Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Social behavior and brand devotion

among iPhone innovators
Julianne Cabusas

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

How iPhone innovat ors changed t heir consumpt ion in iDay2: Hedonic post or brand devot ion
Mark Lennon

How t o Just ify Purchase of an iPad: Users of t he Lat est Launch

Mark Lennon

Fact or social versus t ecnología ut iliraria: market ing social versus mercado ut ilit ario
Julianne Cabusas
 International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 475–480

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Social behavior and brand devotion among iPhone innovators

Emílio J.M. Arruda-Filho a,∗ , Julianne A. Cabusas b , Nikhilesh Dholakia b
a
Social Economy Research Center, University of Amazon, Av. Alcindo Cacela 287, Belém, PA 66060-902, Brazil
b
College of Business Administration, University of Rhode Island, 7 Lippitt Road, Kingston, RI 02881, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Convergence of communication technologies and innovative product features are expanding the markets
Technology convergence for technological products and services. Prior literature on technology acceptance and use has focused on
Netnography utilitarian belief factors as predictors of rational adoption decisions and subsequent user behavior. This
Consumer behavior
presupposes that consumers’ intentions to use technology are based on functional or utilitarian needs.
Hedonism
Using netnographic evidence on iPhone usage, this study suggests that innovative consumers adopt
Utilitarian and social presence
and use new technology for not just utilitarian but also for experiential outcomes. The study presents an
interpretive analysis of the consumption behavior of very early iPhone users. Apple introduced iPhone as a
revolutionary mobile handset offering integrated features and converged services—a handheld computer-
cum-phone with a touch-screen web browser, a music player, an organizer, a note-taker, and a camera.
This revolutionary product opened up new possibilities to meld functional tasks, hedonism, and social
signaling. The study suggests that even utilitarian users have hedonic and social factors present in their
consumption patterns.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In terms of technology adoption and usage, consumers con-
sider both hedonic and utilitarian product attributes. Interactions
of these attributes not only provide functional benefits but may
also enhance enjoyment, and often provide ways to signal social
status (Katz & Sugiyama, 2006). As Katz and Sugiyama (2006) con-
clude from their studies of mobile technology in USA and Japan,
such technologies are increasingly serving multiple functions, rang-
ing from enhancing individual functional utility to making fashion
statements to relevant social groups.
Designers of innovative technological products, such as the
iPhone, are well aware of the multiple benefits their products could
provide to various user segments. For example, some of the design
elements may be performance enhancing, resulting in greater pro-
ductivity, increased profitability, rising sales turnover, and lower
production costs for the users; while other design elements may
reduce support and service costs, offer a higher degree of customer
satisfaction, and create loyal customers (Gemser, Jacobs, & Cate,
2006).
An important and emergent design factor – very evident in
iPhone and the imitative products that followed it – pertains to
haptic information, or information gained through touch by hands.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 91 81354606; fax: +55 91 40093115.
E-mail addresses: emilio.arruda@unama.br (E.J.M. Arruda-Filho),
cabusasj@gmail.com (J.A. Cabusas), nik@uri.edu (N. Dholakia).
Consumers use their hands to explore and evaluate products in
terms of material properties before ultimately making a purchase
(Peck & Childers, 2003). The haptic aspects of the iPhone were pro-
moted heavily – in seductive and hedonic terms – in the American
television commercials preceding the launch of the iPhone.
As an innovative technological product, the iPhone utilized all
these factors to trigger consumer frenzy in the launch period—with
long lines snaking outside the stores through the night prior to the
launch date. In the very early phase, the iPhone reached two general
kinds of consumers: (1) devoted consumers (the Apple acolytes),
whose loyalty to the brand is so intense that it survives poor prod-
uct performance, scandal, bad publicity, high prices, and absence
of promotional efforts (Pimentel & Reynolds, 2004) and (2) social
users who use mobile technologies as tools to create relationships
among technology, body, and social roles (Katz & Sugiyama, 2006)
and engage in rhetoric and “meaning-making” that occur via social
interaction among innovative early users (as well as late users and
non-users).
In the case of iPhone, integration of utilitarian and hedonic fac-
tors facilitated the seamless delivery of convergent services in ways
that had not been possible in the pre-iPhone era. Heath and Soll
(1996) found that when a given expense could be assigned to mul-
tiple categories, people might have some leeway for assignment
of some of their expenditures to hedonic categories. This permits
consumption of such items in ways that satisfies short-term hedo-
nic interests and skirts the budget constraints that would generally
apply to major purchases.

0268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.03.003
476 E.J.M. Arruda-Filho et al. / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 475–480
Table 1
Primary data for the netnographic research.
Name of website
URL
Dates during which the website was monitored
Total threads checked
Keywords searched
Using the context of Apple’s iPhone, this paper focuses on the
influence of hedonic versus utilitarian attributes on consumer’s
choices and brand justification. There are three sections that fol-
low this introduction. First, the method used in this study is
described briefly. Next, the ten key themes are extracted from
qualitative interpretation of the netnographic data and are pre-
sented to explain consumer devotion towards the iPhone and
social aspects of iPhone usage. The paper ends with Section 4
on the relevance of social factors in the marketing of techno-
logically innovative, multifunctional, and symbolically powerful
products.
2. Method
Using the Bass (1969) framework for analyzing adoption of
new products in the technology sector, the iPhone was selected
in this study because of its unique combination of innovative
attributes and characteristics: a highly sought mobile technology
device, new and cutting-edge technology, high degree of pre-
launch anticipation, the great success in the market immediately
after introduction, the high initial price point that signaled unique
and high techno-social status of early adopters, and the intense
media buzz around this technological innovation. The second half of
2007 offered a rare opportunity to track some of the post-adoption
processes of this major multifunctional and symbolically powerful
technological innovation.
The data for this study consisted of selected user postings from
the web forum titled Everythingicafe.com, a website that offers
iPhone/iPod fans a platform to communicate with others con-
sumers who are passionate about such products (see Table 1). The
researchers found that this forum was the central web for discus-
sions for iPhone users, as confirmed by discussions with technology
enthusiasts and the nearly 60,000 postings about the iPhone in less
than three months after the product hit the market. About 30 pages
of written postings about the iPhone – containing consumers’ deci-
sions, sentiments, expressions of satisfaction and dissatisfaction,
and other expressions – formed the basis for the interpretations.
The data for this study came from five threads that contained
keywords such as awesome, fashion, useful, beautiful, pretty and
quality. The 155 comments were downloaded between Septem-
ber 8 and September 15, 2007. As shown in Table 2, the threads
were chosen for their relevant content and unique postings of var-
iously ranked members. Using social and hedonic literature (Katz
& Sugiyama, 2006; Okada, 2005) the relevant threads chosen were
based on preferences connected with consumers’ desire.
Non-participant netnography was employed because it allows
the researchers to capture the spontaneous flow of communication
Table 2
Details of discussion threads about iPhone.
Serial number Name of thread Subject line
1 Fashion statement So it’s a great phone, but is it a ‘fashion’ phone?
2 Evaluating the iPhone What’s makin’ you keep your iPhone?
3 Bored with the features A month and a half later. Anyone else bored of the iPhone?
4 Utility vs. beautifulness The iPhone is just a mediocre phone, albeit a pretty one
5 Surprised with this device This phone is friggin’ awesome!!!!!
Total
EverythingiCafe (Apple’s web forum about their products)
http://www.everythingiphone.com, changed later to http://www.everythingicafe.com/
From September 08 to September 15, 2007
5 threads about satisfaction, beauty, fashion and related discussions about the iPhone
Awesome, fashion, useful, beautiful, pretty, quality
among consumers, which contain “sufficient descriptive richness”
(Kozinets, 2002).
Indirect member checks – off-the-forum communication with
some members and perusing of their available profiles – provided
some indicators of the type of posters at this forum. Posters to
these threads were estimated to be approximately 70% men and
30% women, with ages from 16 to 50, and were very likely to be
students or business people that like technology in their daily life.
Three researches made their contributions by analyzing the
dataset individually, coding each important behavior presented
in the text and creating a first categorization of technological
consumer behavior by group to this specific technological prod-
uct (Kozinets, 2002). After this first analysis the categorizations
were compared and the main interpretations were separated to
be defined by researches which different groups it had – like group
themes – and how these groups were justifying their preferences
for the product with different features but with same bundled need
(Harris & Blair, 2006).
3. Key emergent themes
While the 30 pages of textual data offered multiple interpreta-
tive possibilities, for the purpose of this writing it was decided to
extract from the dataset ten key themes based on their represen-
tative and repetitive response for different discussions. Using the
entire text, no matter the threads, ten key themes were created ana-
lyzing which representative behavior was presented, and each one
was inserted – along with the associated evidence – in a “Top-10
List” format. The idea behind such an approach was to blend con-
sumer behavior insights with managerially relevant learning avail-
able from the early iPhone usage experience captured in the unique
2007 post-launch and still-euphoric setting. While the themes pre-
sented in this section are specific to the iPhone context, and even
more narrowly to the forum and the threads studied, in later con-
ceptual discussions connections and extensions are offered to the
larger issues relating to the adoption processes for technologically
innovative, multifunctional, and symbolically powerful products.
The article proposes that the influence of use increases with the
hedonism and social aspect of usage from each new technology
launched in the market. How much hedonic or social can be the
product more used will be, because it will receive a new consumer
target and it will excite users with multiple hedonic features. Fig. 1
shows the proposition based on hedonism and social user.
The identified themes present different iPhone usage experi-
ences. The above matrix shows the behavior exhibited by the new
iPhone users based on hedonistic appeal and devotion. Utilitarian
users switched from other brands of mobile phones due to little
No. of unique posters Total of postings Word count
4 4 242
27 38 3721
48 64 4755
19 37 4707
10 12 339
108 155 13764
 E.J.M. Arruda-Filho et al. / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 475–480
Fig. 1. Matrix of social behavior to new technologies launched. A comparison with the iPhone usage and an approach to the new technologies usage.
devotion for any particular brand and low hedonism. Research has
shown that consumer’s decision between hedonic and utilitarian
attributes of goods is affected by the nature of decision task and
situational factors. If unsatisfied with the iPhone, these consumers,
who have high utilitarian values, are likely to abandon the iPhone
and seek alternative smartphones.
The following narrative elaborates on the key “Top-10” themes,
with supporting consumers’ quotes identified using page and line
numbers from the data transcript explaining the social behavior
matrix (Fig. 1) and technologic preferences.
3.1. Pioneering justification (10)
Some of the earliest iPhone adopters seemed to derive satis-
faction from the mere act of pioneering—being the first on the
block to own this expensive and iconic technology. For them,
brand devotion and very early adoption went hand in hand. They
regarded those waiting for price cuts as somehow inferior—brand-
switchers who did not value the Apple brand enough to pay the
full introductory price
“So me personally I knew what I was getting into before I bought
mine. Being a person who builds their own computers, I tend
to wait and read reviews/comments from the everyday people
before buying the next great piece of electronic or part that may
cost you 600 bucks. I personally have been extremely satisfied
with my iPhone and love it”. P8, L33–40.
“Anyone else have the same thoughts? If Apple doesn’t come
out with an update soon (and none of the security update bs),
then I’m going to switch back to the Blackberry”. P9, L38–40.
“Did you come here to gloat about the price cut? I am sure there
are web sites that cater to MS folks, maybe even Zune fans. Try
them out, why don’t you”. P27, L4–6.
Okada (2005) explains that the hedonic enjoyment of expensive
items often creates a sense of guilt because of the high price paid,
and the consumer has to justify his/her consumption to prove that
the purchase was necessary. Brucks, Zeithaml, and Naylor (2000)
found that premium prices and premium brand image are closely
related indicators of quality, and consumers use both to justify their
choice of high-priced products. Among the earliest iPhone users,
brand iconicity and pioneering ownership trumped everything else,
and discount seekers were lower down on the techno-social status
ladder.
477
3.2. All-in-one bundling (9)
All-in-one bundling is when many features are integrated into
the same device. The market shows a presence of need for these
kinds of products and services (Nunes, Wilson, & Kambil, 2000;
Cieslak, & Winkle, 2004)
“Great phone (sound, call quality, responsiveness, ease of use. . .I
know the speaker phone sound level makes it useless but I rarely
use speaker phone.” P6, L52–56
“For a long time, I wondered, “Why can’t I have one device
for listening to mp3s, making phone calls, and taking decent
pictures. . .That lack of an all-in-one device is what kept
me out of the blackberry and ipod camps for so long.” P9,
L5–9
“I’m keeping track of calendar items, lists (in notes), weather,
getting on the web from time to time, and using text messaging
and AIM nearly every day. Oh yeah, and I get the occasional
phone call too” P14, L44–48
“No other phone on the market comes to offering the features. . .
in one package” P3, L 53–54
“I don’t need to carry my phone and ipod anymore.” P7, L24
Harris and Blair (2006) describe the proportion of consumers
choosing a bundle over separate components as being higher for
consumers with high knowledge uncertainty than consumers with
low knowledge uncertainty. Consistent with this, we find that
iPhone users in the forum have sparse prior knowledge about the
device. Even devoted Apple consumers were not prepared for this
revolutionary and innovative product.
3.3. Next generation of smart phones (8)
Unlike other mobile phones in the market, the iPhone com-
bines three products in one—a phone, an iPod, and an internet
device (Funk, 2004) with HTML email and a desktop-class web-
browser (Apple website). Integration of voice, data, and image make
it easy to use the product based on prior knowledge and experience,
thus, a new kind of use of multimedia technology was developed
(Mukherjee, & Hoyer, 2001)
“Love the Maps application. . ., Love the full blown HTML. . .” P2,
L28–31
“Google maps. It is great and very easy to use.” P7, L1
478 E.J.M. Arruda-Filho et al. / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 475–480
“and right now what is keeping me is that phone is cool, does an
OK job in the SLC, Utah area at being a phone, the videos were
great on my last trip, and maps is very nice” P3, L19–22
“I finally get email and internet on my phone!! Plus I’ve never
had video iPod before.” P8, L18–19
“The iPhone is stable and does everything it’s supposed to do
flawlessly. It will do a lot more eventually. Safari is great. Except
for my car, I’m always on wifi, so speed isn’t a factor. I love the
fact it will pick up on any wifi network available.” P6, L32–35
“Having used virtually all of the smartphone products in various
iterations available over the past six years, I can say that, at least
for my needs, the iPhone is inferior to nothing. Indeed it does
what it does better and more intuitively than any device I’ve
used to date.” P13, L40–44
Kim, Lee, and Koh (2005) point out that convergence represents
an important trend in information technology (IT), so all the fea-
tures that have been integrated have generated an expansive group
of users with different needs. Consumers are impressed with their
usage and the diffusion of innovation behind the product (Danaher,
Hardie, & Putsis, 2001).
3.4. Enhanced aesthetics (7)
The contemporary design, and aesthetic appeal of the product
are the key points because visual appeal has become an important
aspect of purchase decision to satisfy social needs. The quality and
value of the product are evaluated based on the image of the prod-
uct even if this product has some perceived risk (Snoj, Korda, &
Mumel, 2004)
“This phone has already changed my life and I’ve only scratched
the surface. I LOVE IT.” P29, L53–54
“I’m keeping my iPhone because it’s sexy and a great conversa-
tion starter!” P8, L12–13
“iPhone is more of a ‘hip’ than a fashion phone. If Marc Jacobs
for LV or Miucca Prada starts designing cases for iPhone, it will
become a fashion phone” P1, L30–32
“On the basis of the OS and the tech that binds all the nuances
of this phone together as a package. I get it, it really is amazing
and groundbreaking in its execution and design.” P21, L57–59
Gemser et al. (2006), present the importance of design in tech-
nology products, and it is clear in the data collected that there was a
connection through the design and social presence because of how
the device was used.
3.5. Haptic experience (6)
The innovation of the touch screen and the possibility of use of
the iPhone in the stores made the difference in consumer product
evaluation. Once a consumer gains familiarity with the product in
the store, this experience can be translated as prior knowledge
“Plus, admit it, that commercial where the guy is watching
Pirates of the Caribbean, looks up a sushi restaurant, and touches
the number to make reservations is just cool!” P9, L23–26
“Dude, you were using a demo! My iPhone works way better in
the real world than the demo did in the store. . . . Once again it
sounds like user error rather than device failure.” P23, L34–42
“I really miss my blackberry 8800. The keyboard on the iPhone
just flat out sucks compared to a keyboard u can feel with ur
hands and type much easier”. P17, L1–3
“The iPhone doesn’t even have basic features that were available
5 years ago. A phone that is touch screen and has visual vmail
will come out shortly and it will have mms and everything else
the iPhone can’t do. The iPhone is the most over-hyped product
in 20 years.” P17, L37–41
“The technology of the touch screen far surpasses anything thing
out there on any phone on the market” P28, L58–60
Kim et al. (2005) consider the touch screen as a more probable
type of input equipment for the future. Peck and Childers (2003)
present the importance of the haptic experience testing a product
before to purchase it. The difference made by Apple is primar-
ily based on innovativeness. Even with some of its problems and
new features, they launched several innovations before their com-
petitors (e.g. the touch screen for example), so strategically they
had enough time to correct their problems as well as still being
considered the first to market.
3.6. Category ambivalence (5)
Is it a phone or is it a new device? Most of the postings in
this study discussed the features and almost nobody talked about
the phone call quality, coverage, etc. Enhanced new product gen-
erations are introduced to the market regularly that consumers,
including technology savvy user, find it difficult to stay in the
know. As a company, Apple positions it as a mobile communica-
tions device (Neelamegham & Chintagunta, 2004), but the users
do not seem to be certain about the category to which this device
belongs. Thus, the choice is largely based on enjoyment (Nowlis,
Mandel, & McCabe, 2004)
“Me? I like my iPhone. It’s a nice device (that marginally passes
as a phone) that needs to have some issues addressed (especially
that whole phone part.) It has the potential to be something
much more than it is right now if the messiah, er. I mean Steve
Jobs. will allow some 3rd party tinkering. As I’ve said before, it’s
a phone and a piece of technology. It serves me.” P19, L20–26
“The best IPod I’ve owned. . .; It’s just damn sexy” P2, L50–53
“The best iPod ever. . . it is more beautiful than any phone/iPod
I’ve ever seen.” P6, L42–46
“I still have a great phone/ipod/email/Safari, etc. that fit my
needs very nicely” P7, L53–54
“Great phone (sound, call quality, responsiveness, ease of
use. . .except for AT&T’s dropped calls.” P6, L52–53
As Gemser et al. (2006) noted, Apple invested considerably
in design, following the trend it had already set with the stylish
iMac computer. As further evidence of the Vrdoljak and Vrdoljak
(2000) views on the ongoing strategic convergence in informa-
tion and communication technology markets, the iPhone market
is much more than merely a mobile phone market. The iPhone
device and the associated services entail hedonic, social, as well
as utilitarian benefits; and offer an ambivalent but enjoyable and
exciting device category to people who are fascinated by innovative
technology.
3.7. Portable entertainment player (4)
The iPhone’s albums and video designs are connected directly
from the internet and updated to the user—way more than what
iPod offers, Apple’s primary entertainment player
“Play movies and music (music onboard or by stream)” P28, L26
“Gorgeous Huge Screen – There’s nothing bigger or clearer out
there on the market. Built in iPod – Need I mention Cover flow,
video and music. I’d trade ringers and games for the ability to
watch an episode of Entourage or the full movie 300 on my
phone.” P12, L58–63
The sequence of use from the iPod to the iPhone is clear in
the research realized because many consumers previously owned
an iPod and substituted newly launched devices. Adelaar, Chang,
Lancendorf, Lee, and Morimoto (2003) presented how consumers
 E.J.M. Arruda-Filho et al. / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 475–480
using the broadband internet were listening to music, watch-
ing the music video, and then instantly purchasing the featured
music, which actually had been made possible through the use of
mobile phones, and in particular, the iPhone. The market involved
is not about the product but about the convergent services (Fuerst,
Ragusa, & Turban, 1994/1995) as the music store planted itself in a
little mobile device.
3.8. Apple stuff (3)
Apple’s deep integration across its own products leads to a select
group of users with the introduction of iPhone; it is a desirable
product not only for Apple acolytes, but also for the latest social
technology users
“. . .this is the most enjoyable smartphone I ever used. Using
Apple products (like Mac PCs) is work with lots of fun compared
to Windows products.” P7, L19–22
“I look at my iPhone the same as my iMac. When I first got it,
even checking mail on my 20” screen was fun. Playing WoW
was awesome. Now it is still a great experience, but I’m used to
it. I appreciate it for its design and ease of use. I wouldn’t trade
my Mac for a Dell (any PC) and I wouldn’t trade my iPhone for
any other cellphone.” P13, L22–27
“One factor that makes it unique is the seamless way that it
interoperates with the Mac. . . . It is the best cell phone that I
have ever owned, and among the best small computers that I
have ever had. And it’s a cool device.” P21, L4–9
“If apple keeps making phones. . .I’ll . . .never own another
phone. . .” P4, L30–31
Cowley and Mitchell (2003) find that experienced consumers
are more likely to organize information by product subcate-
gories and store information about product alternatives in a
way that increased flexibility when retrieving different bands
for different usage occasions. These consumers who already
own a particular brand are more likely to accept brand exten-
sions. Therefore, many consumers used Apple because they
had an experience before with the brand and other products
creating some familiarity, prior knowledge or even devotion
capable of supporting and inciting the use of the new device
(Coupey, Irwin, & Payne, 1998; Hoch, 2002; Pimentel & Reynolds,
2004).
3.9. Innovative users (2)
It is not enough for the latest users to own a product, but they
have to be the first. The users purchased the device just for hedonic
use and not for need or utilitarian use, and assumed that the product
will be used in its entirety (Nunes, 2000)
“For some that did do the homework the answers were not
always presented in an obvious manner, which as an early
adopter can hurt. A person buying now can make a far more
educated purchase then us first day’ers”, P5, L23–26.
“I didn’t buy mine on iDay, . . . I personally have been extremely
satisfied with my iPhone and love it”, Page 8, Line 27–40.
Based on the postings used, it is evident that technological peo-
ple’s primary concern is owning the best equipment ever launched.
These users are not concerned with the risks on successive prod-
uct generations based on consequences or losses (Sääkjärvi &
Lampinen, 2005), but just owning and showing the device (Belk,
1988). These psychological needs are consistent with the con-
sumption behavior presented by Brunner (1996) which shows as
example the use of a life style created around a specific mode of
consumption.
479
3.10. Hedonic social contagion (1)
For the early iPhone adopters, not only is the use experi-
ence enjoyable, it allows them to signal the hedonic pleasure to
others—in other words, to share the fun. Unlike products that
arouse negative emotions of jealously and envy, the iPhone seems
to represents an enjoyable and fun device that creates positive
hedonic contagion. As evident in the postings, this device is pri-
marily considered a social or enjoyment tool
“It’s fashion only because every celebrity will have one soon.”
P1, L26–27
“This is the most enjoyable smart phone I ever used.” P7, L1
“This baby can do so many things. I impress the hell out of people
all the time with it. We went on vacation and thanks to my
iPhone we found restaurants, shopping, etc.” P16, L5–8
Based on interpretation of the transcripts, the early iPhone users
engage with this technology for utilitarian as well as experiential
outcomes—with primacy often afforded to the latter. Even when
the functionality sometimes falls below expectations, the hedonic
aspects allow consumers to justify the usefulness of the product
(Okada, 2005). Mobile devices in general have been recognized as
social devices (Katz & Sugiyama, 2006), and the iPhone represents
in epitome in terms of the positive social contagion it seems capable
of creating.
4. Discussion and conclusions
Prior literature on technology acceptance and use has focused
on utilitarian belief factors to predict rational user behavior. Using
some netnographic evidence on iPhone usage, this article suggests
that innovative consumers adopt and use new technology for not
just utilitarian but also for experiential outcomes. Consumer choice
involve factors unrelated to functional outcomes, such as enjoy-
ment, social acceptance, social status and playfulness. As shown in
this study, this hedonic use of technology is salient in the iPhone
context. The users cited the device’s features and services, such
as internet access, synchronization (SYNC), fames, Google maps,
digital camera, and MP3, emphasizing convergence and hedonic
usage. The key features made salient in acquiring an iPhone are
the device’s design, display, and multi-touch interface (an innova-
tive feature introduced at the launch of the product) (Thompson,
Hamilton, and Rust, 2005).
Although Apple primarily marketed the iPhone as a mobile
phone, this study shows some netnographic evidence that con-
sumers may perceived it as a different device. This has managerial
implication as Firat and Dholakia (1998) note that consumers
take an active role in appropriating usage and meanings to
brand/product. Consumers are more concerned with enjoyment
experience than with the existent communication features. Some
consumers complain about dropped calls or failed coverage, but still
have no dissatisfaction. The hedonic orientation of consumption
represents a powerful motivation for using technology.
With regard to new product development, the different nature
of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption of technology has two
implications for favorable technology use: (1) quantity of integra-
tions have to be preferential to hedonic features (Okada, 2005),
as consumers will likely exhibit more positive attitudes towards a
product when the hedonic features are more salient; (2) an empha-
sis to converged services in new products may create innovative
devotion from loyal consumers.
As this study is confined to website postings of consumers’ expe-
rience of a really new product (RNP) during the launch period,
further research is needed to explore social or hedonic technol-
ogy use. RNPs undergo several iterations and developments; thus,
480 E.J.M. Arruda-Filho et al. / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 475–480
another area to explore would be the adoption and usage of the
modified product by innovative consumers. The utilitarianism as a
social factor would also be important to measure to examine tech-
nological users that have high hedonic and social status needs or
“techno-social behavior.”
Consumers who belong to the innovative user group are con-
stantly looking for new launches and are indifferent to the brand
as long as they have the newest technologies in order to be the first
in the market. These consumers are likely to prefer hedonic con-
sumption if the situation allows them to justify it. The next group
of consumers, the techno-social users, has high devotion for the
brand and high hedonism. These consumers own other Apple prod-
ucts (such as iPods and Macs) and now have seamlessly compatible
mobile phone (i.e. iPhone). Because most innovative products are
expensive, they have to be justified based on brand and utility as
well as social or hedonic utility. These users also could have a high
utilitarianism tendency but not enough to justify their use. Ideally,
techno-social users would turn as Apple Acolyte converts because
of Apple’s significant brand equity and thus, high preference for the
brand’s closely related products and designs. The Apple Acolytes,
the consumers who are devoted to the Apple brand, justify their
iPhone usage by highlighting only the features that worked well in
the iPhone, which are not necessarily hedonistic values.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the Editor and Reviewers of this journal
for their detailed and insightful comments on previous versions.
The authors also thank the Research Institute for Telecommunica-
tions and Information Marketing (RITIM) at the University of Rhode
Island (URI) for supporting collaborative work of an international
team of researchers.
References
Adelaar, T., Chang, S., Lancendorf, K. M., Lee, B., & Morimoto, M. (2003). Effects of
media formats on emotions and impulse buying intent. Journal of Information
Technology, 18(December), 247–266.
Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management
Science, 15(January (5)), 215–227.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consume Research,
(September (15)), 139–168.
Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. A., & Naylor, G. (2000). Price and brand name as indicators of
quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28, 3.
Brunner, F. M. (1996). A psychological rendering of consumerism. Ph.D. thesis. Pacifica
Graduate Institute (208 pp., AAT 3002424).
Cieslak, D. M., & Winkle, M. V. (2004). Carry your office in the palm of your hand.
Journal of Accountancy, 198(August (2)), 52–56.
Coupey, E., Irwin, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Product category familiarity and pref-
erence construction. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March)
Cowley, E., & Mitchell, A. A. (2003). The moderating effect of product knowledge
on the learning and organization of product information. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30(December).
Danaher, P. J., Hardie, B. G. S., & Putsis, W. P., Jr. (2001). Marketing-mix variables and
the diffusion of successive generations of a technological innovation. Journal of
Marketing Research, 38(4), 501–514.
Firat, F., & Dholakia, N. (1998). Consuming people: From political economy to the-
aters of consumption. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21(September (3)), 339–344.
Fuerst, W. L., Ragusa, J. M., & Turban, E. (1994/1995). Expert systems and multime-
dia: Examining the potential for integration. Journal of Management Information,
11(Winter (3)).
Funk, J. L. (2004). Key technological trajectories and the expansion of mobile internet
applications. The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications,
Information and Media, 6(3), 208.
Gemser, G., Jacobs, D., & Cate, R. T. (2006). Design and competitive advantage
in technology-driven sectors: The role of usability and aesthetics in Dutch
IT companies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(December (5)),
561–580.
Harris, J., & Blair, E. A. (2006). Functional compatibility risk and consumer preference
for product bundles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 19–26.
Heath, C., & Soll, J. B. (1996). Mental budgeting and consumer decisions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 23(June).
Hoch, S. (2002). Product experience is seductive. Journal of Consume Research,
29(December).
Katz, J. E., & Sugiyama, S. (2006). Mobile phones as fashion statements: Evidence
from student surveys in the US and Japan. New Media and Society, 8(2), 321–
337.
Kim, Y, Lee, J.-D., & Koh, D. (2005). Effects of consumer preferences on the con-
vergence of mobile telecommunications devices. Applied Economics, 37(7), 817–
826.
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing
research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(February),
61–72.
Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2001). The effect of novel attributes on product
evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(December).
Neelamegham, R., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2004). Modeling and forecasting the sales of
technology products. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2(September (3)),
195–232.
Nowlis, S. M., Mandel, N., & McCabe, D. B. (2004). The effect of a delay between choice
and consumption on consumption enjoyment. Journal of Consumer Research,
31(December (3)), 502–510.
Nunes, J. C. (2000). A cognitive model of people’s usage estimation. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 37(4), 397–409.
Nunes, P., Wilson, D., & Kambil, A. (2000). The all-in-one market. Harvard Business
Review. Boston, 78(May/June (3)), 19, 2 pp.
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utili-
tarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual differences in haptic information pro-
cessing: The “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(December
(3)).
Pimentel, R. W., & Reynolds, K. E. (2004). A model for consumer devotion: Affective
commitment with proactive sustaining behaviors. Academy of Marketing Science
Review, (5), 1.
Sääkjärvi, M., & Lampinen, M. (2005). Consumer perceived risk in suc-
cessive product generations. European Journal of Innovation Management,
8(2), 145.
Snoj, B., Korda, A. P., & Mumel, D. (2004). The relationships among perceived qual-
ity, perceived risk and perceived product value. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 13(2/3).
Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Rust, R. T. (2005). Feature fatigue: When product
capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research,
(November), 431–442.
Vrdoljak, M., & Vrdoljak, S. I. (2000). Fixed-mobile convergence strategy: Technolo-
gies and market opportunities. IEEE Communications Magazine, (February).
Emílio J.M. Arruda Filho is professor of Marketing and Network Solution in the
Social Economy Research Center at the University of Amazon, Brazil.
Julianne A. Cabusas is a doctoral candidate in the marketing area in the College of
Business Administration, University of Rhode Island, USA.
Nikhilesh Dholakia is professor of marketing and international business in the
College of Business Administration, University of Rhode Island, USA.