An examination of US golfers' communication behaviours across consumer innovativeness

Abstract

With emphasis on the importance of communication of a new product during the introductory stage, this study was conducted on the diffusion of innovation theory to understand communication behaviours in relation to consumer innovativeness. The purpose of this study is two-fold: first, to classify golfers into key market segments based on the innovativeness construct; and second, to explore differences between the identified segments based upon demographic characteristics and communication behaviours. 334 golfers from an amateur golf organisation located in the Midwest United States completed an online survey. The cluster analysis identified three meaningful segments, namely: 'Innovator/Early Adopters,' 'Early Majority,' and 'Late Majority/Laggards.'Cluster One (Innovator/Early Adopters) Cluster One comprised 31.1% of the respondents; had high interest in purchasing new golf clubs; and possessed the latest knowledge of new golf clubs. Furthermore, this group was more likely to be actively engaged in information acquisition activity, and tended to actively disseminate information to others compared to other groups. Cluster Two (Early Majority)The second cluster comprised 33.8% of the respondents. Relative to the other groups, this group possessed a moderate degree of innovativeness. Interestingly, individuals in this group were most active in seeking a neutral information source in purchasing

Fashion innovativeness in India: shopping behaviour, clothing evaluation and fashion information sources

“…Consumer innovativeness has been conceptualised into three key approaches: behavioural, global personality trait and domain-specific activity (Kim & Kim, 2015). The behavioural innovativeness is referred to 'the degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than the other members of a system' (Rogers, 2003;p.…”

Sport federations' organizational innovativeness: an empirical comparison of characteristics and attitudes

“…The 5 clusters constitute one innovator (2.7%), 11 early adopters (29.7%), 9 SFs that belong to the early majority (24.3%), 14 to the late majority (37.8%) and 2 laggards (5.4%). Because the number of cases within the outer categories would be too low, this study followed the process used by other authors that combined the innovators and early adopters on the one hand and the laggards and the group of the late majority on the other hand for the comparative analyses (see for example Agarwal et al , 1998; Jahanmir and Lages, 2016; Kim and Kim, 2015). This ultimately resulted in three different categories, i.e.…”

“…As explained above, it amounts to two criticisms, namely the recognition of pro-innovation biases (Lundblad, 2003) and the one-dimensional logic (Subramanian and Nilakanta, 1996). In particular, non-profit sport organizations operate in a different way than, for example, individuals (Kim and Kim, 2015) or commercial organizations (Lundblad, 2003), where the latter take full advantage of copying “best practices,” sport organizations' basic work activity is inherently different from each other due to the uniqueness of each federations' sport discipline. An innovation that works within one federation may have little or no effect within another federation.…”

“…Nevertheless, since the diffusion of golf was only just in the late-majority phase at the time of the investigation, differences in characteristics and attitudes between the various adopter groups could not yet be established. Also in relation to golf and Rogers' (2003) diffusion theory, Kim and Kim (2015) identified three market segments of golfers based on a cluster analysis that differ based on their demographic characteristics and communication behaviors. However, their research study focuses on the demand side rather than the supply side.…”

Untitled

“…A total of nine constructs were used, with the detail shown in Table 1. (Filieri, Alguezaui, & McLeay, 2015) IQ2: The information shared on social commerce is detailed and clear IQ3: The information shared on social commerce is credible Information credibility IC1: The information shared on social commerce is reliable (Filieri, 2015;Filieri et al, 2015) IC2: The information shared on social commerce is accurate IC3: The information shared on social commerce is trustworthy Innovativeness IN1: Generally, I want to be the fastest among my friends to write a review of a product in social commerce (Kim & Kim, 2015) IN2: Generally, I am the first in my circle of friends to know the latest beauty product IN3: Compared to my friends, I often read/write reviews on social commerce Social support SS1: When facing difficulties in finding product information, some social commerce users encourage and comfort me (Hajli, 2014;Hajli & Sims, 2015) SS2: When facing difficulties in finding product information, other users express interest and concern for me SS3: On social commerce, some users offer advice when I need help SS4: When I encounter problems in the context of beauty products, some people provide information to help me solve the problems E-WoM engagement EE1: I frequently read and/or write beauty product reviews in social commerce (Kunja & Gvrk, 2018;Yoo et al, 2013) EE2: I frequently read beauty product reviews in social commerce to get information about products that makes a good impression on others EE3: I often use social commerce to seek information about beauty products so I can feel confident in making my purchase decision Purchase intention After getting information shared by other users of social commerce for beauty products, … PI1: I am likely to buy the product (Kırcova, Yaman, & Köse, 2018;Prendergast, Ko, & Siu Yin, 2010) PI2: I will consider buying the product in the future PI3: I will try the product I'm interested in, according to the information I get from the social commerce PI4: I will recommend the product to my friends Note: "Social commerce" in Table 1 refers to "the one specialized in beauty products"…”