Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Content Richness, Perceived Price, and Perceived Ease of Use in Relation to the Satisfaction Level and Brand Equity in Streaming Platforms

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advanced Research in Technologies, Information, Innovation and Sustainability (ARTIIS 2022)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1675))

  • 771 Accesses

Abstract

Streaming platforms have become popular in recent years, where consumers can view personalized content at any time on the device of their choice. Many brands in this market have been fighting to win more market share. It was seen how they improved their strategies based on several factors such as price, ease of use, content richness, or brand equity. Users tend to have high satisfaction with the streaming platform depending on what brand offers what they value the most. The objective of this study was to find the relationships that the variables content richness (CR), perceived price (PR), perceived ease of use (PEOU), brand equity (BE), and user satisfaction (US) have within this market. The study population was made up of subscribers of streaming platforms in Peru, in which the sample was 400 subscribers who used streaming platforms for more than 6 months. The methodology used was a PLS-SEM analysis using the SmartPLS 3 tool to answer the hypotheses raised in the study. All the scale items were measured by a 7-point Likert scale. The results from the investigation indicated that brand equity was significantly influenced by both content richness and perceived ease of use. Moreover, brand equity and user satisfaction have a high significance between them. This may be since users now value more the richness of content and ease of use on streaming platforms. However, the perceived price was not significantly predictive of brand equity, it could be because some streaming platforms offer more than one pricing plan and the perceptions disperse even more than with the other variables. Overall findings suggest reinforcing the relationships between CR and BE, since there have not been previous investigations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mora Astaburuaga, A., Prado Seoane, J.A.: Estudio Comparativo de las Condiciones Generales de la Contratación de las Principales Plataformas de Reproducción en Streaming Cláusulas Potencialmente Abusivas. Revista Electrónica del Departamento de Derecho de la Universidad de La Rioja 1(15), 176–177 (2017). https://doi.org/10.18172/redur.4167

  2. Zuckerman, N., Rose, J., Rosenzweig, J., Sheerin, A., TMank, T., Schmitz, L.-K.: Streaming Viewers Aren’t Going Anywhere, New York: The Boston Consulting Group (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Haridas, H., Deepak, S.: Customer perception towards networked streaming service providers with reference to amazon prime and netflix. Int. J.of Recent Technol. Eng. 9(1), 513–517 (2020). https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.A1911.059120

  4. Kumar, J., Gupta, A., Dixit, S.: Netflix: SVoD entertainment of next gen. Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies 10(3), 10–12 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/EEMCS-04-2020-0108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wayne, M.: Netflix, Amazon, and branded television content in subscription. Media Cult. Soc. 40(5), 725–741 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717736118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cornelio-Marí, E.M.: Mexican melodrama in the age of netflix: algorithms for cultural proximity. Comunicación y Sociedad 17(1), 1–27 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/17496020211044444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lotz, A.: In between the global and the local: mapping the geographies of Netflix as a multinational service. Int. J. Cult. Stud. 24(2), 190–200 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877920953166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Statista, V.S.: (SVoD) in Statista. Statista Inc., Hamburg (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schauerte, R., Feiereisen, S., Malter, A.J.: What does it take to survive in a digital world? resource-based theory and strategic change in the TV industry. J. Cult. Econ. 45(2), 263–293 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-020-09389-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hasan, V.A.: Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Willingness To Subscribe: Telaah Pada Layanan Video On Demand Netflix. Ultima Management: Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen 9(1), 22–38 (2017). https://doi.org/10.31937/manajemen.v9i1.595

  11. Dimmick, J., Albarran, A.: The role of gratification opportunities in determining media preference. Mass Communication Review 21(3), 223–235 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moore, G., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2(3), 192–200 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Weniger, S.: User adoption of IPTV: a research model. In: 23rd Bled eConference eTrust: Implications for the Individual, Enterprises and Society, Slovenia (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Al-Kasasbeh, M.M., Dasgupta, S., AL-Faouri, A.H.: Factors Affecting E-Service Satisfaction. Communications of the IBIMA 2011(1), 1–12 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5171/2011.547937

  15. Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee, D., Lehto, M.: User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Comput. Educ. 61(1), 193–208 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Surendran, P.: Technology acceptance model: a survey of literature. Int. J. Business Social Res. 2(4), 175–178 (2012). https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v2i4.161

  19. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51–90 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ban, H.-K., Ellinger, A., Hadjimarcou, J., Traichal, P.: Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol. Mark. 17(6), 449–468 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200006)17:6%3c449::AID-MAR2%3e3.0.CO;2-88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tung, F.-C., Chang, S.-C.: Nursing students’ behavioral intention to use online courses: a questionnaire survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 45(9), 1299–1309 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jung, Y., Perez-Mira, B., Wiley-Patton, S.: Consumer adoption of mobile TV: examining psychological flow and media content. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25(1), 123–129 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin, A., Chen, N.-C.: Cloud computing as an innovation: percepetion, attitude, and adoption. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 32(6), 533–540 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Alan, R., Rubin, R.: Interface of personal and mediated communication: a research agenda. Crit. Stud. Media Commun. 2(1), 36–53 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Park, S., Kang, S.-U., Zo, H.: Analysis of influencing factors on the IPTV subscription. Inf. Technol. People 29(2), 419–443 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-05-2014-0100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sathye, M.: Adoption of internet banking by australian consumers: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Bank Marketing 17(1), 324–334 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zeithaml, V., Parasurarnan, A., Malhotra, A.: Service quality delivery through web sites: a critical review of extant knowledge. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 30(4), 362–375 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Swaminathan, V., Lepkowska-White, E., Rao, B.: Browsers or buyers in cyberspace? an investigation of factors influencing electronic exchange. J. Computer-Mediated Communication 5(2), JCMC523 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cebeci, U., Oguzhan, I., Hulya, T.: Understanding the intention to use netflix: an extended technology acceptance model approach. Int. Review of Manage. Marketing 9(6), 152–157 (2019). https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.8771

  30. Chiang, C.-F., Jang, S.S.: The effects of perceived price and brand image on value and purchase intention: leisure. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 15(3), 49–69 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1300/J150v15n03_04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Netemeyer, R., et al.: Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. J. Bus. Res. 57(2), 209–224 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00303-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vazifedoost, H., Charsetad, P., Akbari, M., Kbari, J.: Studying the Effects of Negative and Positive Perceptions of Price on Price Mavenism. Research J. Applied Sciences, Eng. Technol. 5(15), 3986–3991 (2013). https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.5.4465

  33. Keller, K.: Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark. 57(1), 1–22 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Berry, L.: Cultivating service brand equity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28(1), 128–137 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281012

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim, N., Kim, G., Rothenberg, L.: Is honesty the best policy? examining the role of price and production transparency in fashion marketing. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(17), 2–18 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lemon, K., Rust, L.: Zeithaml and Valarie, "What drives customer equity? Marketing Management 1(20–25), 10 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Aaker, D.A.: Managing brand equity. J. Mark. 56(2), 125–128 (1991). https://doi.org/10.2307/1252048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S.: An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28(2), 195–211 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pappu, R., Quester, P., Cooksey, R.: Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement – empirical evidence. J. Product Brand Manage. 14(3), 143–154 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chi, H.-K., Yeh, H.-R.: The Influences of advertising endorser, brand image, brand equity, price promotion, on purchase intention- the mediating effect of advertising endorser. J. Global Business Manage. 5(1), 224–233 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Estrella-Ramón, A., García-de-Frutos, N., Ortega-Egea, J.M., Segovia-López, C.: How does marketers’ and users’ content on corporate facebook fan pages influence brand equity? Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 36(1), 1–25 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hasim, M.A., Ishak, M.F., Hamil, N.N.A., Ahmad, A.H., Suyatna, P.N.: Media richness on instagram influences towards consumer. Dinasti Int. J. Education Manage. Social Science (DIJEMSS) 1(6), 1001–1011 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sheng, M.L., Teo, T.S.: Product attributes and brand equity in the mobile domain: the mediating role of customer experience. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 32(2), 139–146 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.11.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Shee, D., Wang, Y.-S.: Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: a methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Comput. Educ. 50(3), 894–905 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wu, J.-H., Tennyson, R., Hsia, T.-L.: A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Comput. Educ. 55(1), 155–164 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Liao, C., Palvia, P., Chen, J.-L.: Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: toward a technology continuance theory (TCT). Int. J. Inf. Manage. 29(4), 309–320 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Oliver, R.L., Linda, G.: Effect of satisfaction and its antecedents on consumer preference and intention. J. Mark. Res. 8(1), 88–93 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cronin, J., Brady, M., Hult, T.: Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J. Retail. 76(2), 193–218 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bailey, J., Pearson, S.: Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Manage. Sci. 29(5), 530–545 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.5.530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Xiao, L., Dasgupta, S.: Measurement of user satisfaction with web-based information systems: an empirical study. In: Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Washington (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Khatib, S.M., Seong, L.C., Chin, W.S., Hong, K.: Factors of e-service quality among Malaysian Millennial streaming service users. Int. J. Economics Manage. 13(1), 63–77 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Torres, A., Tribo, J.: Customer satisfaction and brand equity. J. Bus. Res. 64(1), 1–8 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Van, M., Jankowski, N.: Conducting online surveys. Qual Quant 40(1), 435–456 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-8081-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V.: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 26(2), 106–121 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Henseler, J., Sinkovics, R., Ringle, C.: The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. 20(1), 277–319 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014

  56. Hair, J., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Marketing Theory Practice 19(2), 139–151 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bhakar, S., Bhakar, S., Bhakar, S.: Impact of price promotion on brand equity model: A study of online retail store brandsImpact of price promotion on brand equity model: a study of online retail store brands. J. Content, Community Communication 10(6), 124–142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.31620/JCCC.06.20/10

  58. Ambler, T., Edell, J., Lane, K., Lemon, K.: Relating brand and customer perspectives on marketing management. J. Service Research 5(1), 13–25 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670502005001003

  59. Homer, M.: Perceived quality and image: when all is not rosy. J. Bus. Res. 61(1), 715–723 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Konecnik, M., Gartne, W.: Customer-based brand equity for a destination. Ann. Tour. Res. 54(2), 400–421 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Iglesias, O., Josep, R.: How does sensory brand experience influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and employee empathy. J. Business Research 96(1), 343–354 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.043

  62. Ray, A., Kumar, P., Chakraborty, S., Dasguta, S.: Exploring the impact of different factors on brand equity and intention to take up online courses from e-Learning platforms. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 59(1), 1–12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Cambra-Fierro, J.J., Fuentes-Blasco, M., Huerta-Álvarez, R., Olavarría, A.: Customer-based brand equity and customer engagement in experiential services: insights from an emerging economy. Serv. Bus. 15(3), 467–491 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-021-00448-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Perú

    Romina Dextre-Mamani, Belén Pérez-Arce & Manuel Luis Lodeiros Zubiria

Authors
  1. Romina Dextre-Mamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Belén Pérez-Arce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel Luis Lodeiros Zubiria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Luis Lodeiros Zubiria .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Estatal Península de Santa, La Libertad, Ecuador

    Teresa Guarda

  2. University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

    Filipe Portela

  3. BITrum Research Group, Leon, Spain

    Maria Fernanda Augusto

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Dextre-Mamani, R., Pérez-Arce, B., Zubiria, M.L.L. (2022). Content Richness, Perceived Price, and Perceived Ease of Use in Relation to the Satisfaction Level and Brand Equity in Streaming Platforms. In: Guarda, T., Portela, F., Augusto, M.F. (eds) Advanced Research in Technologies, Information, Innovation and Sustainability. ARTIIS 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1675. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20319-0_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20319-0_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20318-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20319-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation