hypothesize the relationships of the retailer’s brand equity on all the innovation
attributes separate. We do this because we think that the perceptions of all attributes are
separately affected by the retailer’s brand equity, but that the sum of all six attributes defines the
overall attitude toward the innovation. So, the main hypothesis is:

H1: Innovations that are sold through a retailer with high retailer brand equity, are evaluated
more positive by consumers than innovations that are sold through a retailer with low brand
equity.

Figure 1 shows the visualization of our conceptual model. The other hypothesis will be explained
next.

Rens Verweij, 2010

21
Figure 1: Conceptual framework

Relative advantage is one the most important attributes in developing a consumer’s attitude
toward the innovation (Tan Tsu Wee; 2003, Ostlund; 1974). Rogers (1995) describes relative
advantage as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it
supersedes”. It is the consumer’s trade off about the benefits and the costs of the innovation
adoption. Consumers are looking for products that will save them time, effort and money. The
perceived relative advantage of an innovation is mainly assessed based on two criteria’s;
economic profitability and social prestige. We use the two criteria to show the influence of the
retailer brand equity on the consumer’s assessment of the relative advantage of the innovation.

The foundation for this assertion is formed by the citation of Rogers (1995): “(..) The diffusion of
an innovation is an uncertainty-reduction process. When individuals pass through the
innovation-decision process, they are motivated to seek information to decrease uncertainty
about the relative advantage of an innovation”.

We already showed that consumers use the retailer as a heuristic for the quality assessment of
products (Chu & Chu; 1994, Chu et al; 2005, Dodds et al; 1991, Grewal et al; 1998). Products that
are seen as high in quality are also seen as products with several benefits to the consumer
(Shapiro; 1983). So, we can conclude that innovations that are sold at retailers with a favorable
image are seen as innovations with higher quality and therefore offer more benefits to the
consumer.

Rens Verweij, 2010

22
In addition, it is well known that consumer choose brands which they think are prestigious. One
of the most important implications of branding is that consumers can identify themselves with a
brand and are therefore able to enhance their social position (Keller; 2001). This also applies for
retail branding. Mitchel (1998) states that shopping at a retailer with a well-known and
reputable image lead to “more satisfaction of status or prestige needs”. For example, carrying a
shopping bag of Albert Heijn is perceived to be more impressive than carrying a bag of Lidl. We
hypothesize that the social prestige of the retailer will be transferred to the innovation that is
sold at that retailer.

These theoretical findings enable us to formulate the following hypotheses:

H1a: The consumer’s perception of relative advantage of the innovation that is sold through a
retailer with high retailer brand equity is perceived higher than the innovation that is sold through
a retailer with low retailer brand equity.

The perceived complexity of an innovation is one of the attributes that has a negative effect on
the consumer’s attitude toward the innovation. Rogers (1995) describes complexity as “the
degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use”.
Complexity shows the most implications in the adoption of technological innovations, because
technological innovation require more learning and knowledge (Saaksjarvi; 2003). When
consumers think the innovation requires allot of knowledge or cognitive effort to use, their
attitude toward the innovation will be negative.

Upah (1983) looked into the antecedents of a product’s perceived complexity in a retailing
environment. One of the findings was that personal selling and therefore interaction between
the consumer and the retailer (personnel), decreased the consumer’s perceived complexity
about the product. This was mainly caused because consumers try to reduce their uncertainty
about the product. Consumers are more willing to interact with a retailer with high retailer
equity because they are known with the brand and they trust the brand (Ailawadi & Keller;
2004). This lead to our expectation that consumer’s perceived innovation complexity will
decrease when the innovation is sold at a high brand equity retailer.

The improved interaction between high brand equity retailers and consumers is not the only
factor that reduces the perceived complexity of the innovation. As we mentioned before,
consumers see the retailer as a gatekeeper. Consumers expect that the retailer they trust (the
retailer with high brand equity) will only offer products that consumers can handle. For
example, if a consumer purchases a digital camera at Dixon (that is known for selling electronic

Rens Verweij, 2010

23
products to consumers for amateuristic use), they expect that Dixon made sure the camera was
for an amateur photographer. So, we hypothesis that:

H1b: The consumer perception of the complexity of the innovation that is sold through a retailer
with high retailer brand equity is perceived lower than the innovation that is sold through a
retailer with low retailer brand equity.

The compatibility of the innovation is the “degree to which an innovation is perceived as

consistent with the existing values, past experience and needs of potential adopters” (Rogers;
1995). Eastlick (1996) showed that compatibility also relate to the consumer’s lifestyle.
Consumers will only adopt the innovations that are compatible with their values, past
experiences, needs and lifestyle. Therefore, compatibility has a positive relation with the attitude
toward the innovation.

Products can be compatible, but retailers can also be compatible. Consumers develop stereotypic
images of retailer. They use these images as cues for their compatibility with the retailer (Sirgy
et al; 2000). For example, Lidl is seen as a retailer for the lower-upper class. Lidl is therefore not
compatible with the values, past experience and needs of an upscale shopper. One of the cues
that enable the consumer to determine the compatibility is the merchandise that the retailer
offers. We expect that this effect also works the other way around. We adapt this assumption by
relating that quality is also ‘transferred’ from retailer to their merchandise. So, when consumers
perceive the retailer as compatible, they will perceive the retailer’s merchandise also as more
compatible.

The compatibility of the innovation with the consumer’s existing values will affect their opinion
about the innovation (Rogers; 1995). As we showed previously, Sirgey et al. (2000) explains that
consumers hold a more positive attitude toward a product when the product image is in
accordance with one’s self image. With the purchase of a product, consumers perceive
uncertainty about this congruency. We also showed that the retailer can function as a moderator
for consumers to reduce this perceived uncertainty. We therefore believe that the retailer can
affect the consumers perceived level of compatibility with the innovation.

In addition, our research involves online retailers. Online retailers have a big advantage
compared to offline retailers in the way they can personalize the merchandise they offer to their
consumers. Online retailers can follow the consumer in their consumption behavior which
allows them to offer only the products that matches with the consumer’s needs (Chau & Ho;
2008). Rogers (1995) describes that the innovation’s compatibility with the consumer’s needs is
an important aspect in forming a positive attitude toward the innovation. Consumers with a high

Rens Verweij, 2010

24
retailer brand equity perception are known with and trust the retailer. We therefore assume
that consumers not only use the retailer as a gatekeeper for the product’s perceived quality and
risk, but also as an reliable partner in offering innovations that are compatible with their needs
and lifestyle. We therefore hypothesize:

H1c: The consumer’s perception of the compatibility of the innovation that is sold through a
retailer with high retailer brand equity is perceived higher than the innovation that is sold through
a retailer with low retailer brand equity.

Trialability is defined as “the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a

limited basis” (Rogers; 1995). Innovations that can be tried before the actual purchase are more
rapidly adopted than innovations that consumers can’t try on forehand. The consumer’s lack of
previous experience and familiarity with the innovation encourages them to assess the
innovation personally. Therefore, trialability has a positive relation with the attitude toward the
innovation.

When products aren’t sold directly to the consumers but through a retailer, trialability is more
an issue of the retailer than of the manufacturer (Hawes & Lumpkin; 1986). Therefore,
consumers rely more on the retailer to try the innovation than the manufacturer.

In an offline retail environment, it is easier to try the innovation than in an online retail
environment. Within an online retail environment there is a longer timeframe between making
the purchase and receiving the product. This makes that trialability of an innovation in an online
retailer environment, is more concerned with the retailer’s acceptance of returning the product.
To increase the consumers trust and their ability to try to product, it is helpful for online
retailers to have a product-trial program to increase their retailer brand equity (Chau & Ho;
2008). Also, Purohit & Srivastava (2001) showed that consumers are more positive about the
ability to return the product when they purchase the product at a retailer with high brand
equity.

In addition, Vijayasarathy & Jones (1999) found that the impossibility of trying out a new
product in an online retail environment increased the consumer’s uncertainty about the product.
They reported that in such situations, consumers decrease their uncertainty by turning to well
known manufacturer brand and especially to well know retail brands.

Given this information, we expect that retailers with high brand equity have an advantage over
other retailers in the fact that consumers perceive more trust in the trialability of the product
when they buy the innovation with a high brand equity retailer. So, we hypothesize:

Rens Verweij, 2010

25
H1d: The Trialability of the innovation that is sold through a retailer with high retailer brand
equity is perceived higher by consumers than the innovation that is sold through a retailer with low
retailer brand equity.

The observability of the innovation is defined by Rogers (1995) as “the degree to which the
results of an innovation are visible to others”. It consists of how easily the innovation is
observed by other members of a social system and how easy it is for the consumer to
communicate the purpose and the advantages to others. The observability of the innovation has
a positive relationship with the attitude toward the innovation. The more the innovation can be
observed by others, the more positive consumers will evaluate the innovation

However, consumers will face a lot of social uncertainty when an innovation is easily observed
by others. This way, observability relates to the consumers perceived social risk of the
innovation. The items that are used in the questionnaire of Meuter et al. (2005) for the
measurement of observability show that observability involves the ability to explain the
purchase to other members of the social environment. We already mentioned before that
consumers use the retailer for reducing their social risk. That is why we believe that the higher
the observability of an innovation, the more perceived social uncertainty the consumer will face.
This uncertainty can be reduced by purchasing the innovation by a well-know, high equity
retailer. This will reduce the consumer’s hesitance to show the innovation to other and will
therefore enlarge the observability.

Based on this we hypothesize that when the innovation is sold through a retailer with high
brand equity, consumers will perceive less social risk and will therefore more inclined to show
the innovation to members in their social environment. So:

H1e: The Observability of the innovation that is sold through a retailer with high retailer brand
equity is perceived higher by consumers than the innovation that is sold through a retailer with low
retailer brand equity.

Ostlund (1974) found that the five attributes we previous mentioned, were not sufficient in
explaining the adoption rate of the innovation. They added a sixth attribute called ‘Perceived
risk’. Perceived risk is defined as the “degree to which risks are perceived as associated with the
innovation” (Ostlund; 1974). According to Cunningham (1967), a consumer’s perceived risk can
hold two dimensions. Those dimensions are defined by Hawes & Lumpkin (1986) as “the
perceived uncertainty of a given event happening, and the consequence involved if the event
should happen”. They categorize the several types of risk as: Financial-, physical-, functional-,
social-, and psychological risk. As we mentioned before, to increase the efficiency of this

Rens Verweij, 2010

26
research, we reduce the several types of risk to two categories: product-related risk and
psychosocial risk.

First, the product-related risk refers most to the performance of the product. As we mentioned
before, most products are sold through retailers. They form the interface between the product
and the consumers. When the product does not deliver the value that the consumers expect or in
case of product failure, consumers will therefore rely on the retailer to find a suitable and
satisfactory solution. Consequently, the perceived product-related risk becomes an issue of the
retailer. Hawes & Lumpkin (1986) therefore state that the retailer is used as a patronage mode
to reduce the consumer’s perceived product-related risk.

We reported before that consumers that perceive high retailer brand equity, are more certain
that the retailer will return the product and help the consumer with a satisfactory solution
(Purohit & Svriastava; 2001). Furthermore, we also showed that the perceived quality of the
products is also affected by the retailer’s brand equity (Jacoby & Mazursky; 1985, Chu et al;
2005, Biglaiser & Friedmann; 1994). The perceived quality has a significant influence on the
perceived performance of the product (Kerin et al; 1992). The consumer’s increased quality
perception of a product, mediated by the high retailer brand equity, will therefore result in a
decrease in the consumer’s perceived product-related risk.

Secondly, psychosocial risk refers to the degree consumers perceive risk in buying an innovation
that will lead to social embarrassment and a decrease of the social position, as well as the degree
of internal psychological frustration the consumer could perceive after the purchase of the
innovation (Mitchell & Harris; 2005). An important factor in the consumer’s perceived
psychosocial risk is the image the consumer hold about itself. Elliot (1997) explains this by
stating: “consumers do not consume products for their material utilities but consume the
symbolic meaning of those products as portrayed in their images”. The products that consumers
purchase are therefore able to signal symbolic meaning about the consumer itself to other
members of the social environment (Jamal & Goode; 2001). This symbolic meaning is mostly
displayed by the brand of the product. The brand symbolizes an image and consumers reflect
themselves with this image. The more the brand image is congruent with the consumers self
concept, the higher the purchase intention of such brands (Eriksen; 1996).

This also applies for retail brands. Retailers also hold a brand image that consumers use to
evaluate their congruence with their self image (Mitchell & Harris; 2005). In addition, we
showed that consumers use the retailer’s image to reduce their psychosocial risk. When the
congruency between the consumer’s self concept and the retailer’s image increases, consumers

Rens Verweij, 2010

27
are evaluating the products the retailer sells also as more congruent with their self concept
(Prasad; 1975, Perry & Hamm; 1969).

Based on these findings, we hypothesize that:

H1f: The consumers’ perceived risk of the innovation that is sold through a retailer with high
retailer brand equity is lower than for the innovation that is sold through a retailer with low
retailer brand equity.

2.3 Product fit and retailer image

After explaining all this, we would like to show the assertion that these relations are moderated
by the relation of the consumer’s perception about the product category of the retailer and the
product category of the innovation. As we previously explained, we expect to find proof that
products that are sold through retailers with high brand equity are being evaluated more
positive than otherwise. However, we also expect to find that the product category of the retailer
will increase/ decrease the magnitude of this effect.

The assortment of retailers is becoming more and more deep and broad. This delivers
advantages for the consumer like for example the ease of one-stop-shopping and. It will
therefore also be beneficial for the retailer because consumers are more satisfied and their sales
will improve because of the additional sales. However, when viewed from a branding
perspective, a broad assortment can also negative consequences.

Research has showed that, in the minds of the consumers, certain product-categories have
‘signature’ associations with certain types of retailer (Inman, Shankar & Ferraro; 2004). For
example, groceries are purchased at a supermarket and cars are purchased at a specialized car
dealer. This is also applicable for retailer brands. Once the retailer is related with a certain
product category in the mind of the consumers, they will always see the retailer as the selling
point of that category of products (Ailwadi & Keller; 2004). For example, Albert Heijn is known
to sell groceries. Consumers will therefore not relate Albert Heijn with selling coffee-machines.
That this extension isn’t viable is showed by the PUC that Albert Heijn tried to sell. One of the
reasons why it didn’t become a success was because consumers didn’t see the retailer as the
appropriate selling point for a product from that product-category. So, once a retailer has a
strong signature association with a product category, it is hard for consumers to connect the
retailer with other types of product categories. This is an important reason why assortment
extension often fails. Consumers do not only categorize the retailer on their product category.
Korgaonkar et al. (2006) found that consumers also connect the prestige and allure of the

Rens Verweij, 2010

28
retailer to certain product categories. They state that high-risk products are sold at retailers
with prestige and allure because this will reduce the consumers perceived risk.

Our assumption is also driven by the brand extension/ alliance literature. In this aspect of
marketing, it is commonly known that the perceived fit between the core product and the
extension is an important factor in the success of the extension. Perceived fit has a positive
relationship with the attitude toward the extension (Chowdhury; 2007). The most important
reason for this relationship is that consumers will doubt the skills of the manufacturer to deliver
an extension of high quality (Aaker & Keller; 1990, Simonin & Ruth; 1998). The brand’s image is
an important aspect in the judging the perceived fit. Just like retailers, brands are also
categorized in the consumer’s mind.

The most important proof for our assumption was delivered by a study of Podnar (2004). They
found that that the success of a new product or brand extension wasn’t only influenced by the
brands high brand equity and their credibility. More important was “whether the product
matched the consumers’ perception of the company’s identity” (Simonin & Ruth; 1998). In
addition, several researchers have also used brand extension literature to explore the
relationship between the attitude toward the retailer and their merchandise (Robertson &
Gatignon; 1986, Corkindale & Belder; 2009)

This evidence motivated us to explore the moderating role of the perceived fit between the
retailer’s product category and the innovation’s product category. We therefore hypothesize:

H2: The innovation attributes are evaluated more positive when the innovation is sold through a
retailer with high retailer brand equity. However, this effect is stronger when the retailer with high
brand equity also is seen as a retailer with high perceived product-category fit with the innovation.

Rens Verweij, 2010

29
 Chapter 3: Methodology

To conduct reliable and valid data, the methodology of the research must be well thought of. In
this chapter we will explain how we designed the research. First, we will describe the type of
research we used. After this, we will give a brief description of the research design and the
motivation why we choose this design. This chapter will than follow in describing how the
questionnaire was formulated. It will also be explained how we collected the necessary data and
what the characteristics of the sample were where we derived the data from. This chapter will
end by explaining the statistical tests we used.

3.1 Type of research

This research is designed in such a way that it fits the goal of the research. The goal of the
research is clear. We would like to determine the causal effect of the retailer’s brand equity on
the consumer’s perceived innovation attributes to predict the influence of the retailer. Our
formal study tries to add knowledge to the current literature and based on previous research
which we used to develop our theoretical framework, we formulated several hypotheses to test
our research question.

Using an experimental setting, we try to manipulate the variables to discover differences in the
respondent’s reactions. Cooper & Schindler (2008) state that using an experiment is the best
way to find causal relationships between variables. The foremost advantage of using an
experiment is ability to manipulate the independent variable. As we will explain later, we
manipulated the retailer’s brand equity in our pre-test. The experiment isn’t done under
laboratory conditions, but under the actual environmental conditions of the respondent.

This research will use quantitative data and research methods. Because prior research allowed
us to formulate hypothesis (see chapter 2), qualitative research was redundant. In addition, this
research tries to predict the consumer’s attitude of the retailer’s brand equity and their
evaluation of the perceived innovation attributes. Alwin & Krosnick (1991) provided evidence
for the reliability of using quantitative data for the measurement of attitudes.

The most suited quantitative measurement process for this research was using a survey.
Although there are many methods for measuring quantitative data, the survey is considered
dominant in the existing literature (Cooper & Schindler; 2008). A survey has the quality of being
effective when the researcher’s aim is to measure differences in among their respondents. It can
be used among a versatile population, can be accessed quickly and is more costs-efficient than
other measurement processes.

Rens Verweij, 2010

30
3.2 Research design

We used a two-stage experimental research design. The first stage involves a pretest in which
we want to acknowledge the strength of the manipulations. In the second stage, we measured
the attitude toward the innovation in all four manipulations. The disruptive innovation that we
chose to use to measure the perceived innovation attributes is the Ebook-reader. We will first
explain why we chose the Ebook-reader as research subject.

3.2.1 Research subject: Ebook-reader

An Ebook-reader is defined as “the physical, electronic equivalent of a printed book containing a

digital version of the whole text of a book” (Moore; 2009). The Ebook-reader offers several
features that makes the Ebook-reader attractive for consumers in comparison with printed
books, as described by Burk (2001); with Ebook-readers you can adjust the font and size of the
text, the content (ebooks) can be accessed within minutes, the text is better readable because
the higher DPI/ sharpness, pages will not turn yellow or torn and one Ebook-reader is capable to
store more than 100 different ebooks.

Despite of all these benefits, the rate of adoption of Ebook-readers is slow. Burk (2001) states
that the hesitation of the consumer to adopt the Ebook-reader is partly caused by its
categorization as being a disruptive innovation. We mentioned before that when consumers are
confronted with disruptive innovations, they are more inclined to rely on heuristics. In addition,
Vasileiou et al. (2009) confirm the ‘newness’ of the Ebook-reader. They also emphasize the
potential for the Ebook-readers to change the current way of reading.

An additional argument to take the Ebook-reader as the research-subject for this research is that
the Ebook-readers already are being sold through well known online retailers. We will follow
discussing through which retailers we tried to manipulate the retailer’s brand equity.

3.2.2 Pretest

To discover the influence of the retailer on the consumer’s evaluation of the perceived
innovation attributes, we developed four manipulations. First, we want to explore the
differential effect of the consumer toward the innovation, if it is being sold through a high- or
through a low brand equity retailer. Secondly, we also want to discover whether the impact of
this relationship is higher for a retailer with a high- or a low perceived product category fit with
the retailer. To test this, we need conditions in which all these manipulations are found. Based
on face validity and a group interview (N=4), we expected four existing retailers to meet these
conditions. In the pretest we want to confirm the validity and the strength of these four
manipulations we are using for the main analysis.

Rens Verweij, 2010

31
The goal of the pretest is to confirm four retailers that meet these conditions. Finding four
existing retailers that reflect the appropriate manipulations enabled us to prime the
respondents in the main analysis. We assumed that the following retailers reflect the
appropriate manipulation:

- Retailer with high retail brand equity and a high product category fit: Bol.com
- Retailer with low retail brand equity and a high product category fit: Ereaderstore.nl
- Retailer with high retail brand equity and a low product category fit: Albert.nl
- Retailer with low retail brand equity and a low product category fit: Yourlookforless.nl

We assume that the chosen retailers will match with the right manipulation. The goal of the
pretest is therefore to validate these assumptions. If it seems that our assumptions were wrong,
we will adapt to this by selecting another retailer.

3.2.3 Main analysis

The goal of the main analysis is to measure how consumers evaluate the perceived innovation
attributes in each condition. We wanted to test if there are significant differences in the
evaluation of the innovation attributes, in each of the four conditions. We did this by surveying
respondents with the same items, but exposing them to the primes of one of the four conditions.

3.3 Questionnaire

The questionnaires that were used, tried to measure three variables. As we already described,
the research was performed in two stages; the pretest and the main analysis. This implies that
there are also two questionnaires. Appendix A will show both questionnaires with their items.
We used previous developed measurement scales for all variables. We will discuss why we chose
these scales. After that, we will defend the choice of the items.

3.3.1 Questionnaire outline

The questionnaire in the pretest measured the respondent’s level of retailer brand equity for all
four conditions. We used the same questionnaire for every condition because we wanted
equivalent outcomes for every condition. We only changed the retailer name. The questionnaire
measured four constructs, consisting of eighteen items. Because the order of the questions can
affect the respondent’s answers, the sequence of the items were randomized to avoid any order
bias (Cooper & Schindler; 2008). We used the same questionnaire for every condition. This
because we wanted equivalent surveys for every condition. To disguise the objective of the
questionnaire, information about the survey objective was as limited as possible. Respondents
were asked to read a short description of the retailer, where after they were asked to answer the
items. The introduction was described briefly because respondents could be influenced by this

Rens Verweij, 2010

32
explanation. One authority has pointed out the importance of a clear and an objective view of the
respondents on the research (Sellitz, Wrightsman & Cook; 1976). By summarizing all the
benefits of the e-book reader, respondents were likely to answer more positively on the given
questions. Sellitz, Wrightsman & Cook (1976) warn that when the property being studied is not
clearly defined, the Halo-effect is difficult to avoid. The Halo-effect is the systematic bias when
the respondent tries to answer uniform to their previous answers.

For the main analysis, we also developed one universal questionnaire with the same items for all
four conditions to ensure equivalence. To prime the respondent in the appropriate condition, we
wrote an introduction with a brief description about the retailer and the innovation, the Ebook-
reader. In this introduction, we emphasized that the retailer was selling the innovation. Next, we
asked the respondents to fill in the questions. The logo of the retailer was also present on the
answering sheet to stimulate the prime. The content of the questions were equal over all four
conditions. Only the retailer name was different per condition. Appendix B shows how the
questionnaires were presented to the respondents for the Bol.com manipulation.

Again, we tried to provide information to the respondent as little as possible to disguise the
objective of the study. Because we used previous developed measurement scales, the validity
and reliability of the questionnaire was granted. In contrast with the pretest, we didn’t
randomize the order of the items. We presented the items per construct, enabling the
respondent

In the questionnaire of the main analysis we asked the respondents to answer twenty-nine
items. These items measured the perceived innovation attributes, the perceived product-
category fit and the respondent’s degree of innovativeness. The other items were used to
measure the sample demographics. Table 3.1 below shows the outline of the questionnaires.

Item number Construct Source:

Pretest 1- 4 Retailer awareness Pappu & Quester (2006a)
5-10 Retailer associations Pappu & Quester (2006a)
11-14 Retailer-perceived quality Pappu & Quester (2006a)
15-18 Retailer Loyalty Pappu & Quester (2006a)
19-20 Perceived product-category fit Aaker & Keller (1992)
Main Analysis 1–3 Compatibility Meuter et al. (2005)
4-6 Relative advantage Meuter et al. (2005)
7-9 Complexity Meuter et al. (2005)
10-12 Observability Meuter et al. (2005)
13- 15 Trialability Meuter et al. (2005)
16-20 Perceived risk LaRoche (2005)
21-27 Innovativeness Steenkamp & Gielens (2003)
Table 3.1: Outline of the questionnaire.

Rens Verweij, 2010

33
3.3.2 Manipulations

The manipulated variable in this study is the retailer’s brand equity. In § 2.1, we already
described why we chose the model of Pappu & Quester (2006a) from a theoretical perspective.
In this section, we try to explain why we chose this model from a methodological perspective.

The measurement of retailer brand equity is still an area that needs more research. Although
there are several measurement tools developed for brand equity (Yoo & Donthu; 2001, Arnett et
al; 2003, Keller; 1992), finding the right items to measure the brand equity of a retailer still
seems difficult (Ailawadi & Keller; 2004). This causes the fact that there isn’t allot of literature
available about the measurement of the retailer brand equity. However, Pappu & Quester
(2006a) developed a four-construct variable to measure the retailer brand equity. They based
this variable on prior brand equity research. As we mentioned before, the variable exists of
retailer awareness, retailer associations, retailer perceived quality and retailer loyalty. To
measure all the constructs, they developed a twenty-three item questionnaire. These items all
had a reliability level, measured with Cronbach Alpha, that exceeded 0.7. Pappu & Quester
(2006a) also found proof for predictive-, content- and construct validity of the items. These
results convinced us to use this measurement for our research.

For this research, we reduced the number of items to eighteen. Because the questionnaire was
originally made for offline retailers, some of the items were useless for our research. The items
were measured with a seven-point Licker scale, 1 being totally disagree to 7 being totally agree.

Like we state in the theoretical framework, we also suspect the moderating influence of the fit
between the retailer’s product-category and the product-category of the innovation. . In this
research, the innovation is an Ebook-reader. We therefore also manipulate the fit between the
ebook-reader and the retailer. To measure the strength of the fit, we used the questionnaire
developed by Keller & Aaker (1992). We chose this questionnaire because Keller & Aaker (1992)
state it is applicable for the fit between the retailer and its assortment. The original
questionnaire consisted of four items, but we reduced it to two items. Based on face validity, two
of the four items seems redundant with regard to our research. Keller & Aaker (1992) reported a
reliability of 0.7. This was later acknowledged by Taylor & Bearden (2002). They also found
proof of the validity of the items. The items were measured with a seven-point Licker scale, 1
being totally disagree to 7 being totally agree.

Rens Verweij, 2010

34
3.3.3 Dependent variables

The dependent variables of this study are the perceived innovation attributes. For the attributes
developed by Rogers (1995), we used the questionnaire developed by Meuter et al. (2003). For
the measurement of the sixth attribute, perceived risk, we used the questionnaire developed by
LaRoche (2005).

Although there has been a great amount of research in the field of innovation adoption, there is
not a great amount of questionnaires developed for measuring the perceived innovation
attributes. Moore & Benbasat (1991) were the first ones to develop a questionnaire for the
perceived innovation attributes. However, these items were more focused on the acceptance of
innovation of organizations, than the adoption of consumers. Meuter et al. (2003) took the
questionnaire of Moore & Benbasat (1991) and adjusted it to measure the attitudes of
consumers. However, the items that Meuter et al. (2003) developed were made for services.
Because our research involves a tangible product (the Ebook-reader), the questionnaire was
adjusted to meet the requirements of our research. Based on face validity, this difference was
most visible with the Perceived Risk attribute. We therefore decided to use a different
measuring scale for this attribute. LaRoche (2005) developed a five-itemed questionnaire that
did show face validity with regard to our research.

Attribute Definition Number Cronbach

of items Alpha
Compatibility Innovation is perceived as consistent with existing values, 3 .95
habits and past experiences of the potential adopter.
Rel. advantage Innovation is perceived as superior to ideas it supersedes. 3 .95
Complexity Innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. 3 .88
Observability Results of an innovation will be apparent and possible to 3 .94
communicate to others.
Trialability Innovation is perceived as available for trial on a limited 3 .85
basis, without a large commitment.
Perceived risk Risks are perceived as associated with the innovation. 5 .81
Table 3.2: Cronbach Alpha scores

As you can see in table 3.2, Meuter et al. (2003) developed questionnaires for the perceived
innovation attributes with high reliability levels. They also state that measurement tool received
enough evidence to report sufficient validity. These two reasons made us believe these items
were good enough to use for our research. The high level of reliability also applied for the
questionnaire for perceived risk developed by LaRoche (2005). The validity was not mentioned
by LaRoche. However, the Handbook of Marketing scales (2005) mentions that it appears that

Rens Verweij, 2010

35
model fits the measurement well. All the variables were measured with a seven-point Licker
scale, 1 being totally disagree to 7 being totally agree.

3.4 Data collection

We used a non-probability sampling method to collect the necessary data. We chose this method,
despite of the fact that non-probability sampling is seen as subjective and the possibility it
increases the chance of sampling error. This research doesn’t have the objective to be
generalized to a population parameter, so there is less concern about the actual representation
of the population in the sample (Cooper & Schindler; 2008). Because the representativeness of
the sample would not affect the results, use a non-probability sampling method was justified.

We used the web-based software Thesistool.nl to collect our data. Using an online survey was
the best option for this research. Our study involves online retailers and using an online survey,
made sure that all our respondents had access to internet, which ensured us that they could
have access to an online retailer. Thereby, online surveys have the advantage of being cost
efficient, can be launched quickly and also have the ability to reach a large and diverse
population (Cooper & Schindler; 2008). Another big advantage of using an online survey was the
ability to assign the surveys randomly to the respondents. Thesistools.nl enabled us to randomly
assign the four conditions to a respondent, with using only one destination link
(www.thesistools.nl/rens). This could guarantee randomization.

3.5 Sample

We used purposive sampling to recruit respondents for our sample. With purposive sampling
the sample doesn’t meet the requirements for representation of the whole population, but the
respondents in the sample do conform to a certain criteria. In our case, we want the respondents
to meet the criteria of being familiar with online retailers. We combined the purposive sampling
with Snowball sampling to gather the necessary data. The questionnaire was spread via several
websites and through online social communities like Hyves & Facebook. We didn’t have any
reason to suspect any differences in the response across demographics of the sample. No
literature showed that age, gender or income would affect our hypothesized relationships. As a
result, we didn’t specify the sample to any demographic characters. We did limit the sample
through geographical constraints. Because the retailers that are used as the research subject of
the four conditions all are Dutch, we only surveyed people from the Netherlands. Respondents
from other countries were excluded to avoid any bias.

This research uses four different conditions and has therefore also four different samples. In
order to compare the outcomes of the four conditions as valid as possible, the four different

Rens Verweij, 2010

36
samples have to be as equal as possible. As we discussed previously, the randomization option of
Thesistools.nl ensured the random assignment of the four conditions to the respondents. With
this, we tried to avoid any sampling bias. We applied this randomization technique for the
pretest, as well for the main analysis.

The size of the samples is also important, for equivalence and for analysis. To conduct a Factor
analysis, the sample has to meet a minimum of 50 respondents or minimal 5 respondents per
variable.

In order to conduct the factor analysis for the items in the pretest, all four conditions had a
sample size of N=15. All four conditions together made the sample size N=60. Our aim was to
gather enough respondents to perform a factor analysis. We didn’t attempt to meet any sample
size requirements for data analysis. The purpose of the pretest was only to confirm our
assumptions and therefore it didn’t require extensive analysis. For this reasons, we chose a
smaller sample size that allows us to use a non-parametric test.

This is in contrast with the main analysis. The purpose of the main analysis is to provide
evidence on which we can base conclusions. We therefore aimed on reaching a sample size that
enabled us to use a parametric test. A parametric test is seen as more reliable and powerful than
a non-parametric test (Cooper & Schindler; 2008). The minimum number of respondents for
using a parametric test is N=30 (Berenson et al; 2006). We therefore aimed on getting 30
respondents or more per condition for the main analysis. This will allow us to compare all the
four conditions separately.

3.6 Data analysis

In this section of the methodology chapter, we will explain the data analysis we used in this
research. By explaining this, we will provide evidence of the validity and reliability and strength
of the findings of our analysis. First, we will discuss the explorations of the gathered data before
it can be used for analysis. Secondly, the chosen method for the pretest analysis is discussed.
This section will end with the explanation of the chosen method for the main analysis.

3.6.1 Pre-analysis

Factor analysis

We conducted a factor analysis for both the pretest as the main analysis. The goal of the factor
analysis is to reduce the number of items, without reducing the predictive power of the total
variable. Cooper & Schindler (2008) developed a three step approach to conduct a factor
analysis. The first step is to check if the data meets the required assumptions. The second step is

Rens Verweij, 2010

37
to determine the way the factor analysis is performed. The last step is the interpretation of the
results. The first two steps well be discussed in this chapter. The last step will be described in
the next chapter.

Before a factor analysis can be performed, some assumptions have to be tested. These
assumptions have to be interpreted with regard to the research. When some items doesn’ t met
the requirements of the assumption, the items doesn’t necessarily have to be removed. The
objective of the research have to be considers (Hair et al; 2010). The assumptions in factor
analysis are:

- A sample size bigger than N=50 and a minimum of 5 respondents per item.
- A substantial number of correlations have to be greater than 0.3. This best tested with
the ‘Bartlett test of sphericity’. The test has to be significant (α=.05). This test checks if
there are significant relationship among the items in the factor analysis. H0= there are no
significant correlations among the items. So, when H0 is rejected there are enough
significant relationships to perform the factor analysis.
- The ‘Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy’ (KMO) also measures the
correlations between the items. It checks if there is at least some significant relationships
among the items. The KMO has to be greater than .60.
- The KMO can also be calculated for every individual item. This is the Measure of
Sampling Adequacy (MSA). The MSA also have to be higher than .60. The items that are
below .60 are considered to be removed.
- The communalities explain the variance in the variable by the number of factors. When
the communalities are low, the variance is badly explained by the factors.
Communalities below .30 are considered to be removed.

The way the factor analysis is performed for the pretest is described by three issues; the way of
extraction, rotation and the number of chosen factors. For the pretest, we will use Principal Axis
Factoring as extraction method. This method is most suitable when it is expected that the
variables will not be normally distributed. We will test the normal distribution of the items with
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Wiersma & Sasovova; 2009). The Kolmogorov tests the H₀: the
variable is normally distributed. When the H₀ rejected (α=.05), the items are not normally
distributen. As the rotation method, we used Direct Oblimin. Direct oblimin is most suitable
when it is expected that the factors will show interdependence. This expectation is supported by
Pappu & Quester (2006a). They show the interdependence between the four constructs of their
retailer brand equity variable. The total number of factors is determined by the Eigenvalue. The

Rens Verweij, 2010

38
Eigenvalue shows the explained variance in the variables by the factors. A factor shows a
satisfactory level of explained variance when the Eigenvalue is higher than 1(Hair et al; 2010)..

We used the Maximum Likelihood method for the extraction in the main analysis. Maximum
Likelihood is most suitable when the minimum number of respondents (N>50) is met. As we
already described, we attempt to collect information of more than 50 respondents. As the
rotation method of the main analysis, we again used the direct Oblimin method. This method is
most suitable when it is expected that the factors will show interdependence. This expectation is
supported by Holak & Lehmann (1990). They showed that the Perceived Innovation Attributes
also affect each other. The same as with the pretest, factors with a higher Eigenvalue than 1 will
be seen as effective (Hair et al; 2010).

Using these methods in the factor analysis, will result in a table with the factors and the factor
loadings of all the items. The items with factor loadings that exceed .40 will be used for the
explanation of the appropriate variable (Hair et al; 2010). We will assign the items to the
variables it belongs to, based on the found literature.

Reliability

When all items are assigned to the variables they belong to, a test of the reliability of the
measurement of the variable will be performed. We want the items in the variable to measure
equal effects when it is used multiple times. This consistency in their measurement is showed
with the Cronbach Alpha. Constructs that show a Cronbach Alpha value higher than 0.70 are
seen as reliable.

3.6.2 Pre-test

The goal of the pretest is to measure differences in the outcomes of the survey. We want to show
that the Retailer brand equity is higher for Bol.com and Albert.nl than for Ereaderstore.nl and
Yourlookforless.nl. We also want to show that the perceived product-category fit with the
Ebookreader is higher for Bol.com and Ereaderstore.nl than it is for Albert.nl and
Yourlookforless.nl. Thus, we want to compare the answers of more than two independent
samples. As we described before that the sample size of the four conditions in the pretest will be
N=15. This will not allow us to use a parametric test. The collected data is on ratio/ interval
level. We therefore have to rely on a non-parametric test that measures differences between
more than two independent samples.

The Kruskal-Wallis test is the test that meets all these conditions. It is appropriate for testing
more than two independent samples with interval data that not meet the assumptions of the
parametric ANOVA test (Cooper & Schindler; 2008). To confirm that the data in the pretest does

Rens Verweij, 2010

39
not meet the assumptions of the ANOVA test, we will first test the normal distribution of the
variables with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

The Kruskal-Wallis test measures whether the independent samples have equal medians. The
null hypothesis predicts that the medians (M) of all samples are equal. In our case that will
imply:

H₀: M(bol) = M(Albert) = M(Ereaderstore)=M(Yourlookforless)

H₁: M(bol) ≠ M(Albert) ≠ M(Ereaderstore) ≠ M(Yourlookforless)

We the Kruskal-Wallis test shows a significant relationship (α=0.05), it implies that there is a
significant difference between the samples. However, just showing a difference between the
samples will not suffice the goal of the pretest. We want to conclude that the medians of the
Retailer brand equity variables of Bol.com and Albert.nl are significant higher than the medians
of Ereaderstore.nl and Yourlookforless.nl. For the perceived product-category fit variables, we
also want to establish that the medians of Bol.com and Ereaderstore.nl will significantly differ
from the medians of Albert.nl and Yourlookforless.nl.

We can establish this by relying on the Mean ranks of the variables. The Kruskal-Wallis test not
only tests the difference between the samples, but also the difference between the variables.
This way, we can conclude which variables show higher means than other variables. We do this
for the Retailer brand equity variable and for the perceived product-category fit.

Before the Kruskal-Wallis can be performed, some assumptions must be met (Berenson et al;
2006). All assumptions are important. However, when the last two assumptions aren’t met, the
Kruskal-Wallis test can still be used. The assumptions are:

- All the samples must have been randomly selected from the population.
- The variable under investigation is continuous.
- The gathered data must be big enough to provide at least a set of ranks.
- All the samples have the same variability
- All the samples have the same shape.

3.6.3 Main analysis

The goal of the main analysis is to test the developed hypothesis in the conditions we recognized
in the pretest. Hypothesis H1 and H1a till H1f test if the perceived innovation attributes are
affected by the Retailer’s Brand Equity level. The categories we use to compare the effect are
labeled as ‘High Retailer brand equity’ and ‘Low Retailer brand equity’. Assuming our
assumptions in the pretest are valid, the retailers with High Retailer brand equity will be

Rens Verweij, 2010

40
Bol.com and Albert.nl. The retailers with Low Retailer brand equity will be Ereaderstore.nl and
Yourlookforless.nl. We will compare the evaluations of the respondents about the perceived
innovation attributes in these two categories, with dividing the four retailers in the two
categories of Retailer brand equity.

The main analysis is designed to measure the differential effect of the respondents evaluation of
the innovation attributes between retailers with High Retailer brand equity and Low Retailer
brand equity. To test this, we need a test that recognizes differences between two independent
samples. The size of the two samples will not exceed N>100. When the N <100, the required
assumptions for using a parametric test cannot automatically be assumed to be met (Hair et al;
2010). We therefore chose to use a non-parametric variant of testing the difference between two
samples. This kind of test can be performed with a Pooled-variance T-test and a Wilcoxon rank
sum test. According to Berenson et al. (2006), the Wilcoxon rank sum test is more suitable for
marketing and consumer behavior research. It is more powerful than the parametric t-test when
certain assumptions can’t be met. We therefore choose the Wilcoxon rank sum test to test
hypotheses H1, H1a till H1f.

The Wilcoxon sum of ranks test if the median is equal in both the samples. When the P-value of
the Wilcoxon W score is below α (0.05), H₀ is rejected which implicates that the medians in the
sample show significant differences. The Wilcoxon sum of ranks test will for this research test if:

H1 H₀: M1 (PIA) = M2 (PIA)

H₁: M1 (PIA) ≠ M2 (PIA)
H1a H₀: M1 (Relative advantage) = M2 (Relative advantage)
H₁: M1 (Relative advantage) ≠ M2 (Relative advantage)
H1b H₀: M1 (Complexity) = M2 (Complexity)
H₁: M1 (Complexity) ≠ M2 (Complexity)
H1c H₀: M1 (Compatibility) = M2 (Compatibility)
H₁: M1 (Compatibility) ≠ M2 (Compatibility)
H1d H₀: M1 (Trialability = M2 (Trialability)
H₁: M1 (Trialability ≠ M2 (Trialability)
H1e H₀: M1 (Observability) = M2 (Observability)
H₁: M1 (Observability) ≠ M2 (Observability)
H1f H₀: M1 (Perceived Risk) = M2 (Perceived Risk)
H₁: M1 (Perceived Risk) ≠ M2 (Perceived Risk)
M1: High Retailer brand equity, M2: Low Retailer brand equity, α= 0.05

Though, to reject or accept our hypothesis it will not suffice to understand that the respondents
in the sample evaluate the perceived innovation attributes different. We hypothesize that the
Retailer brand equity can decrease or increase the strength of the perceived innovation
attributes. By the interpretation of the mean rank scores of the High- versus the Low Retailer

Rens Verweij, 2010

41
brand equity categories, it is possible to see in which category the effect is the largest or
smallest.

The Wilcoxon sum of ranks test is, as we mentioned before, a non-parametric test. This test is
used when the assumption of the t-test aren’t met. The assumptions of the Wilcoxon test are
therefore less strict than in parametric tests. The most influential assumption is the equality of
the samples. In the next chapter, we will show that the four samples are equal. The next chapter
also involves the results of the tests we performed.

In the theoretical framework, we also expressed the premise of the moderating effect of the
retailer’s perceived product-category fit. We want to measure this effect with H2. Again, we
assume that the retailers match with the condition we think they belong. Confirmation will
follow through the pretest.

Bol.com is the retailer that represents the ‘High Retailer brand equity, High perceived product-
category fit’ condition. Albert.nl represents the condition with High Retailer brand equity but it
differs with Bol.com in the fact that Albert.nl is seen as low in perceived product-category fit.
Comparing these conditions will give us an indication about the effect of the perceived product-
category fit on the perceived innovation attributes. We control one condition (Retailer brand
equity) and we manipulate the other condition (perceived product-category fit). This way, any
differences in the outcomes should be caused by the manipulation of the ‘perceived product-
category fit’ condition.

H2 H₀: Mbol (PIA) = Malbert (PIA)

H₁: Mbol (PIA) ≠ Malbert (PIA)
H2a H₀: Mbol (Relative advantage) = Malbert (Relative advantage)
H₁: Mbol (Relative advantage) ≠ Malbert (Relative advantage)
H2b H₀: Mbol (Complexity) = Malbert (Complexity)
H₁: Mbol (Complexity) ≠ Malbert (Complexity)
H2c H₀: Mbol (Compatibility) = Malbert (Compatibility)
H₁: Mbol (Compatibility) ≠ Malbert (Compatibility)
H2d H₀: Mbol (Trialability = Malbert (Trialability)
H₁: Mbol (Trialability ≠ Malbert (Trialability)
H2e H₀: Mbol (Observability) = Malbert (Observability)
H₁: Mbol (Observability) ≠ Malbert (Observability)
H2f H₀: Mbol (Perceived Risk) = Malbert (Perceived Risk)
H₁: Mbol (Perceived Risk) ≠ Malbert (Perceived Risk)
Mbol: High perceived product-category fit, Malbert: Low perceived product-category fit, α= 0.05

This also involves a two independent sample, non parametric test (N<100). These effects are
therefore also measured with the Wilcoxon sum of ranks test.

Rens Verweij, 2010

42
 Chapter 4: Results

4.1 Pretest

4.1.1 Factor analysis

Before the factor analysis could be performed, we had to check if the items were normally
distributed. Because we assumed the items were not normally distributed, we used the Principal
Axis factoring method for the extraction of the factors. As we mentioned before, we test this with
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. In appendix C.1, you can see the results of this test. The test
showed that all the items had all values below α=0.05 and all the H₀ were rejected. So, the items
are not normally distributed and the Principal Axis Factoring method was the appropriate
method for extraction.

Next, we had to check if the data met the assumptions of the factor analysis. The results for these
tests are shown in appendix C.2. The assumptions were all met. The items showed
communalities that exceeded 0.3. The Bartlett test was also significant (P <0.05). This allows us
to assume that there is a sufficient degree of correlation between the items. The value of the
KMO test was also higher than 0.6 (0.916) and a considerable number of items showed MSA
scores higher than 0.6.

The factor analysis confirmed our beliefs. The results were showed in appendix C.3. Despite
three factors showed Eigenvalues higher than 1, we chose to form two factors. The Eigenvalue of
the third factor was considerably small (1.262) and our theoretical framework provided
evidence that explained the two first factors (Pappu & Quester; 2006a, Aaker & Keller; 1992).
The first factor resembled the items that measured the Retailer brand equity. The second factor
showed the two items that measured the perceived product-category fit. For the second factor,
all the factor loadings were higher than 0.4. We had therefore no reason to remove any items.
However, some items showed an insufficient factor loading in the second factor. As we
mentioned before, factor loadings smaller than 0.4 will be removed. Therefore, the total number
of items was reduced by removing three items in the second factor.

4.1.2 Reliability

In the methodology section we already stated Retailer product-category

that we use the Cronbach Alpha values to brand equity fit
Albert 0.95 0.79
measure the reliability of the items in the factors. Ereaderstore 0.97 0.84
Bol.com 0.97 0.97
The Cronbach Alpha values must exceed .70. In
YLFL 0.95 0.80
table 4.1, the Cronbach Alpha scores for the Table 4.1: Cronbach Alpha values

factors in the pretest are displayed. These are the scores for all four conditions. All scores are

Rens Verweij, 2010

43
higher than .70. We can therefore conclude that the items we use in the pretest show a sufficient
level of reliability.

4.1.3 Data test: Kruskal-Wallis

In the methodology section, we already mentioned that we didn’t expect the samples to be
parametric. This would result in choosing for a non-parametric test. We confirmed our
assumption by testing the normal distribution of the used variables. We used four conditions in
which two variables were measured. We therefore needed to check for the normal distribution
of eight variables. As appendix C.4 shows, only three of these variables showed insignificance (P
> 0.05). This implies that only three variables were normally distributed. This let us to confirm
our assumption of using a non-parametric test.

As the non-parametric test, we chose the Kruskal-Wallis test. The data shows support for the
first three assumption of the test. The last two assumptions have no effect on the choice for the
test or the outcomes of the test (Berenson et al; 2006).

The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test are shown in table 4.2. The results show that the four
samples significantly differ (P < 0.05). This is for the difference in Retailer brand equity as for
the perceived product-category fit. This allows us to conclude that the retailers we use as
example for this reseach (Bol.com, Ereaderstore.nl, Yourlookforless.nl and Albert.nl), are all
perceived different.

Retailer brand equity Perceived product-category fit

Bol.com 50.20 41.97
Ereaderstore.nl 20.60 45.80
Yourlookforless.nl 17.40 18.30
Albert.nl 33.80 15.90

P value* .000 .000

Chi² 37.981 36.674
N 60 60
Mean 3.28 4.25
Std. deviation 1.778 2.275
* α = 0.05
Table 4.2: the mean rank scores of the four conditions.
The mean rank scores show the level of the variable in each condition. Retailer brand equity give
the highest measurements for Bol.com and Albert.nl. This allows us to conclude that the
respondents see Bol.com and Albert.nl as retailers with a higher level of Retailer brand equity
than the other two retailers.

Rens Verweij, 2010

44
The perceived product-category fit scores are the highest for Bol.com and Ereaderstore.nl. This
allows us to conclude that the respondents find it more normal, appropriate and legitimate that
Bol.com and Ereaderstore.nl sell Ebookreaders than that Albert.nl and Yourlookforless.nl sell
Ebookreaders.

However, the Kruskal-Wallis test does not enable us to draw conclusions about the significant
differences between all the variables. It says that there are samples in the test that differ from
the other samples, but it not shows which samples significantly differ from other samples. To
look if this, we use the Tukey Post-Hoc test. The Tukey post-hoc test looks if the means of the
samples are significantly different.

Tukey Post hoc test Mean Difference Sig.

FIT Bol Ereaderstore -.267 .945
Yourlookforless 3.400* .000
Albert 3.667* .000
Ereaderstore Bol .267 .945
Yourlookforless 3.667* .000
Albert 3.933* .000
Yourlookforless Bol -3.400* .000
Ereaderstore -3.667* .000
Albert .267 .945
Albert Bol -3.667* .000
Ereaderstore -3.933* .000
Yourlookforless -.267 .945
RBE Bol Ereaderstore 3.187* .000
Yourlookforless 3.462* .000
Albert 1.862* .000
Ereaderstore Bol -3.187* .000
Yourlookforless .276 .913
Albert -1.324* .013
Yourlookforless Bol -3.462* .000
Ereaderstore -.276 .913
Albert -1.600* .002
Albert Bol -1.862* .000
Ereaderstore 1.324 * .013
Yourlookforless 1.600* .002
* Mean difference is significant at α=0.05
Table 4.3: Tukey post-hoc results for perceived product-category fit (FIT) & Retailer brand equity (RBE)..
The table shows the Post-Hoc results for the perceived product-category fit and the Retailer
brand equity. The P-values test the (H₀: a= b) with a significance level of α= 0.05. The
samples Bol.com and Ereaderstore differ significantly from Yourlookforless.nl and Albert.nl. This
confirms our predicition. The Retailer brand equity of Bol.com is significantly different from the
other three retailers. However, Albert.nl is significantly different from Ereaderstore.nl and

Rens Verweij, 2010

45
Yourlookforless. These findings are emphasized by the subset that the Tukey test creates (Table
4.4).

FIT RBE
Tukey HSD Tukey HSD
Subset (α = 0.05) Subset (α= 0.05)
N 1 2 N 1 2 3
Albert 15 2.20 Yourlookforless 15 1.95
Yourlookforless 15 2.47 Ereaderstore 15 2.22
Bol 15 5.87 Albert 15 3.55
Ereaderstore 15 6.13 Bol 15 5.41
Sig. .945 .945 Sig. .913 1.000 1.000
Table 4.4: Tukey test subsets for FIT/RBE

These results should suffice to draw conclusions. To gain more comprehensive evidence for the
difference of the samples however and to test H1a till H1f, we also tested the difference between
the two highest scoring retailers and the two lowest scoring retailers. This would enable us to
conclude that the retailers in that subgroup had a higher or a lower degree of Retailer brand
equity and Perceived product-category fit. We therefore also used the non-parametric test for
testing the difference between two samples. This is the Wilcoxon sum of ranks test. It tests the
H₀: Medians are equal for both samples. It measures if the medians of the two samples are equal
and it also shows the mean rank scores of the samples.

The results show that there is significance difference in the Retailer brand equity levels of the
two retailers with the highest Mean rank scores for Retailer brand equity (P < 0.05). This effect
is also found for the product-category fit. The Mean rank scores of the two retailers with the
highest product-category fit are significantly higher than the scores of the two retailers with the
smallest product-category fit.
Table 4.5: Wilcoxon sum of ranks test
Retailer brand equity Product-category fit
High RBE * 42.00 High fit * 43.88
Low RBE ** 19.00 Low fit ** 17.12

Sig .000 Sig .000

Wilcoxon W 570.000 Wilcoxon W 513.500
Z score -5.108 Z score -6.013
* RBE of Bol.com and Albert.nl * Fit scores of Bol.com and Ereaderstore.nl
** RBE of Ereaderstore.nl and Yourlookforless.nl ** Fit scores of Albert.nl and Yourlookforless.nl

Rens Verweij, 2010

46
4.1.4 Conclusion

The goal of the pretest was to establish that the existing retailers that we chose, actually reflects
the condition we want the retailers to reflect. With the Kruskal-Wallis test, we already proved
that the four samples were significantly different.

We chose Bol.com to reflect the condition in which the retailer is high in Retailer brand equity
and high in perceived product-category fit. The mean rank of Bol.com for the retailer brand
equity was higher than all other three retailers (M= 50.20). Bol.com was also one of the two
retailers with the highest mean rank scores for the perceived product-category fit (M=41.97).
The Wilcoxon W test also showed that the Retailer brand equity of Bol.com combined with
Albert.nl also significantly differed from the other two retailers. This test also provided evidence
for the conclusion that the level of perceived product-category fit of Bol.com combined with
Ereaderstore.nl was significantly higher compared with the other two retailers. Thus, we
conclude that the pretest delivers sufficient evidence to use Bol.com as the condition for high
retailer brand equity and high perceived product-category fit.

We chose Ereaderstore.nl as example for a retailer with a low level of Retailer brand equity, but
with a high level of perceived product-category fit. The Kruskal-Wallis test delivered evidence to
conclude that Ereaderstore.nl has a lower level of Retailer brand equity (M= 20.60) than the two
retailers with the highest Retailer brand equity. However, the test also showed a high level of
perceived product-category fit (M=45.80). So the respondents found it likely for Ereaderstore.nl
to sell Ebookreaders. The Wilcoxon W test emphasized these findings. When combined with
Yourlookforless.nl, Ereaderstore.nl showed to differ significantly from the two retailers with the
highest Retailer brand equity. When combined with Bol.com however, Ereaderstore.nl was
showed as highest in the perceived product category fit. These findings led us to conclude that
Ereaderstore.nl is valid to use as an example for the retailer with low Retailer brand equity, but
with a high perceived product-category fit.

We chose Albert.nl as the retailer that reflects the condition in which the retailer has a high level
of Retailer brand equity, but a low level of perceived product-category fit. The mean rank scores
from the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that Albert.nl was one of the two retailers with the highest
score for Retailer brand equity (M= 33.80). In addition, our expectation was confirmed in the
fact that Albert.nl scored as the lowest on perceived product-category fit (M=15.90). The
Wilcoxon W test acknowledged these findings by showing that Albert.nl when combined with
Bol.com was significantly higher in Retailer brand equity, than the other two retailers. However,
the test also showed that Albert.nl was significantly lower on perceived fit when combined with
Yourlookforless.nl than the other two retailers. This evidence led us to conclude that Albert.nl is

Rens Verweij, 2010

47
the appropriate existing retailer as example for a retailer with high Retailer brand equity, but
with low level of perceived product-category fit.

The last condition needs a retailer with low Retailer brand equity and low perceived product-
category fit. We chose Yourlookforless.nl to reflect this condition. The Kruskal-Wallis test
showed we were right to pick Yourlookforless.nl as the example for this condition. It had the
lowest level of Retailer brand equity (M=17.40) and almost the lowest level of perceived fit
(M=18.30). The Wilcoxon W test also showed that Yourlookforless.nl belonged to the retailers in
the category of Retailer brand equity and perceived product-category fit that showed to be
significantly smaller than the retailers in the higher category. This evidence convinced us to
conclude that Yourlookforless.nl is the appropriate retailer as the example for the condition in
which the retailer has a low level of Retailer brand equity and a low level of perceived product-
category fit.

4.2 Main analysis

4.2.1 Sample characteristics

We use four different conditions for the main analysis. To assess these conditions, we also use a
different sample for every condition. In the methodology section, we emphasized the importance
of the equality of the four samples, as well as the size (N>30) and the randomization.

Table 4.6 shows that the samples are relatively equal. The samples all have the same size (N=38)
and the most respondents are between the 18 and 30 years old and have completed a middle- to
high education (MBO/HBO). The table also show that the number of respondents of all the
samples exceeds N=30 and the total sample size is higher than N=50. This allows us to perform a
factor analysis to reduce the number of items for analysis.

Bol.com Ereaderstore Albert.nl YLFL.nl Total

Basic educ. 0 4 0 1 5
VMBO 5 3 4 3 15
HAVO 3 3 1 3 10
VWO 1 2 0 2 5
MBO 8 10 9 9 36
HBO 13 9 18 11 51
WO-Bach. 6 5 2 6 19
WO-Master 1 2 3 3 9
Else 1 0 1 0 2
Males 20 20 27 20 87
Females 18 18 11 18 65
< 18 1 2 0 0 3
18-30 27 23 29 20 99
31-40 6 4 3 9 22
41-50 4 3 4 7 18
50> 0 6 2 2 10
Total 38 38 38 38 152

Rens Verweij, 2010

48
 Table 4.6: Education level, age and gender of the respondents

4.2.2 Factor analysis

Before we can report the results of the factor analysis, we have to check if the extraction method
we chose was appropriate. We chose Maximum Likelihood because we expected the items to be
distributed normally. However, the Kolmogorov-Sminov test of the items (Appendix D.1)
showed that all the items were significant (P-value <0.05). This implies that the items were not
distributed normally. The extraction method of the factor analysis must be adjusted to Principal
Axis Factoring to gain the best results.

Appendix D.2 reports the assumptions tested for the factor analysis. Almost all the items had
communalities that exceeded .30. Two items had values lower than .30. These items were
removed for further analysis. There was also enough correlation between the items because the
Bartlett’s test showed a P-value (.000) lower than α (0.05). The KMO score (.828) was sufficient
because it was higher than 0.6. The MSA scores of a considerable amount of items also met the
assumption because they showed scores higher than 0.6.

The data of the factor analysis (Appendix D.3) didn’t show conformity with the literature
(Meuter et al; 2005). The Eigenvalue exceeded the minimum value (Minimum Eigenvalue = 1)
for five factors. However, the literature suggests that there are six variables. The factor loadings
in the structure matrix show that the variables ‘Compatibility’ and ‘Relative advantage’ are
combined in factor 1. Despite these results, we ignore this outcome due to the strength of the
previous literature. We did remove two items from the total set. These are the same two items
that showed an insufficient level of communality.

4.2.3 Reliability

As we already stated, the Cronbach Alpha values are used to measure the reliability of the items
in the factors. The Cronbach Alpha values must exceed .70. The results (table 4.7) did not report
values that can cause bias in the reliability of the items.

Albert.nl Bol.com Ereaderstore.nl Yourlookforless.nl

Compatibility .88 .81 .89 .84
Relative advantage .86 .82 .95 .86
Complexity .87 .87 .78 .73
Observability .82 .67 .84 .76
Trialibility .87 .76 .95 .83
Perceived Risk .92 .87 .77 .80
Table 4.7: Cronbach Alpha scores for the main analysis

Rens Verweij, 2010

49
 4.2.4 Hypothesis

The developed theoretical framework enables us to assume there are differences in the
perception of the consumer’s toward the perceived innovation attributes, when the innovation is
sold through retailers with different levels of Retailer brand equity. We also suspect that the
perceived innovation attributes are affected by the fit between the product-category of the
innovation with the product-category of the retailer. Before we are going to test the developed
hypotheses, we want to check if the assumptions of our theoretical framework actually hold
ground. We therefore performed a Kruskal-Wallis test to check if the used samples show
differences in the perceived innovation attributes in the four conditions.

Compatibility Rel. advant Trialability Complexity Observability Perc. risk

Bol.com 70.41 72.33 74.30 71.46 76.25 66.47
Ereaderstore 92.12 87.58 80.03 74.82 75.36 72.58
Albert.nl 82.49 88.28 84.18 74.95 90.14 72.25
Yourlookforless 60.99 57.82 67.49 84.78 64.25 94.70

Sig. .012 * .006 * .370 .575 .076 .027 *

N 152 152 152 152 152 152
Mean 3.18 3.05 4.58 3.47 5.58 3.60
Std. deviation 1.468 1.479 1.434 1.429 1.330 1.394
Minimum 1 1 1 1 2 1
Maximum 7 7 7 7 7 7
*Significant at α=05.
Table 4.8: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test.

As table 4.8 shows, the samples differ significantly for Compatibility, Relative Advantage and
Perceived risk at α=.05. This allows us to assume that the theoretical framework provided in this
research hold valid conclusion and that there is reason to suspect the differential effect of the
retailers Retailer brand equity on the perceived innovation attributes.

Before we test the hypothesis, we first have to acknowledge the correctness of the chosen test.
We assumed that the variables we use for analysis were not distributed normally because of the
unsatisfactory size of the sample (N<100). To recognize this assumption, we tested the
distribution of the variables with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Appendix D.4). The results
reported that only eight of the twenty-four variables showed insignificant P-values (P-value <
α=0.05). This implies that the largest group of variables are not normally distributed, which
confirmed our assumption and validates our choice for the Wilcoxon sum of ranks test.

H1 was developed to test if the global evaluation of the perceived innovation attributes was
affected by the Retailer brand equity level of the retailer which sells the innovation. So, it tested
H₀: M1 (PIA) = M2 (PIA), where M1 is the condition with High Retailer brand equity and M2 is the
condition with low Retailer brand equity. The results are reported in table 4.9.

Rens Verweij, 2010

50
 Mean rank ( ) N Sum of ranks Wilcoxon W Z score Sig.*
High RBE 89.10 76 6771.50 4856.500 -3.528 .000
Low RBE 63.90 76 4856.50
* α= 0.05
Table 4.9: Wilcoxon sum of ranks test results for H1.

These results make clear that there is significant difference between the both samples (P-Value <
α). H₀ is rejected. The mean rank value of the High Retailer brand equity condition outgrows the
mean rank value of the Low Retailer brand equity condition. The total score was calculated by
deducting the scores of the negative attributes (Complexity and Perceived Risk) of the
cumulative scores of the positive attributes (Compatibility, Relative advantage, Trialability and
Observability). The literature review found that the higher the score of the perceived innovation
attributes, the more positive it is viewed (Holak & Lehmann; 1990). This points out that the
respondents evaluated the perceived innovation attributes more positive when it is sold through
a retailer with High Retailer brand equity ( = 89.10) than when it is sold through a retailer with
Low Retailer brand equity ( =63.90). We therefore conclude that there is substantial evidence
to accept H1.

We will further explain all the hypothesized innovation attributes separately. The results of the
Wilcoxon sum of rank test of these hypotheses are found in table 4.10 below.

Mean rank N Sum of ranks Wilcoxon W Z-score Sig

Compatibility High RBE 76.45 76 5810.00 5810.000 -0.15 .988
Low RBE 76.55 76 5818.00
Rel. advantage High RBE 80.30 76 6103.00 5525.00 -1.070 .285
Low RBE 72.70 76 5525.00
Complexity High RBE 71.22 76 5450.50 5450.500 -1.354 .176
Low RBE 81.28 76 6177.50
Observability High RBE 83.20 76 6323.00 5305.000 -1.910 .056 *
Low RBE 69.80 76 5305.00
Trialibility High RBE 79.24 76 6022.50 5605.500 -0.775 .438
Low RBE 73.76 76 5605.50
Perceived Risk High RBE 69.36 76 5271.50 5271.50 -2.006 .045**
Low RBE 83.64 76 6356.50
* significant at α=0.10
** significant at α=0.05
Table 4.10: Wilcoxon sum of ranks test for H1a till H1f.

H1a tests if the respondents perceive the Relative advantage of the innovation as more positive
when it is sold through a retailer with High (M1) RBE versus Low (M2) Retailer brand equity.
This is tested with H₀: M1 (Relative advantage) = M2 (Relative advantage).

The mean rank of the high RBE condition ( =80.30) is higher than the mean rank of the Low
RBE condition ( =72.70). Because Relative advantage has a positive effect on the respondents’
attitude toward the innovation, Meuter et al. (2005) suggested that the respondents perceive the

Rens Verweij, 2010

51
Relative advantage of the innovation more positive when the variables show higher scores. We
can therefore conclude that the respondents evaluated the Relative advantage of the innovation
more positive in the high RBE condition, than in the low RBE condition.

However, despite of a strong theoretical foundation for predicting the influence of Retailer brand
equity on the Relative advantage, we found no significant differences between the respondents
attitude toward the Relative Advantage of the innovation in the two manipulations. The P-value
of the Wilcoxon W test is higher than α=.05 (P-value = .285) and we therefore accept H₀. This
means the two samples did no significantly differ in their attitude toward the Relative advantage
of the innovation. So, regardless of the difference in the mean ranks of the two conditions, we
can’t conclude this difference is significant for the Relative advantage of the innovation. We
therefore conclude that the statistical evidence points out that H1a needs to be rejected.

H1b tests if the respondents perceived the complexity of the innovation as lower when it is sold
through a retailer with High (M1) RBE versus Low (M2) Retailer brand equity. This is tested
with H₀: M1 (Complexity) = M2 (Complexity)

Hypothesis H1b differs from the previous explained hypotheses in the fact that the mean rank
values have to be low in order to be evaluated more positive. As we explained in the theoretical
framework, complexity has a negative effect on the consumer’s attitude toward the innovation.
As we predicted, the mean rank of complexity in the High RBE condition ( =71.22) was lower
than the mean rank of complexity in the low RBE condition ( = 81.28). It can therefore be said
that the respondents considered the complexity of the innovation to be less when it is sold
through a retailer with high Retailer brand equity than through a retailer with low Retailer
brand equity.

Nevertheless, the P-value of the test (P-Value= .176) exceeded the required α (0.05).
Consequently, it is necessary to accept H₀. This implies that there is insufficient evidence to
conclude that there is a significant difference in the respondents’ answers between the samples
in the two conditions. For that reason we can also conclude that the Retailer’s Brand Equity level
has no effect on the consumer’s perception of the complexity of the innovation. Therefore, H1b is
rejected.

H1c tests if the respondents perceive the Compatibility of the innovation as higher when it is
sold through a retailer with High (M1) RBE versus Low (M2) Retailer brand equity. This is
tested with H₀: M1 (Compatibility) = M2 (Compatibility)

The theoretical framework showed that Compatibility has a positive effect on the consumer’s
attitude toward the innovation. Our premise was that the Compatibility of the innovation could

Rens Verweij, 2010

52
be affect through the Retailer brand equity level of the retailer that sells the innovation. Despite
these conclusions, our research found no significant differences between the High RBE condition
and the low RBE condition. It is even so that the mean rank score of the high RBE condition ( =
76.45) was almost equal to the mean rank score of the low RBE condition ( = 76.55). This
equality was expressed in the P-value. The P-value was almost equal to 1 (P-value= .988) which
implies that the samples are almost identical. The P-value evidently exceeded the required α
(0.05) and therefore H₀ is accepted, meaning the samples are equal. These results provide
sufficient confirmation for stating that the Retailer brand equity level has no influence on the
consumer’s perceived degree of Compatibility of the innovation. As results from these findings,
H1c is rejected.

H1d tests if the respondents perceive the Trialability of the innovation as higher when it is sold
through a retailer with High (M1) RBE versus Low (M2) Retailer brand equity. This is tested
with H₀: M1 (Trialability = M2 (Trialability)

The trialability of the innovation is seen as an important attribute in the consumer’s willingness
to adopt the innovation. The higher the degree of perceived trialability, the more the consumer
is willing to adopt the innovation (Rogers; 1995). In the theoretical framework, we expressed
our premise that the level of perceived trialability could be affected by the degree of Retailer
brand equity of the retailer that sells the innovation. Regardless of this strong theoretical
evidence, we didn’t find significant differences between the samples of the two conditions.

The mean rank score of the high RBE condition ( = 79.24) reported a higher value than the
mean rank score of the low RBE condition ( = 76.76). The interpretation of the difference in the
mean ranks could conclude that respondents think they can try the innovation more easily when
it is sold through a retailer with high Retailer brand equity, than when it is sold through a
retailer with low Retailer brand equity. However, this conclusion is not valid because the
Wilcoxon sum of ranks test showed that there was significant difference between the two
conditions. The P-value (.438) surpassed the α (0.05) considerably, which means that the H₀ is
accepted. These results led us to conclude that the level of Retailer brand equity of the retailer
that sells the innovation has no influence on the consumer’s perceived level of trialability. With
regard to the hypothesis, this means that H1d is rejected.

H1e tests if the respondents perceive the Observability of the innovation as higher when it is
sold through a retailer with High (M1) RBE versus Low (M2) Retailer brand equity. This is
tested with H₀: M1 (Observability) = M2 (Observability).

Rens Verweij, 2010

53
We predicted that consumers would perceive a higher Observability of the innovation when it is
sold through a retailer with a high level of Retailer brand equity. This prediction is partially
supported through the findings of this research. The high RBE condition reported a mean rank
value of = 83.20, whereas the low RBE condition reported a mean rank value of = 69.80. This
confirms the direction of our prediction; the degree of Observability of the innovation was
reported higher in the High RBE condition than in the Low RBE condition. The pitfall of this
conclusion is the reported P-value (.056). At the required α (.05), the difference is not significant.
However, the difference is significant when we use a significance level of α=.10. This will
increase the chance of a Type 2 error. Though, the P-value exceeds the required α (.05) with
such a small margin, we don’t think it is likely that a Type 2 error occurs. We therefore use the
higher α=.10 for Observability. In this case, H₀ can be rejected.

These findings allowed us to conclude that the samples of the high RBE conditions and the low
RBE condition are significantly different at α=.10. This means that consumers perceive the
Observability of the innovation as more positive when it is sold through a retailer with High
Retailer brand equity, than when it is sold through a retailer with Low Retailer brand equity. The
collected data provided sufficient evidence to conclude that H1e can be accepted.

H1f tests if the respondents perceive the Perceived risk of the innovation as lower when it is
sold through a retailer with High (M1) RBE versus Low (M2) Retailer brand equity. This is
tested with H₀: M1 (Perceived Risk) = M2 (Perceived Risk)

Just as Complexity, the Perceived Risk of the innovation is different from the other perceived
innovation attributes. High levels of Perceived Risk will decrease the consumer’s willingness to
adopt the innovation. In the theoretical framework, we found proof to suspect that innovations
that are sold through retailers with High Retailer brand equity are perceived to deliver less risk
than innovations that are sold through retailers with Low Retailer brand equity.

The results of this research shows proof for this prediction. The P-value (P-value= .045) of the
perceived risk toward the innovation is below the α (.05). This results in the rejection of H₀ and
enables us to conclude that the samples of the High RBE condition and the Low RBE condition
significantly differ. As we mentioned before, the Retailer brand equity level can affect the
consumer’s perceived risk. The mean rank value in the High RBE condition ( = 69.36) was
significantly lower that the mean rank value in the Low RBE condition ( = 83.64). This provides
significant proof to conclude that the respondents perceive the risk of the innovation to be less
when the innovation is sold through a retailer with High Retailer brand equity, than when it is
sold through a retailer with Low Retailer brand equity. This evidence proofs that there is
sufficient evidence to accept H1f.

Rens Verweij, 2010

54
We explained in the methodology chapter that we will measure the effect of H2, the perceived
product-category fit of the retailer on the perceived innovation attributes, through the
manipulation of two conditions. The first condition is the retailer with high Retailer brand equity
and High perceived product-category fit. The pretest concluded that this condition is
represented by Bol.com. The conditions that is used for comparison is the retailer with high
Retailer brand equity but with Low perceived product-category fit. The pretest concluded that
this condition is represented by Albert.nl. By using these conditions, we are able to measure the
moderating effect of the perceived product-category fit. In these conditions, the Retailer brand
equity level is kept constant. Possible difference in the outcomes will therefore be the result of
the difference in the perceived product-category level of the retailer.

Mean rank N Sum of ranks Wilcoxon W Z-score Sig

PIA total Bol.com 37.16 38 1412.00 1412.000 -.530 .596
Albert.nl 39.84 38 1514.00
Compatibility Bol.com 35.62 38 1353.50 1353.500 -1.145 .252
Albert.nl 41.38 38 1572.50
Rel. advantage Bol.com 33.84 38 1286.00 1286.000 -1.846 .065
Albert.nl 43.16 38 1640.00
Complexity Bol.com 37.83 38 1437.50 1437.500 -.269 .788
Albert.nl 39.17 38 1488.50
Observability Bol.com 34.67 38 1315.50 1315.500 -1.577 .115
Albert.nl 42.38 38 1610.50
Trialability Bol.com 35.82 38 1361.00 1361.000 -1.071 .284
Albert.nl 41.18 38 1565.00
Perceived Risk Bol.com 37.18 38 1413.00 1413.000 -.521 .602
Albert.nl 39.82 38 1513.00
α=0.05
Table 4.11: sum of ranks test for H2.

Table 4.11 shows the results of the Wilcoxon sum of ranks test for H2. Despite the theoretical
foundation for assuming the effect of the perceived product-category fit on the perception of the
innovation attributes, none of the perceived innovation attributes reported significant
differences between the two conditions at α=.05. These results provided sufficient proof to
reject H2. No moderating effect of the perceived product-category was found.

Rens Verweij, 2010

55
 Chapter 5: Conclusion and discussion

5.1 Conclusions

Despite of previous research, innovation adoption is still a subject that brings up questions. It
frequently happens that a new product isn’t purchased by consumers despite of the benefits the
new product has to offer (Gourville; 2006). One of the limitations that manufacturers face in
convincing their consumers to adopt the innovation, is that the manufacturer does not sell the
innovation directly to the end-consumer. Most products are sold indirectly through retailers
(Baldauf et al.; 2009). The retailer has an important role in the quality assessment and the risk
reduction of consumers in the purchase decision for common products. Especially in situations
in which consumers perceive a high level of risk or uncertainty, consumers are inclined to use
their retailers’ image as an important decision determinant in their purchasing decision (Chu &
Chu; 1994). A situation with a high degree of uncertainty, and therefore high risk, is the
purchase of an innovation. However, despite of extensive literature that describes the influence
of the retailer on the consumers’ purchase decision for common and know products, no previous
research looked into the influence of the retailer on the consumer’s adoption of innovation. This
research therefore aimed on answering the following research question:

‘What is the influence of the retailers’ reputation on the consumers’ evaluation of the perceived
attributes of an innovation?’

The retailers’ reputation was made operational with the retailer brand equity variable of Pappu
& Quester (2006a). We researched the effect of the retailer brand equity on the six perceived
innovation attributes developed by Rogers (1995). We hypothesized that consumer perceive the
Compatibility, Relative advantage, Observability and Trialability of the innovation as higher
when the innovation was sold through a retailer with high retailer brand equity. In the contrary,
we predicted the scores for Complexity and Perceived risk to be lower when the innovation was
sold through a retailer with high retailer brand equity. We also found sufficient theoretical
foundation for suspecting that the retailer’s perceived product-category fit with the innovation,
moderated the effect of the retailer brand equity.

In contrast to our theoretical findings, we did not found any significant effect of the Retailer
brand equity on the innovation’s Relative advantage, Compatibility, Complexity and Trialability.
Also, the perceived product-category fit of the retailer with the innovation did not show to
moderate the effect of the retailer brand equity on the perceived innovation attributes. Despite
of these findings, the results of our research gave enough evidence to conclude that the retailer’s
reputation do affects the consumer’s evaluation of the perceived innovation attributes. The
overall evaluation of the Perceived Innovation Attributes showed to be significant higher for the

Rens Verweij, 2010

56
condition in which the retailer has high retailer brand equity. We found specific evidence for the
positive influence the retailer with high retail brand equity has on the evaluation of the
innovation’s Perceived Risk and Observability.

The Compatibility of the innovation was assumed to be affected by the retailer brand equity
because retailers with high retailer brand equity are able to transfer their brand image to the
self-image of the consumer. When a consumer perceive the retailer to have high brand equity, it
is likely that the retailer is compatible with the consumer’s self-image. We therefore predicted
that the innovation that is sold at the retailer with high brand equity will be seen as more
compatible with the consumer’s self-image. As we mentioned before, this research did not found
significant difference in the consumer’s evaluation of the Compatibility for low- versus high
retailer brand equity, despite defensible foundation from previous literature. However, we also
performed a Kruskal-Wallis test to see if the four conditions were equal (table 4.8). The test
showed a significant difference between the four conditions. The condition with High Brand
Equity and High perceived product-category fit (Bol.com) showed the highest mean rank score,
suggesting that this retailer affected the compatibility of the innovation the most. So, we didn’t
find a significant difference for the level of retailer brand equity but there is significant evidence
that the compatibility of the innovation is affected most by the retailer with high RBE and high
product-category fit.

The perceived Relative advantage of the innovation is alleged to be affect by the high retailer
brand equity because consumers use the retailer as a quality heuristic. Consumers perceive the
retailer with high retailer brand equity to sell products with high quality that contain many
advantages. Due to previous interaction or experience with the retailer, consumers trust the
high brand equity retailer more and are therefore more inclined to purchase products of that
retailer. Previous theory also showed that retailers with high Retailer brand equity are seen as
prestigious. This prestige is transferred to the products they sell, what brings an advantage to
the consumer. Nevertheless, the results of our research did not show foundation for these
assumptions. The perceived relative advantage of the innovation was equal across the
conditions. The additional test we performed (table 4.8) did show however, that the Relative
advantage of the innovation is perceived notably lower in the condition where the retailer has
low retailer brand equity and Low product-category fit. These findings are in sync with the
results we derived in table 4.11. Relative advantage showed to be insignificant at the agreed
significance level, but the P-value (0.065) was considerably close to the agreed significance level
(α=.05). The conclusion we can draw from these results is that the perceived Relative advantage
of the innovation is perceived to be very low when the retailer has bad fit with the product-
category of the innovation and is perceived as low in retailer brand equity. This effect can be

Rens Verweij, 2010

57
caused by the lack of experience with the retailer. Table 4.8 also shows that Albert.nl is
perceived as the retailer at which the innovation offers the highest relative advantage. Albert.nl
is the online sister of Albert Heijn. The high perception of relative advantage at Albert.nl can be
caused because of previous interaction with Albert Heijn. The respondents were maybe more
know with the quality of the products of Albert Heijn than of the other four retailers. Hence, the
results of this research also show that the previous interaction between the retailer and the
consumer can affect the consumer’s perception of the relative advantage of the innovation.

Previous research showed that the complexity of the innovation could be affected by the level of
Retailer brand equity because retailer with high retailer brand equity were more able to grant
the wishes and needs of the consumers. Personal service decreases the perceived complexity of
the innovation and retailers with high retailer brand equity are perceived to be high in personal
service. However, our research did not find any evidence that supports these predictions. The
conclusion we can make is that the perceived Complexity of the innovation is not reduced by the
retailer’s brand equity level.

The perceived Trialability of the innovation was assumed to be moderated by the Retailer brand
equity because consumers perceive retailers with high retailer brand to be more willing to
return the innovation in case of product failure or dissatisfaction. This assumption is not
supported by our results. We didn’t find a differential effect of the Trialability of the innovation
across the four conditions. We can therefore conclude that consumers don’t think the innovation
can be tested more easily at retailers with high retailer brand equity. We did find that the
respondents thought the trialability of the innovation was the highest at Albert.nl (Table 4.8).
This effect can be the result of previous experience of the respondents with returning products
and trying the products at Albert Heijn.

We did found significant differences in the degree of retailer brand equity on the Perceived risk
of the innovation. Innovations that are sold through retailers with high Retailer brand equity are
seen as less risky than innovations that are sold through retailers with low Retailer brand
equity. This supports the findings we reported in the theoretical framework. The influence of the
Retailer brand equity on the innovation’s perceived risk is the result of several effects. The
legitimacy of our claim in supported by a quote of Rogers (1995): “The diffusion of innovation is
an uncertainty-reduction process”. The retailer is seen used as a patronage mode for reducing
the risk of the products. High brand equity retailers are seen as retailers with high quality
products. This reduces the perceived product-related risk. The increased willingness to return
product in case of dissatisfaction or product failure of retailers with high Retailer brand equity
also reduces the perceived product-related risk. We also mentioned before that retailers with

Rens Verweij, 2010

58
high Retailer brand equity are seen as more congruent with the consumer’s self-image. This
reduces the consumer’s perceived social and psychological risk. This research gives foundation
for assuming that a retailer with high Retailer brand equity reduces the consumer’s perceived
risk of the innovation and these consumers evaluate the innovation therefore more positive.
Additional tests (table 4.8) even shows that this effect is stronger when the retailer with high
Retailer brand equity is also seen as having a high product-category fit with the product-
category of the innovation.

An attribute that connects to the reduced risk is the consumer’s perceived Observability of the
innovation. The theoretical framework showed the Observability of the innovation is important
for the social position of the consumers in their social environment. We postulated that the
Observability involves a high degree of social risk. This social risk is reduced by purchasing
through retailers with high Retailer brand equity. Our findings supported this prediction. The
degree of Observability was significantly higher in the high Retailer brand equity condition, than
in the low Retailer brand equity condition. Additional tests (table 4.8) also found interesting
results. Although the test did not show a significant difference at α=.05, the P-value (.076) did
found significance when the significance level was α=.10. It showed that Albert.nl (High RBE, low
perceived product-category fit) had a substantial higher mean rank score than the other
retailers. This led us to conclude that the effect of the retailer’s image on the Observability of the
innovation is very subjective and varied. It is not only the level of Retailer brand equity, but
there are other retailer characteristics that also play a role in the increased positive attitude
toward the Compatibility of the innovation. As we mentioned before, Albert.nl has a direct link
with Albert Heijn in the memory of the consumers. Consumers are likely to have more previous
experience with Albert Heijn than with the other retailers.

Although our research didn’t paid attention to the phenomena, the results of these findings allow
us to hypothesize that previous experience and interaction with the retailer will also affect the
consumer’s perception of the innovation attributes. The results in table 4.11 also show that
consumers perceive the innovation attributes to be more positive for Albert.nl than for Bol.com.
Even though the differences aren’t significant, it pinpoints the effect of previous interaction with
the retailer. It led us to conclude that the retailer loyalty plays an important role in the
consumers perception of the innovation attributes. This can be the most important factor that
explains why the moderating effect of the perceived product-category wasn’t found. The
respondents didn’t show to be affected by the product-category fit of the retailer with the
innovation. However, they did show higher scores for the retailer with which they had prior
knowledge to rely on.

Rens Verweij, 2010

59
Thus, the main conclusion of this research is therefore that the overall perception of the
innovation attributes is affected by the Retailer brand equity of the retailer that sells the retailer.
The attributes that aren’t affected by retailers with high Retailer brand equity are Complexity,
Relative advantage, Trialability and Compatibility. The attributes that are affected by high level
Retailer brand equity are Perceived Risk and Observability. We did not find sufficient evidence
to conclude that the perceived product-category fit constantly moderates these relationships.

5.2 Discussion

5.2.1 Academic contribution

The purpose of this research was to explain the role of the retailer in the adoption decision of
consumers. Thereby, we aimed on laying a theoretical foundation for further research about the
consumer’s differential evaluation of the same product across retailers with different levels of
Retailer brand equity. The conclusions that are drawn about these subjects are relevant for three
academic categories of marketing research; consumer behavior, adoption of innovation and
Retailer brand equity.

First, adding knowledge about the consumer behavior phenomena in retailing context is
becoming more important because the most manufacturers sell their products indirectly to their
end-consumers through retailers (Baldauf et al; 2009). Our study contributes to this area of
marketing by displaying the consumer’s deviant evaluation of products across retailers with
different levels of Retailer brand equity. The results of our research show that consumers use
the retailer’s perceived level of Retailer brand equity as a heuristic in their product evaluation.
This implies that consumers not only use tangible retail factors such as ambient-, social- and
design factors (Baker; 1986) in their purchase decision. The perceived Retailer brand equity of
the retailer that sells the product also plays a role in the purchase decision. This is especially
interesting in the consumer behavior in retailing context of online retailers. Because online
retailers lack tangible factors, consumers must rely on other factors to evaluate the products.
Our research shows that the Retailer’s Brand Equity level is used as such a factor.

Secondly, the adoption of innovation literature describes several factors that affect the
consumer’s adoption decision (Rogers; 1995). Allot of research describe several factors that
influences the consumer’s evaluation of the innovation directly. It is for example well known
how the perceived attributes of the innovation affects the adoption decision. However, there is
less known about the role of mediators in the adoption decision. This research laid a foundation
for assuming that there are mediators that play a role in the adoption decision of consumers. We
showed that retailers are able to affect the perceptions of certain innovation attributes and are

Rens Verweij, 2010

60
therefore moderating the consumer’s adoption process. The results can elicit marketing scholars
to take mediating factors in the adoption process in account in the future.

Third, there is an extensive amount of research known about brand equity. Nevertheless,
Retailer brand equity is an area of brand equity research that did not receive much attention yet
(Ailawadi & Keller; 2004). There is especially little knowledge about the consequences of
different levels of Retailer brand equity on the consumer’s product evaluation. The results of our
research contribute academic knowledge to this area by showing that there is an actual effect of
the retailer’s degree of Retailer brand equity on the consumer’s perception on the products they
sell.

5.2.2 Managerial contribution

The outcomes of this research can also result in practical implications for managers. It
establishes a sufficient basis for assuming that unknown manufacturers of innovations can
benefit by selling their innovations through retailers with high levels of Retail Brand Equity.
Consumers perceive a high degree of risk with purchasing innovation and especially innovations
from unknown brands. This research shows that the retailer with high Retailer brand equity
reduces this perceived risk. Holak & Lehmann (1990) found proof that the reduced level of
perceived risk will increase the consumer’s purchase intention of the innovation. This decreased
resistance toward the innovation will also lead to an increased level of interest in the innovation.
Our research therefore also postulates that the retailer should be adapted as a serious factor in
the introduction and promotion of the innovation.

A more concrete managerial implication of our research involves the possibility to launch the
innovation under the private label of the retailer. Amazon.com is one of the biggest online-book -
retailers of the United States. They introduced an Ebook-reader, the Amazon Kindle. This makes
use of their existing retailer brand equity. Ailawadi & Keller (2004) describe that products that
are launched under the private label of the retailer, have a bigger chance on success if the
retailer brand equity of that retailer is high. This is mainly caused by the transfer of perceived
quality. Our research shows that innovations are also perceived as less in risk when it is
associated with the retailer. It therefore proofs that managers could consider launching
innovations under the name of the retailer, to enhance the possibility of successful adoption.

Maybe the most important managerial contribution of this thesis involves the (online) retailer.
The outcomes showed that consumers evaluate the products more positive when they are sold
through a retailer with a high level of Retailer brand equity. The increased positivity toward the
products will increase the consumer’s purchase intention of the products. These results enable
the conclusion that increasing the Retailer’s Brand Equity level can be very beneficial for the

Rens Verweij, 2010

61
retailer’s sales. One of the constructs in the Retailer brand equity variable is the Retailer’s
Awareness. It predicts that the increased familiarity with the retailer will enhance the Retailer
brand equity. The retailer’s awareness can be increased through advertising and promotion.
Based on the results of our research, we therefore recommend retailer with a low level of
Retailer brand equity to increase their awareness through promotion and advertising.

5.2.3 Limitations & suggestions for further research

Despite all effort to make this research as complete and rigorous as possible, the research does
have some limitations. We weren’t able to cover every issue in the adoption process. However, a
good research knows its boundaries and limitations. We therefore critically reflect the
limitations of the research and try to formulate relevant suggestions for further research.

The methodology to conduct the research was designed to gather as valid and reliable data as
possible. However, concessions were made for some issues in the methodology due to financial
and time constraints. This research used two groups of separate samples (Pretest and Main
analysis) to measure the strength of the variables. However, there is a chance of bias between
the two samples because the respondent’s degree of perceived Retailer brand equity of the used
retailers can differ across the samples.

We measured the Retailer brand equity and the perceived product-category fit of the example
retailers. Although we measured significant differences in the respondent’s perception toward
these retailers, other not foreseen factors can also cause the differential evaluation of the
perceived innovation attributes. Also, a bigger sample size could make sure that the results can
be tested trough a parametric test. This could increase the power of the test.

The innovation we used as the research-object for this thesis was the Ebook-reader. The data did
show significant difference for the Perceived Innovation Attributes of the Ebook-reader across
the several levels of Retailer brand equity. We used a digital innovation, because research has
showed that this type of innovation is perceived as riskier than for other types of innovations
(Saaksjarvi, 2003). However, we can’t conclude without any hesitation that these significant
differences will also be found for other types of innovations.

As we already put forward in the theoretical framework, we narrowed the research by exploring
the effect of the non-tangible, high scope cues of the retailer. We did not look into the influence
of the low scope cues of the retailer on the perception of the retailer attributes. However, there
is research that connects the low scope cues of the retailer to the quality perception of products
they sell (Purohit & Svrivastava; 2001). We postulate that this could be an interesting field for
further research.

Rens Verweij, 2010

62
This scope of this research is also limited to a single stage of the adoption process. Rogers
(1995) reported that the consumer goes through several stages before the actual adoption of the
innovation is done. We limited the research by exploring what the influence of the Retailer
brand equity is in the ‘adoption intention’ phase. However, further research can explore the
effect in the other stages of the adoption decision as well.

We researched the effect of Retailer brand equity of online retailers on the perceived innovation
attributes. We suggested that consumers would rely more on the retailer’s reputation in online
retailing because the consumers could not rely on tangible cues. Despite academic foundation
for this assumption (Eroglu, Machleit & Davis; 2001), further research can explore the
differences of online and offline retailing cues more intensive. As we reported earlier, online
retailing is developing rapidly and additional research in this field is becoming more and more
important.

Steenkamp et al. (1999) found proof that innovation is perceived different across consumers of
different cultural backgrounds. Our research reported a significant effect of the Retailer brand
equity on the Perceived Risk of the innovation. The perceived social risk plays a big role in the
perceived risk of the innovation. Our findings supported the notion that high Retailer brand
equity decreases the perceived social risk. This effect can be stronger for consumers in
Collectivistic cultures. These cultures are more aware of their social position and social
embarrassment is more important to be avoided. We therefore propose to conduct further
research to this phenomenon.

Rens Verweij, 2010

63
 References

Aaker & Keller. (1990) “Consumer evaluations of brand extensions.” Journal of marketing. Vol. 54. No. 1. pp. 27-41.

Aaker (1991) “Managing brand equity.” The free press, New York.

Aaker (2007) “Innovation: brand it or lose it.” California management review. Vol. 50. No. 1 pp. 8-24.

Agarwal & Prasad (1997) “The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies.”
Decision Sciences. Vol. 28 No.3 pp. 557-582.

Ailawadi & Keller (2004) “Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research priorities.” Journal of Retailing. Vol. 80. Pp. 331-342.

Alwin & Krosnick (1991) ”The reliability of survey attitude measurement.” Sociological methods and research. Vol. 20. No. 1. Pp.139-181

Arnett, Laverie & Meiers (2003) “Developing parsimonious retailer equity indexes using partial least squares analysis: a method and applications.”

Journal of retailing. Vol. 79. No. 3. Pp. 161-170.

Baker (1986) "The Role of the Environment in Marketing Services: The Consumer Perspective." The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive

Advantage. Pp. 79-84

Baker, Grewal & Parasuraman (1994) “The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image.” Journal of the academy of

marketing science. Vol. 22. No. 4. Pp. 328-339.

Baldauf, Cravens, Diamantopoulos & Zeugner-Roth (2009) “The impact of product-country image and marketing efforts on Retailer-Perceived brand
equity: An empirical analysis.” Journal of retailing. Vol. 85. No. 4. Pp. 437-452.

Bauer (1960) “Consumer behavior as risk taking.” Dynamic Marketing for a changing world. Pp. 389-398.

Berenson, Levine & Krehbiel (2006) “Basis business statistics.” Pearson: Prentice-Hall. 10th edition.

Bhatnagar, Misra & Raghav Rao (2000) “On Risk, Convenience, and Internet Shopping Behavior.” Communications of the ACM. Vol. 43. No. 11

Biglaiser & Friedmann (1994) “Middlemen as guarantors of quality.” International journal of industrial organization. Vol. 12. Pp. 509-531.

Biyalogorsky, Boulding & Staelin (2006) ”Stuck in the Past: Why Managers Persist with New Product Failures.” Journal of Marketing. Vol. 70 Iss. 2. Pp.

108-121.

Boyd & Mason (2001) “The link between attractiveness of ‘extrabrand’ attributes and the adoption of innovations.” Journal of academy of Marketing

Science. Vol. 27 No. 3. Pp. 306-318.

Burk (2001) “E-book devices and the marketplace: in search of customers.” Library Hi Tech. Vol. 19. Bo. 4. Pp. 325-331.
Chau & Ho (2008) “Developing consumer-based service brand equity via the internet: the role of personalization and trialability.” Journal of

organizational computing and electronic commerce. Vol. 18. Pp. 197-223.

Chowdhurry. (2006) “An investigation of consumer evaluation of brand extensions.” International Journal of consumer studies. Vol. 31. pp. 377-384.

Chu & Chu (1994) “Signaling quality by selling through a reputable retailer: an example of renting the reputation of another agent.” Marketing

Science. No. 13. Pp. 177-189.

Chu, Choi & Song. (2005) “The role of on-line retailer brand and infomediary reputation in increasing consumer purchase intention.” Journal of

retailing. Vol. 9. No. 3. Pp. 115-127.

Cooper & Schindler (2008) “Business research methods.” Mcgraw-Hill International. 10th edition.

Corkindale & Belder (2009) “Corporate brand reputation and the adoption of innovations.” Journal of product & Brand management. Vol. 18. No. 4. Pp.

242-250

Cox (1967) “Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior.” Boston: Harvard University Press.

Cunningham (1967) “The major dimensions of perceived risk.” Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior. Boston: Harvard

university press. Pp. 82-108.

Dawar & Parker (1994) “Consumers' Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality” Journal

of Marketing. Vol. 58 No. 2 pp. 81- 95

Dodds, Monroe & Grewal (1991) “ Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. “ Journal of Marketing Research. Vol.

Rens Verweij, 2010

64
 28 No. 3 pp. 307–319.

Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn & Nesdale (1994) “Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior.” Journal of Retailing. Vol. 70. No. 3. Pp. 283-294.

Eastlick (1996) “Consumer intention to adopt interactive teleshopping” Marketing Science Institute. Report summary. pp. 96-113.

Elliot (1997) “Existential consumption and irrational desire.” European journal of marketing. Vol. 31. No. ¾. Pp. 285-296.

Erdem & Swait (1998) “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon.” Journal of consumer psychology. Vol. 7. No. 2. Pp. 131-157.

Ericksen (1996) “Using self congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase intention: a European perspective.” Journal of euro-marketing. Vol. 6.

No. 1. Pp. 41-56.

Eroglu, Machleit & Davis (2001) “Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A conceptual model and implications.” Journal of business research. Vol. 54.

Pp. 177-184.
Fisher, Luce & Jia (2000) “Attribute conflict and preference uncertainty: effects on judgment time and error.” Management Science. Vol. 46. No. 1. Pp.

103

Forrester research. (2010) Report: “Western European Online Retail Forecast, 2009-2014”

Gatignon & Robertson (1991) “Innovative Decision Processes.” Handbook of consumer behavior. Pp. 316-348.

Gourville. (2006) “ Eager sellers and Stony buyers.” Harvard Business Review. June 2006.

Grewal, Krishnan, Baker & Borin (1998) ”The effect of store name, brand name, and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase

intentions.” Journal of Retailing. Vol. 74 No. 3 pp. 331–352.

Hardesty & Bearden (2009) “Editorial: Consumer behavior and Retailing.” Journal of retailing. Vol. 85. No. 3. Pp. 239-244.

Hawes & Lumpkin (1986) “Perceived risk and selection of a retail patronage mode.” Journal of academy of marketing science. Vol. 14 No. 4 Pp.38-42.

Henard & Szymanski (2001) “Why some new products are more successful than others.” Journal of marketing research. Vol. 38. No. 3 Pp. 362-375.

Holak & Lehmann (1990) “Purchase dimension and the dimensions of innovation: an exploratory model.” Journal of product innovation management.

No. 7. pp. 59-73

Holak (1988) “Determinants of innovative durables adoption: an empirical study with implications for early product screening.” Journal of product

innovation management. Vol. 5. Iss. March. Pp. 50-69.

Honch & Ha (1986) “Consumer learning: advertising and the ambiguity of product experience.” Journal of consumer research. Vol. 13 Iss. September.
Pp. 221-233.

Inman, Venkatesh & Ferraro (2004) “The roles of channel-category associations and geodemographics in channel patronage.” Journal of Marketing.

Vol. 68. No. 2. Pp. 51-71.

Jamal & Goode (2001) “Consumers and brands: a study of the impact of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction.” Marketing

intelligence and planning. Vol. 19. No. 7. Pp. 482-492.

Jinfeng & Zhilong (2009) “The impact of selected store image dimensions on retailer equity: evidence from 10 Chinese hypermarkets.” Journal of

retailing and consumer services. Vol. 16. Pp. 486-494.

Joep Arts (2008) “Essays on New Product adoption and diffusion.” Tinbergen Institute/ Research series Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Keller (1987) "Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations." Journal of Consumer Research. Vol.14

Iss. December. Pp. 316-333.

Keller (1993) “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer based brand equity.” Journal of marketing. Vol. 57. No. 1. Pp. 1-22.

Keller (2001) “Working paper: Building customer based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands.“ Marketing science institute. Report no:

01-107.

Kerin, Jain & Howard (1992) “Store shopping experience and consumer price quality value perceptions.” Journal of retailing. Vol. 68. No. 4. Pp. 376-

397.

Korgaonkar (1982) “Consumer preferences for catalog showrooms and discount stores: the moderating role of product risk.” Journal of retailing. Vol.
58. Pp. 76-88.

Korgaonkar, Silverblatt & Girard (2006) “Online retailing, product classifications and consumer preferences.” Internet research. Vol. 16. No. 3. Pp.

Rens Verweij, 2010

65
 267-288.

Kotler (1973) "Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool.” Journal of Retailing. Vol 49 Iss. Winter pp. 48-64.

Labay & Kinnear (1981) “Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption of solar energy systems.” Journal of consumer research. Vol. 8. Pp.

271-278.

Laroche, Zhiyong, Gordon, McDougall & Bergeron (2005) “Internet versus Bricks-and-Mortar Retailers: An Investigation into Intangibility and Its
Consequences.” Journal of retailing. Vol. 81 No. 4 pp. 251-267.

Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Behavior & Advertising Research. Volume 5. 2005

Mazursky & Jacoby (1986) “Exploring the development of store images.” Journal of retailing. No. 62. Iss. Summer. Pp. 145-165

Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom & Brown (2005) “Choosing among alternative service delivery models: An investigation of customer trial of self-service

Technologies.” Journal of Marketing. Vol. 69. Iss. April. Pp. 61-83.

Mitchell & Harris (2005) “The importance of consumers’ perceived risk in retail strategy” European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 39 No. 7/8, pp. 821-837

Mitchell (1998) “A role for consumer risk perception in grocery retailing.” British food journal. Vol. 100. No. 4. Pp. 171-183.

Mittal, Kumer & Tsiros (1999) “Attribute-level performance, satisfaction and behavioral intentions over time: A consumption-system approach.”

Journal of Marketing. Vol. 63. Iss. April. Pp. 88-101.

Moore (2009) “At your leisure: Assessing ebook reader functionality and interactivity.” Faculty of Life Sciences, University College London

Nguyen & Leblanc ( 2001) “Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention decisions in services.” Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services. No. 8 Iss. 3. Pp. 227–236.

Olson (1972) “Price as an informational cue: effects on product evaluations.” Consumer and industrial buying behavior. New-York: Elsevier. Pp. 267-

286.

Ostlund (1974) “Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of Innovativeness.” The Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 23-29

Pappu & Quester (2006a) “A consumer-based method for retail equity measurement: results of an emperical study.” Journal of Retailing and consumer

services. Vol. 13. Pp. 317-329.

Pappu & Quester (2006b) “Does customer satisfaction lead to improved brand equity? An empirical examination of two categories of retail brands.”

The journal of product and brand management. Vol. 15. No. 1. Pp. 4-14.

Perry & Hamm (1969) “Canonical analysis of relations between socio-economic risk and personal influence in purchase decisions.” Journal of
marketing research. Vol. 6. Iss. August. Pp. 351-365

Podnar (2004) “Is it all a question of reputation: the role of branch identity.” Corporate reputation review. Vol. 6. No. 4. Pp. 376-387.

Porter (1974) “Consumer behavior, retailer power and marketing performance in consumer goods industries.” The review of economics and statistics.

Vol. 56. No. 4. Pp. 419-435.

Prasad (1975) “Socioeconomic product risk an patronage preferences of retail shoppers.” Journal of Marketing. Vol. 39. No. 3. Pp. 42-47.
Purohit & Srivastava (2001) “Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality:

A cue diagnosticity framework.” Journal of consumer psychology. Vol. 10. No. 3. Pp. 123-134.

Rao & Monroe (1988) “The modernizing effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations.” Journal of consumer research. Vol. 15. Iss.

September. Pp. 253-264

Rios & Riquelme (2008) “Brand equity for online companies.” Marketing intelligence & Planning. Vol. 26. No. 7. Pp. 719-742.

Robertson & Gatignon (1986) “Competitive effects on technology diffusion.” Journal of Marketing. Vol. 50. No. 3. Pp. 1-12.

Robertson (1971) “Innovative behavior and communication.” Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Roehm & Sternthal (2001) “The moderating effect of knowledge and resources on the persuasive impact of analogies.” Journal of consumer research.

Vol. 28. No. 2. Pp. 257-272.

Rogers & Shoemaker (1971) “Communication of innovations.” New York: The free press.

Rogers. (1995) “Diffusion of innovations.” New York: Free Pres. 4th edition.

Roselius (1971) “Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods.” Journal of marketing. Vol. 35. Iss. January. Pp. 56-61.

Rens Verweij, 2010

66
Saaksjarvi (2003) “Consumer adoption of technological innovations” European journal of innovation management. Vol. 6. No. 2. Pp. 90-100.

Sarel (1981) "Advances in Environmental Psychology: A New Perspective on Consumer Behavior." The Changing Marketing Environment: New

Theories and Applications. pp. 135-138.

Sellitz, Wrightsman & Cook. (1976) “Research methods in Social Relationships” 3d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. pp. 164-169.

Shapiro & Moriarty (1982) “National account management: emerging insights.” Marketing science institute. Cambridge, MA.

Shapiro (1982) “Consumer information, product quality and seller reputation.” Bell journal of economics. Vol. 13 pp. 20-35

Shapiro (1983) “Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations.” The quarterly journal of economics. Vol. 98. No. 4 pp. 659-680.

Simonin & Ruth (1998) “Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spilover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand

attitudes.” Journal of Marketing research. Vol. 35. Iss. February. pp. 30-42.

Simonson (1999) “The effect of product assortment on buyer preferences” Journal of Retailing. Vol. 75. Iss. 3. Pp. 347-370.

Sirgy (1982) “Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review.” Journal of consumer research. Vol. 9. Iss. December. pp. 287-300.

Sirgy, Grewal & Mangleburg (2000) “Retail environment, self congruity and retail patronage: An integrative model and a research agenda.” Journal of

business research. Vol. 49. Pp. 127-138.

Sivadas & Dwyer (2000) “An Examination of Organizational Factors Influencing New Product Success in Internal and Alliance-Based Processes”
Journal of marketing. Vol. 64. Pp. 31-49.

Steenkamp & Gielens (2003) “Consumer and Market Drivers of the Trial Probability of New Consumer Packaged Goods.” Journal of consumer research.

Vol. 30 Iss. December. Pp. 368-384.

Tan (1999) “Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk aversion in internet shopping.” Journal of consumer marketing. Vol. 16. No. 2. Pp. 163-180

Tan Tsu Wee (2003) “Factors affecting new product adoption in the consumer electronics industry.” Singpore management review. Vol. 25. No. 2. Pp.
51-71.

Taylor & Bearden (2002) “The Effects of Price on Brand Extension Evaluations: The Moderating Role of Extension Similarity” Journal of the Academy

of Marketing. Vol. 30 No.2 pp.131-140.

Upah (1983) “Product complexity effects on information source preference by retail buyers.” Journal of business research. Vol. 11. Pp. 107-126.

Vasileiou, Hartley & Rowley (2009) “An overview of the e-book marketplace.” Online information review. Vol. 33. No. 1. Pp. 173-192.
Vijayasarathy & Jones (1999) “Perceptions of internet shopping: an experimental comparison of new entrant and established catalogers.”

Development in marketing science. Vol.22 pp. 35-45

Wei ming Ou, Abratt & Dion (2006) “The influence of retail reputation on retail patronage.” Journal of retailing and consumer services. No. 13. Pp. 221-

230.

Wiersma & Sasovova (2009) “Aanvullend dictaat bij Business Research Methods.” Vrije Universiteit. Dictaat 2009.

Yoo & Donthu (2001) “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.” Journal of business research. Vol. 52. No. 1.

Pp. 1-14.

Zeithaml (1988) “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence.” Journal of Marketing. Vol. 52. Iss.

July. Pp. 2-22.

Rens Verweij, 2010

67
 Appendices

Appendices overview

Appendix A: Questionnaires and the items of the pretest and the main analysis.

Appendix B: The outline and presentation of the questionnaire to the respondent.

Appendix C: Data results of the pretest.

Appendix C.1: Normality scores for the items of the pretest
Appendix C.2: Factor analysis assumptions for the pretest
Appendix C.3: Result of the factor analysis of the pretest
Appendix C.4: Normality scores for the variables that are used in the pretest.

Appendix D: Data results of the main analysis.

Appendix D.1: Normality scores for the items of the main analysis
Appendix D.2: Factor analysis assumptions for the main analysis
Appendix D.3: Result of the factor analysis of the main analysis
Appendix D.4: Normality scores for the variables that are used in the main analysis.

Rens Verweij, 2010

68
 Appendix A: The used questionnaires and their items.

Pretest

Retailer awareness:
1. Ik heb wel eens iets gekocht bij (Retailer)
2. Sommige eigenschappen van de (Retailer) website komen snel in mijn hoofd.
3. Ik weet wat (Retailer) voor producten verkoopt.
4. Ik herken (Retailer) tussen anderen online winkels.
Retailer associations
5. Ik vind (Retailer) een goede online winkel.
6. Ik ben trots om producten van (Retailer) te kopen.
7. Ik vertrouw (Retailer) als leverancier van mijn producten.
8. De producten van (Retailer) leveren goede waarde voor hun geld.
9. De website van (Retailer) heeft goede en nuttige extra
10. (Retailer) heeft een goed en breed assortiment.
Retailer perceived quality
11. De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt zijn goede producten
12. De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt zijn elke keer weer van goede kwaliteit.
13. De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt gaan lang mee.
14. De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt vertrouw ik.
Retailer Loyalty
15. Als ik moet kiezen tussen een aantal online winkels, kies ik voor (Retailer).
16. Ik ben loyaal aan (Retailer).
17. Ik zal geen producten van andere online retailers kopen, als ik weet dat (Retailer) ook deze producten
verkoopt.
18. (Retailer) is mijn eerste keus in deze productcategorie.
19. Dat (Retailer) ebook-readers in het assortiment heeft, vind ik logisch.
20. Ebook-readers passen bij het beeld dat ik bij (Retailer) heb gekregen.

Main analysis:

Compatibility
1. Het lezen met een ebook-reader (gekocht bij (Retailer)) komt overeen met mijn behoefte.
2. Het lezen met een ebook-reader komt overeen met mijn normen en waarden.
3. Als ik een ebook-reader ga gebruiken past dit goed binnen de manier waarop ik dingen wil doen.
Relative advantage
4. Het gebruiken van een ebook-reader gaat mijn leesplezier/ leesgemak verbeteren.
5. Over het algemeen genomen, denk ik dat lezen met een ebook-reader in mijn voordeel gaat
uitpakken.
6. Ik denk dat het gebruiken van een ebook-reader op dit moment gewoon de beste manier is van lezen.
Complexity
7. Het is moeilijk om een ebook-reader te gebruiken.
8. Lezen met een ebook-reader is lastig
9. Ik denk dat een ebook-reader gemakkelijk is in gebruik.
Observability
10. Ik zou het niet erg vinden om anderen te vertellen dat ik een ebook-reader gebruik.
11. Ik zou anderen het gebruik van een ebook-reader kunnen aanraden als ik er ook positief over ben.
12. De voor- en nadelen van het lezen met een ebook-reader zijn duidelijk voor me.
Trialability
13. Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij (Retailer), kan ik hem eerst gebruiken in een proeftijd.
14. Het is gemakkelijk om een ebook-reader die ik koop bij (Retailer) te proberen voor de aankoop,
zonder dat ik ergens aan vast zit.
15. Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij (Retailer) kan ik in de mogelijkheid komen om het product
ergens uit te proberen.
Perceived risk
16. Ik denk dat ik geld verspil als ik een ebook-reader koop bij (Retailer).

Rens Verweij, 2010

69
 17. Ik loop risico als ik een ebook-reader koop bij (Retailer).
18. Ik krijg spijt van het kopen van een ebook-reader bij (Retailer).
19. Ik maak een fout als ik een ebook-reader aankoop bij (Retailer).
20. Een ebook-reader is een riskante aankoop bij (Retailer).
Innovativeness
21. Als ik een nieuw product in de winkel zie liggen, wil ik dit product graag een keer proberen.
22. Ik ben vaak één van de eerste die een nieuw product koopt als het op de markt komt.
23. Ik zal niet zo gauw andere, onbekende producten kopen.
24. Ik ben meestal één van de eerste die een nieuw merk uitprobeert.
25. Ik zal niet zo gauw een product kopen als ik niet zeker weet hoe het werkt.
26. Ik vind het leuke om nieuwe producten te proberen.
27. Ik vind het niet leuk om als eerste een product te kopen, nog voordat iemand anders het gekocht
heeft.

Rens Verweij, 2010

70
 Appendix B: Questionnaire for condition 1; Bol.com

Beste mensen,

Voor mijn Master Marketing aan de Vrije Universiteit ben ik een onderzoek aan het doen naar de adoptie
van innovatie. Ik heb hierbij dringend jullie hulp nodig! Ik wil je vragen om het volgende verhaalt
aandachtig door te lezen, en daarna een aantal stellingen te beantwoorden en een aantal vragen over
jezelf te beantwoorden. Het zijn dus in totaal maar 3 pagina's dus het duurt allemaal bij elkaar misschien 5
minuten.

Je zou me een ontzettend eind op weg helpen naar die velbegeerdetitel!

Alvast ontzettend, Ontzettend, Ontzettend bedankt!

Rens Verweij

Bol.com is marktleider op het gebied van online verkoop van boeken, entertainment en elektronica en tevens
de grootste internetwinkel van Nederland. Bezoekers van de mediawinkel hebben met een klik op de muis
toegang tot ruim twee miljoen artikelen, waaronder nieuwe en tweedehands Nederlands- en Engelstalige
boeken, muziek, DVD’s, notebooks, software, pc-accessoires, games, elektronica, mobiele telefonie, lcd- en
plasma televisies.

In navolging van grote internetboekhandels als Amazon.com en Bruna is ook BOL.COM gestart met de
online verkoop van de nieuwste trend op het gebied van boeken: eBooks. Vooral in Amerika zijn eBooks
zeer populair. Het lijkt erop dat deze digitale boeken ook Nederland gaan veroveren.

De prijs van een eBook is doorgaans enkele euro’s lager dan die van een traditioneel papieren boek. En
bestellen is eenvoudig: u besteld de eBook bij BOL.COM, rekent af en ontvangt per e-mail het boek in een
bestand (vaak pdf) dat u op een eBook reader kunt lezen.

EBook readers

EBook readers, kortweg ook wel eReaders genoemd, zijn er in soorten en maten. De meeste aanbieders
van eBook readers vragen voor een eBook minimaal 199,95 euro. Zo ook BOL.COM. Een hoop geld, maar
daar heeft u dan ook jaren plezier van. Ze hebben een geheugen van 512 MB of 1024 MB (of soms nog
meer), wat neerkomt op een opslagcapaciteit voor respectievelijk duizend en tweeduizend boeken. Dat
scheelt in elk geval veel ruimte in uw vakantiekoffer.

Rens Verweij, 2010

71
Het lezen met een ebook-reader (gekocht bij BOL.COM) komt overeen met mijn behoefte.
Het lezen met een ebook-reader komt overeen met mijn normen en waarden.
Als ik een ebook-reader ga gebruiken past dit goed binnen de manier waarop ik dingen wil doen.

Het gebruiken van een ebook-reader gaat mijn leesplezier/ leesgemak verbeteren.
Over het algemeen genomen, denk ik dat lezen met een ebook-reader in mijn voordeel gaat uitpakken.
Ik denk dat het gebruiken van een ebook-reader op dit moment gewoon de beste manier is van lezen.

Het is moeilijk om een ebook-reader te gebruiken.

Lezen met een ebook-reader is lastig
Ik denk dat een ebook-reader gemakkelijk is in gebruik.

Ik zou het niet erg vinden om anderen te vertellen dat ik een ebook-reader gebruik.
Ik zou anderen het gebruik van een ebook-reader kunnen aanraden als ik er ook positief over ben.
De voor- en nadelen van het lezen met een ebook-reader zijn duidelijk voor me.

Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij BOL.COM, kan ik hem eerst gebruiken in een proeftijd.
Het is gemakkelijk om een ebook-reader die ik koop bij BOL.COM te proberen voor de aankoop, zonder dat
ik ergens aan vast zit.
Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij BOL.COM kan ik in de mogelijkheid komen om het product ergens
uit te proberen.

Ik denk dat ik geld verspil als ik een ebook-reader koop bij BOL.COM.
Ik loop risico als ik een ebook-reader koop bij BOL.COM.
Ik krijg spijt van het kopen van een ebook-reader bij BOL.COM.
Ik maak een fout als ik een ebook-reader aankoop bij BOL.COM.
Een ebook-reader is een riskante aankoop bij BOL.COM.

Dat BOL.COM ebook-readers in het assortiment heeft, vind ik logisch.

Ebook-readers passen bij het beeld dat ik bij BOL.COM heb gekregen.

Als ik een nieuw product in de winkel zie liggen, wil ik dit product graag een keer proberen.
Ik ben vaak één van de eerste die een nieuw product koopt als het op de markt komt.
Ik zal niet zo gauw andere, onbekende producten kopen.
Als ik een merk goed vindt, zal ik niet gauw een ander merk kopen om te proberen om het goed is.
Ik ben meestal één van de eerste die een nieuw merk uitprobeert.
Ik zal niet zo gauw een product kopen als ik niet zeker weet hoe het werkt.
Ik vind het leuke om nieuwe producten te proberen.
Ik vind het niet leuk om als eerste een product te kopen, nog voordat iemand anders het gekocht heeft.

Bent u een man of een vrouw? 0 Man 0 Vrouw

Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding Wat is uw leeftijd?

0 Basis Onderwijs 0 <18
0 VMBO 0 18-30
0 HAVO 0 31-40
0 VWO 0 41-50
0 MBO 0 51
0 HBO
0 WO-bachelor
0 WO-master
0 Anders

Rens Verweij, 2010

72
 Appendix C: Results of the Pretest

Appendix C.1: Measures of the normal distribution of the items in the pretest.

Items (pretest) Kolmogorov-

Smirnov
Values DF Sig.*
Sommige eigenschappen van de (Retailer) website komen snel in mijn hoofd .301 62 .000
Ik weet wat (Retailer) voor producten verkoopt .205 62 .000
Ik herken (Retailer) tussen anderen online winkels .235 62 .000
Ik vind (Retailer) een goede online winke .207 62 .000
Ik ben trots om producten van (Retailer) te kopen .214 62 .000
Ik vertrouw (Retailer) als leverancier van mijn producten .169 62 .000
De producten van (Retailer) leveren goede waarde voor hun geld .208 62 .000
De website van (Retailer) heeft goede en nuttige extra opties .185 62 .000
(Retailer) heeft een goed en breed assortiment .196 62 .000
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt zijn goede producten .236 62 .000
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt zijn elke keer weer van goede kwaliteit .198 62 .000
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt gaan lang mee .185 62 .000
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt vertrouw ik .168 62 .000
Als ik moet kiezen tussen een aantal online winkels, kies ik voor (Retailer) .188 62 .000
Ik ben loyaal aan (Retailer) .264 62 .000
Ik zal geen producten van andere online retailers kopen, als ik weet dat (Retailer) .289 62 .000
ook deze producten verkoopt
(Retailer) is mijn eerste keus in deze productcategorie .269 62 .000
Ik heb wel eens iets gekocht bij (Retailer) .431 62 .000
Dat (Retailer) Ebook-readers verkoopt is een goede combinatie tussen winkel en .183 62 .000
product
Dat (Retailer) Ebook-readers verkoopt is logisch. .176 62 .000
* α=0.05.

Appendix C.2: Assumptions for factor analysis (pretest).

Items (pretest) Communalities*

Sommige eigenschappen van de (Retailer) website komen snel in mijn hoofd .658
Ik weet wat (Retailer) voor producten verkoopt .499
Ik herken (Retailer) tussen anderen online winkels .761
Ik vind (Retailer) een goede online winke .877
Ik ben trots om producten van (Retailer) te kopen .683
Ik vertrouw (Retailer) als leverancier van mijn producten .909
De producten van (Retailer) leveren goede waarde voor hun geld .945
De website van (Retailer) heeft goede en nuttige extra opties .811
(Retailer) heeft een goed en breed assortiment .902
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt zijn goede producten .942
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt zijn elke keer weer van goede kwaliteit .898
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt gaan lang mee .906
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt vertrouw ik .900
Als ik moet kiezen tussen een aantal online winkels, kies ik voor (Retailer) .841
Ik ben loyaal aan (Retailer) .760
Ik zal geen producten van andere online retailers kopen, als ik weet dat (Retailer) ook .943
deze producten verkoopt
(Retailer) is mijn eerste keus in deze productcategorie .773
Ik heb wel eens iets gekocht bij (Retailer) .677
Dat (Retailer) Ebook-readers verkoopt is een goede combinatie tussen winkel en .828
product
Dat (Retailer) Ebook-readers verkoopt is logisch. .899
* The values of the communalities after extraction. Minimum is 0.3
 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .917
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df. 190
Sig. * .000
* α= 0.05

Appendix C.3: Results of the factor analysis (pretest)

Factors Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative %

1 13,707 68,533 68,533
2 1,917 9,584 78,117
3 1,262 6,311 84,428
4 ,747 3,733 88,161
5 ,428 2,141 90,302

Factor loadings (pretest) 1 2

De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt zijn goede producten .962

De producten van (Retailer) leveren goede waarde voor hun geld .961
(Retailer) heeft een goed en breed assortiment .934
Ik vind (Retailer) een goede online winke .930
Ik vertrouw (Retailer) als leverancier van mijn producten .928
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt gaan lang mee .906
Ik heb wel eens iets gekocht bij (Retailer) .905
Ik herken (Retailer) tussen anderen online winkels .884
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt zijn elke keer weer van goede kwaliteit .871
De producten die (Retailer) verkoopt vertrouw ik .863
De website van (Retailer) heeft goede en nuttige extra opties .846
Sommige eigenschappen van de (Retailer) website komen snel in mijn hoofd .816
Ik weet wat (Retailer) voor producten verkoopt .717
Ik ben trots om producten van (Retailer) te kopen .653
Als ik moet kiezen tussen een aantal online winkels, kies ik voor (Retailer) .535
Dat (Retailer) Ebook-readers verkoopt is logisch. .951
Dat (Retailer) Ebook-readers verkoopt is een goede combinatie tussen winkel en product .906
Ik zal geen producten van online retailers kopen, als (Retailer) ook deze producten verkoopt *
Ik ben loyaal aan (Retailer) * .306
(Retailer) is mijn eerste keus in deze productcategorie * .380
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation method: Direct Oblimin
* Items were deleted after factor analysis due to low factor loadings.

74
Appendix C.4: Normality test for the eight variables of the pretest.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic df Sig.
RBE Yourlookforless.nl .258 15 .008
FIT Yourlookforless.nl .185 15 .180
RBE Ereaderstore.nl .292 15 .001
FIT Ereaderstore.nl .329 15 .000
RBE Bol.com .150 15 .200*
FIT Bol.com .218 15 .054
RBE Albert.nl .129 15 .200*
FIT Albert.nl .316 15 .000

75
 Appendix D: Results of Main analysis

Appendix D.1: Normality test for the items of the main analysis.

Items
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
value df Sig.
Het lezen met een ebook-reader (gekocht bij Retailer X) komt overeen met mijn behoefte. .232 151 .000
Het lezen met een ebook-reader komt overeen met mijn normen en waarden. .136 151 .000
Als ik een ebook-reader ga gebruiken past dit binnen de manier waarop ik dingen wil doen. .185 151 .000
Het gebruiken van een ebook-reader gaat mijn leesplezier/ leesgemak verbeteren. .184 151 .000
Over het algemeen, denk ik dat lezen met een ebook-reader in mijn voordeel gaat uitpakken. .180 151 .000
Ik denk dat het gebruiken van een ebook-reader gewoon de beste manier is van lezen. .213 151 .000
Het is moeilijk om een ebook-reader te gebruiken. .162 151 .000
Lezen met een ebook-reader is lastig .133 151 .000
Ik denk dat een ebook-reader gemakkelijk is in gebruik. .155 151 .000
Ik zou het niet erg vinden om anderen te vertellen dat ik een ebook-reader gebruik. .233 151 .000
Ik zou anderen het gebruik van een ebook-reader aanraden als ik er ook positief over ben. .233 151 .000
De voor- en nadelen van het lezen met een ebook-reader zijn duidelijk voor me. .148 151 .000
Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X, kan ik hem eerst gebruiken in een proeftijd. .199 151 .000
Het is gemakkelijk om een ebook-reader die ik koop bij Retailer X te proberen voor de .179 151 .000
aankoop, zonder dat ik ergens aan vast zit.
Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X kan ik in de mogelijkheid komen om het .154 151 .000
product ergens uit te proberen.
Ik denk dat ik geld verspil als ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X. .130 151 .000
Ik loop risico als ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X. .195 151 .000
Ik krijg spijt van het kopen van een ebook-reader bij Retailer X. .159 151 .000
Ik maak een fout als ik een ebook-reader aankoop bij Retailer X. .174 151 .000
Een ebook-reader is een riskante aankoop bij Retailer X. .189 151 .000

Appendix D.2: Assumptions of the factor analysis (Main analysis)

Communalities (Main analysis) Values

*
Het lezen met een ebook-reader (gekocht bij Retailer X) komt overeen met mijn behoefte. .711
Het lezen met een ebook-reader komt overeen met mijn normen en waarden. .639
Als ik een ebook-reader ga gebruiken past dit goed binnen de manier waarop ik dingen wil doen. .832
Het gebruiken van een ebook-reader gaat mijn leesplezier/ leesgemak verbeteren. .839
Over het algemeen, denk ik dat lezen met een ebook-reader in mijn voordeel gaat uitpakken. .844
Ik denk dat het gebruiken van een ebook-reader gewoon de beste manier is van lezen. .582
Het is moeilijk om een ebook-reader te gebruiken. .947
Lezen met een ebook-reader is lastig .569
Ik denk dat een ebook-reader gemakkelijk is in gebruik. .273
Ik zou het niet erg vinden om anderen te vertellen dat ik een ebook-reader gebruik. .700
Ik zou anderen het gebruik van een ebook-reader kunnen aanraden als ik er ook positief over ben. .586
De voor- en nadelen van het lezen met een ebook-reader zijn duidelijk voor me. .262
Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X, kan ik hem eerst gebruiken in een proeftijd. .691

76
Het is gemakkelijk om een ebook-reader die ik koop bij Retailer X te proberen voor de aankoop, zonder .691
dat ik ergens aan vast zit.
Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X kan ik in de mogelijkheid komen om het product ergens .706
uit te proberen.
Ik denk dat ik geld verspil als ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X. .517
Ik loop risico als ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X. .564
Ik krijg spijt van het kopen van een ebook-reader bij Retailer X. .739
Ik maak een fout als ik een ebook-reader aankoop bij Retailer X. .709
Een ebook-reader is een riskante aankoop bij Retailer X. .650

* The values of the communalities after extraction. Minimum is 0.3

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .828
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
df 190
Sig. * .000
* α= 0.05.

Appendix D.3: Results of the factor analysis (Main analysis)

Eigenvalues of the main analysis

Factor Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative %
1 6.658 33.291 33.291
2 2.361 11.805 45.096
3 2.019 10.095 55.191
4 1.612 8.058 63.249
5 1.450 7.250 70.499
6 .826 4.129 74.628

Items (main analysis)

Factor loading
1 2 3 4 5
Het lezen met een ebook-reader (Retailer X) komt overeen met mijn behoefte. .785
Het lezen met een ebook-reader komt overeen met mijn normen en waarden. .568
Als ik een ebook-reader gebruik past dit binnen de manier waarop ik dingen doe.. .793
Het gebruiken van een ebook-reader gaat mijn leesplezier/ leesgemak verbeteren. .892
Over het algemeen, denk ik dat een ebook-reader in mijn voordeel gaat uitpakken. .869
Ik denk dat het gebruiken van een ebook-reader de beste manier is van lezen. .731
Het is moeilijk om een ebook-reader te gebruiken. -.974
Lezen met een ebook-reader is lastig -.671
Ik denk dat een ebook-reader gemakkelijk is in gebruik. *
Ik zou het niet erg vinden om te vertellen dat ik een ebook-reader gebruik. .959
Ik zou het gebruik van een ebook-reader aanraden als ik er positief over ben. .673
De voor- en nadelen van het lezen met een ebook-reader zijn duidelijk voor me.*
Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X, kan ik hem eerst gebruiken. .810
Het is gemakkelijk om een ebook-reader die ik koop bij Retailer X te proberen voor .813
de aankoop, zonder dat ik ergens aan vast zit.

77
Voordat ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X kan ik in de mogelijkheid komen .815
om het product ergens uit te proberen.
Ik denk dat ik geld verspil als ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X. .517
Ik loop risico als ik een ebook-reader koop bij Retailer X. .668
Ik krijg spijt van het kopen van een ebook-reader bij Retailer X. .710
Ik maak een fout als ik een ebook-reader aankoop bij Retailer X. .749
Een ebook-reader is een riskante aankoop bij Retailer X. .695
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Direct Oblimin
* Items removed after analysis due to low factor loading (<0.4)

Appendix D.4: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the variables of the main analysis.

Variables for the main analysis Kolmogorov-Smirnov

Statistic df Sig.
YLFL_Compatibility .130 37 .117
YLFL_Relative advantage .239 37 .000
YLFL_Complexity .120 37 .194 *
YLFL_Observebility .148 37 .040
YLFL_Trialibility .114 37 .200 *
YLFL_Perceived risk .148 37 .039
AH_Compatibility .125 37 .158 *
AH_Relative Advantage .168 37 .010
AH_Complexity .166 37 .011
AH_Observebility .202 37 .001
AH_Trialibility .141 37 .061 *
AH_Perceived Risk .109 37 .200 *
BOL_Compatibiity .207 37 .000
BOL_Relative Advantage .173 37 .007
BOL_Complexity .171 37 .008
BOL_Observability .168 37 .010
BOL_Trialibility .191 37 .002
BOL_Perceived Risk .126 37 .149 *
ES_Compatibility .110 37 .200 *
ES_Relative Advantage .160 37 .018
ES_Complexity .194 37 .001
ES_Observability .150 37 .035
ES_Trialibility .192 37 .001
ES_Perceived Risk .121 37 .190 *
* insignificant variables (α=0.05). These variables have a normal distribution.

78