Motivations of Early Adopters of Technology - The case of Social Networks

Type of dissertation 30 hp
Spring term 2013
Supervisor: Ian Richardson, PhD
The Motivations of Early
Adopters of Technology
The case of Social Networks
Leonel Silva

2
Abstract
This is an exploratory study concerned with the motivations of early
adopters of on-line social networks. In order to collect data, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with early adopters of a recently launched internet-
based social network – “Joining”.
The findings suggest that the characteristics of early adopters are
changing, since they are less “tech savvy” than previously believed. They are
less interested in becoming early adopters per se and more interested in
exploring different possibilities to fulfil their needs. They are very demanding, and
can quickly switch to another social network, making the time frame to serve
them very short.
This paper seeks to spark some new ideas related to early adoption
among consumers and attempts to look at early adopters in a different way. They
are the first group of consumers that any product or service finds, and knowing
how to motivate them can be crucial for a successful idea. The study represents,
therefore, an opportunity to expand knowledge of early adopter consumers and
how they interact with social networks: - two important areas of interest for
academics and practitioners.
Keywords: Social Networks, Social Media, Consumer Motivations, Early
Adopters, Technology Marketing

3
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my family, friends and
colleagues for their support during these two years and especially my last 6
months with my thesis. It was a very challenging period and it was great to count
with the support of everyone.
This thesis was possible thanks to the early users of Joining in the
Netherlands that were very helpful. Special thanks to Evert Schraven, Joining’s
founder, who supported me during these months and allowed me to use Joining
as a case in point for this study.
I am also thankful to Prof. Ian Richardson, who guided and helped me to
get the best thesis possible. Thanks and good luck for all the rest of the thesis
group, and my program colleagues!
Stockholm, June 2013
Leonel Silva

4
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................... 6
1.1. Technology Marketing........................................................................................................6
1.2. Literature ............................................................................................................................6
1.3. Research Question.............................................................................................................7
1.4. Motivation ...........................................................................................................................8
1.5. Sample ...............................................................................................................................8
1.6. Methodology.......................................................................................................................8
1.7. Findings..............................................................................................................................9
2. Literature Review .................................................................... 10
2.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................10
2.2. Diffusion of innovations ....................................................................................................11
2.3. Early Adopters..................................................................................................................15
2.4. Consumer motivation literature ........................................................................................17
2.5. Networks/Social Networks................................................................................................19
2.6. Research Question and Theoretical Framework .............................................................21
3. Research Design ..................................................................... 23
3.1. Research Methodology ....................................................................................................23
3.2. Sample .............................................................................................................................23
3.3. Interviews .........................................................................................................................24
3.4. Interview Guide ................................................................................................................25
3.5. Data collection..................................................................................................................26
3.6. Limitations ........................................................................................................................27
4. Findings ................................................................................... 29
4.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................29
4.2. Findings............................................................................................................................30
5. Discussion ............................................................................... 39
5.1. Determinants ....................................................................................................................39
5.2. Patterns ............................................................................................................................40
5.3. Outcomes .........................................................................................................................41

5
6. Conclusion............................................................................... 45
6.1. Theoretical implications....................................................................................................45
6.2. Future Research...............................................................................................................46
6.3. Managerial Implications....................................................................................................47
7. References............................................................................... 49
Appendices.................................................................................. 52
Appendix I: Interview Guide ....................................................................................................52
Appendix II: Case study Joining..............................................................................................53
List of Tables
Table 1: Customer Purchase Decisions ............................. 11
Table 2: Adapted Use-Diffusion Model ............................... 13
Table 3: Big Five Factors..................................................... 17
Table 4: Participant’s List .................................................... 27
Table 5: Findings’ Domains and Themes ........................... 30
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Adopters’ Curve ............................................ 15
Figure 2: Theoretical Framework ........................................ 21

6
1. Introduction
1.1. Technology Marketing
Technology marketing has become more important than ever in these
past years. The increasing importance is directly related to phenomena such as
globalization and wide access to computers (especially with the emergence of
the internet). This change has not gone unnoticed by academic researchers, or
practitioners. There is a big focus on understanding technology from a marketing
point of view, in order to successfully launch more products and services at
businesses and consumers. The promise of technology is, itself, nothing new.
Schumpeter in 1942 refers to the fact that technology is not a zero-sum game,
because it creates unlimited opportunities for development.
“Technological possibilities are an uncharted sea. We may survey a
geographical region and appraise... that the best plots are first taken into
cultivation, after them the next best ones and so on. At any given time during this
process it is only relatively inferior plots that remain to be exploited in the future.
But we cannot reason in this fashion about the future possibilities of technological
advance. From the fact that some of them have been exploited before others, it
cannot be inferred that the former were more productive than the latter. And
those that are still in the lap of the gods may be more or less productive than any
that have thus far come within our range of observation... There is no reason to
expect slackening of the rate of output through exhaustion of technological
possibilities.”
Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, p.118, 1942
Technology increases the possibilities of bringing new solutions to our
problems. So it is interesting to analyse the first group of consumers that adopt
these new technologies. They will be the ones triggering the rest of the adopters,
making an idea to succeed or fail.
1.2. Literature
This work was divided into six sections, starting with this introduction,
reviewing the literature background, designing and explaining the research
process. Then the findings are presented and discussed, reaching our conclusion
where some managerial implications are introduced. The token of this study was
around perceptions of consumers when adopting a new social network. The

7
motivations that build the decision of adoption are the most interesting, though
challenging aspects to investigate. This has been a neglected area of study,
probably due to difficulties in gathering data, or the complexity of the subject. The
first section shows what has been discussed in theory for the past years in four
areas. Firstly, the Diffusion of Innovations literature gives a rich overview of
how innovations develop and pass from one person to another. Several
characteristics interfere on the diffusion and are reviewed and evaluated.
Secondly, the Early Adopters literature analyses both academically and for
practitioners how important it is to understand what drives these users. They are
the first users that start to build the adoption curve, and are highly important,
since they begin the wave of adoption (Rogers, 1995) and impact the innovation
improvement and diffusion (Moore, 1991). Thirdly, Consumer Motivations
literature directs this study towards the consumer’s perspective. Business to
business is a valuable field of study, and has been more covered than the
business to consumer side. This way, it is an interesting opportunity to go further
with the understanding of consumer’s motivations as individuals. Finally, the
Networks literature provided the final connection needed to build a coherent
piece of theoretical background. Since the case in point was about Social
Networks, literature about this theme was needed to frame the study. These four
areas might seem separated, though they have all been used to build a
consistent piece of work. They will be connected in order to understand how
early adopters join social networks. There should be strong motivations behind
the decision of adopting a new social network before others, and what moves
these first users became the subject of study.
1.3. Research Question
The research question of this study has the purpose of understanding
the motivations that moved adopters to join new social networks with no prior
contacts. Explain why the first members appear with no apparent connection to
anyone. From the motivations, two sub-questions followed: The first one was to
understand if there was any particular difference between utilitarian and non-
utilitarian motives, and the second one to know if being an early adopter
influenced the decision of adopting before others. Most of the times – if not
always – users do not clearly state their motivations thus it is important to be able
to read “between lines”. Four areas for further research were also presented, on
the last section of this work, as well as some managerial implications of this
study.

8
1.4. Motivation
The decision to research about the adoption of social networks arose
from the current discussion around this topic and the relevance it can have for
future studies. Currently, thanks to the internet, several virtual social networks
appeared thus expanding from the traditional physical view of social networks. In
the past years many studies have tried to understand several aspects of social
networks, such as its causes and consequences. Nevertheless, it has been
overlooked the fact that social networks have not changed in essence, but only in
format. So not only from a sociological perspective this theme can be studied.
This new format opens many possibilities for businesses to adapt their models,
and also new companies to appear, taking advantage of this unchartered
territory.
1.5. Sample
It is usually difficult to get access to early social networks, since they are
very secretive for competition purposes. In this case the researcher had access
to the information, due to its work in the organization. This proximity made it
easier to reach the participants for interviews and to analyse data from the
platform. Joining, a very early stage start-up with less than one year was used as
case in point. Very few people knew about the platform before signing-up, and it
was a very recent social network. This proved to be the perfect landscape for this
study, because it enabled to interact with early adopters in person, and ask
directly about their motives. The fact that the researcher was close to the
network, allowed to perfectly understand all the characteristics of the platform
when interacting with the users.
1.6. Methodology
An interpretative study was followed in order to avoid losing social and
cultural aspects that are important to understand the motivations of early
adopters (Myers, 2011). The framework for research and discussion was based
on prior work from Shih & Venkatesh (2004) with some adaptations to fit more
specifically this group of users. The research question served to guide the study,
and the sub-questions led to answer more specific aspects. In this case utilitarian
and non-utilitarian motives were analysed as well as if early adoption was a
cause to join a social network. The author applied a qualitative methodology, in
the form of semi-structured interviews, with an inductive analysis of the data.

9
1.7. Findings
A set of ten findings are presented on Table 5, and explained
thoroughly. These findings emerged from the data collected and were then
analysed with the aid of the theoretical framework. This led to the discussion
section where some suggestions were presented to explain the findings. For
instance early adopters tend to be explorers, seeking for new solutions to solve
their needs. They also tend to be less tech savvy as previously early adopters
were described. In addition to that, early adopters are very demanding, quickly
changing their interests and switching for alternatives.

10
2. Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
Online networks have spread throughout the World Wide Web in the
past years. They are now part of the landscape that anyone encounters when
going online. Belonging to one or more online networks is part of people´s lives
that carefully curate them, choosing the right information to be shared. There are
different networks for different purposes, professional (LinkedIn), hobbies
(Meetup), dating (Match.com), pets (Catmoji) amongst others. Inside each
network users can choose who has access to what, separating the information
available for friends, colleagues, and family members (e.g. Google Plus Circles).
It is relatively easy to understand why someone would join Facebook
now - currently the biggest online social network. All the friends are there,
everyone “pulls” to come; there are events, photo sharing, and discussions that
just happen inside Facebook. Not being there is not very comfortable for a
healthy social life. This paper does not want to discuss why someone would
enter an existing online network, but more interestingly why someone would
enter a “non-existing” online network. Non-existing, in the way that it does not
have a large network of members and with the risk that it will not provide with
what it promises. Therefore, this paper wishes to participate in the discussion of
the motivations of adopters of new social networks. Why do they participate
before others? What attracts them? What are the gains?
The focus of this study will be based on four areas of academic
literature. Firstly, the diffusion of innovations theory mostly based on Rogers
(1995) and the Technology Acceptance Model, since it is important to understand
how something new (an idea, a product, a service) flows from one person to
another. What are the drivers, what influences the speed of diffusion? Secondly,
the concept of early adoption and early adopters, who are they, what are their
characteristics, so we can better understand who are the first users of a network.
In what way they differ from later adopters? Do they influence them? Why are
they so important?; Thirdly, consumer motivations literature is reviewed to
understand more in a consumer point of view what are the psychological reasons
to consume; Lastly, networks literature are presented focusing on social

11
networks, since this was the object of the study and important to frame the case
in point.
Yeo (2012) discusses why users interact or participate in social media.
This work aims to understand the motivations to first interact, before anyone else
participates and before there is a clear understanding of what the platform is
capable (technically and socially). Current research presents a rather brash
perspective of the discussion, as if users did not personally interfere in the
interaction with online platforms. It is suggested by Yeo (2012) that much
emphasis is put on how companies can attract more users, instead of trying to
understand what drives consumers to feel attracted.
2.2. Diffusion of innovations
In order to understand what the diffusion of innovations is we will divide
it in what is diffusion and what is innovation. Concerning the first, it is the process
that “an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among
the members of a social system” (Rogers, 1995:5). The second is “an idea,
practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of
adoption” (Rogers, 1995:12).
During the process of adopting an innovation, Rogers (1995) argues that
users go through five steps: 1) knowledge; 2) persuasion, 3) decision, 4)
implementation, and 5) confirmation. The main goal of the user is to gather the
most information possible before adopting a product or service. The idea of
reducing the risk is what drives the user, increasing the possibility of adoption of
a product or service. Mohr et al. (2010:236) based on Rogers (1995), propose
the following table:
1 Relative Advantage
2 Compatibility
3 Complexity
4 Trialability
5 Ability to communicate product
benefits
6 Observability
Table 1: Six Factors Affecting Customer Purchase Decision. Source: Mohr et al. Marketing of High-
Technology Products and Innovations, 2010.
Basically what is presented here is a description of an innovation. It
should provide an advantage compared to other options, including the option of

12
not adopting anything at all and staying the same. The innovation should be easy
to use, without requiring much effort in adapting to it, rather having it already
adapted to the user. It should also be complex enough to clearly solve a specific
need, but again not making it too hard to be used. The possibility to try it out, or
at least to see it before adopting, is another characteristic that should be present.
Finally, it should be easy to share its benefits with others and to easily
understand what the user gains. Innovations to be successful should “offer
improvements over previous ideas, consistent with needs of adopters, easy to
use, allowing experimentation, and visible to others so they are adopted more
quickly.” (Hixon et al. 2012:102). This is perhaps the most widely analysed
theory, and Rogers work has influenced many papers (Lu, 2009; Ding & Han,
2009, Garrison 2009, Hixon et al., 2012, Campbell et al., 2012).
2.2.1. Use-Diffusion Model
Some researchers put in question the Adoption-Diffusion Theory from
Rogers (1995). Shih & Venkatesh (2004:59) label it as “the adoption-diffusion
(AD) paradigm [whilst] an innovation reaches a critical mass of adopters, the
diffusion is accelerated, and innovation is considered successful”. They continue
by pointing out that the AD paradigm is not complete without analysing the user-
diffusion (UD) processes. The well-known “S-shaped” theory that many authors
suggest (Rogers, 1995; Mohr, 2011) that the life cycle of a product depends on
1) introduction, 2) growth, and 3) maturity, do not take into account the level
individuals use a product or service. They focus only on the timing of the
consumption.
The UD model is built from three key components 1. UD determinants;
2. UD patterns; 3. UD outcomes (Shih & Venkatesh, 2004). There are four
determinants that affect the UD patterns: 1) household social context, where the
user operates; 2) the innovation technological dimension; 3) the personal
dimension, i.e. if the person is tech-savvy; and lastly external factors, such as
external communication and media exposure (Shih & Venkatesh 2004:61). The
UD patterns explain how the users influence the adoption of a product. It has two
main variables, one is the Rate of Use, how much time an individual spends with
the product; and the other one is the Variety of Use, what ways the individual
uses the product. Finally the UD outcomes are related to how satisfied an
individual is after using a product or service. Shih & Venkatesh (2004) argue that
the more intense a user, the more satisfied he or she is. This might not be the
case, if the low usage of an innovation brings a positive experience to the user.
For instance, having an innovative tool that allows one to quickly deactivate a

13
bomb brings more satisfaction for not having the need to use that innovation.
Nevertheless, Shih & Venkatesh (2004) conclude that the UD outcomes can be
in the form of the 1) perceived impact of the technology; 2) satisfaction with the
technology; 3) interest in future technologies. So depending on how these three
outcomes appear, one can understand the willingness of users to adopt or not a
product based on its usage.
2.2.2. UD Adapted Model
To answer the questions of this study the UD model was adapted:
Adopter´s Determinants Patterns Outcomes
Household social
context
Rate of use Perceived impact
Technological
dimension
Satisfaction with the network
Personal dimension Variety of
use
Interest in future
development
External factors
Table 2: Adapted Use-Diffusion Model. Original in Shih & Venkatesh (2004)
1. Adopter´s determinants
a) Social context based on three axes. The first is the household
communication, which refers to how close the family members and
friends are concerning information sharing. The second is about the
limited resources to spend on technology (i.e. time, money, etc.) The
third axis is the prior experience with technology, and knowledge
from previous experiences;
b) Technological dimension concerns the sophistication of the
technology. How evolved and easy to use it is, and how users feel
about it;
c) Personal dimension takes care of two aspects. How innovative is a
user, and how frustrated he or she might be with technology. This
can affect the willingness to adopt;
d) External factors are peer or social pressure. For instance friends at
school that are always talking about innovations. Part of the network
effects.

14
2. Patterns
a) Rate of use is how much time the user spends with the network;
b) Variety of use is which different manners and purposes can a
network be used.
3. Outcomes
a) Understand the impact of belonging to these networks, i.e. the
benefits that they can achieve;
b) How satisfied are the users with the network, and how well it fulfils
its service. This can help understand if the expectations are in line
with what is offered by the network;
c) The interest in future developments of the network, can allow us to
understand more in depth the motives of the users. If the user wants
to be the first ones to adopt a network, in order to take future
benefits of its expansion for instance.
The adopter’s determinants characterize the users, making it an
important tool to understand adopter’s motivations. If the users are highly
educated, tech averse, and have low social skills, this can bring interesting
results to the analysis. Also the pattern of usage can allow us to understand how
committed the early adopters are with the network. And finally, the outcomes will
enable a cross check or filtering for the real reasons of participating in the
network.
2.2.3. Other studies
Some authors (Robertson & Gatignon, 1986; Jung, 1990; Lee et al.
2002) propose additional methods of analysing innovation diffusion taking into
account the competitive landscape, functional reasons such as perceived risk,
technology availability, and organizational structures. Most of the diffusion debate
is around the producer’s side (Bunduchi et al, 2011) considering adoption and
implementation of innovations a sole task of organizations. They overlook the
important role of consumers, as individuals, in this process.
Other authors (Sandström et al, 2008; Ding & Han 2009) also point out
that most literature focuses on industry level, rather than brand level. For the
purpose of this study, this will not be a limitation since the subject of study is the
industry and not a specific brand.
But the current dominant paradigm is still the TAM - Technology
Acceptance Model. It “links user acceptance of new technology to consumer
perceptions of innovation usefulness and ease of use” (Parry et al., 2011:955).
Perceived usefulness is the level a user thinks the innovation can solve his or her

15
needs. Ease of use is the level of complexity adopting an innovation requires.
One should not overlook the total cost of innovation adoption, which is not only
the monetary price but also the effort the individual spends to use it (Parry et al,
2011).
2.3. Early Adopters
Rogers (1995) offers a categorization of users that adopt a new
technology. The first 16% are the innovators and early adopters. These are
people that are committed to new technologies, and always try to be at the
forefront. According to Moore (1991) the early adopters are the group that will
allow innovations to cross the chasm between the early market and the
mainstream market. At the mainstream level, first the early majority accounts to a
big percentage of the users (34%) that usually turn to be the cash cow of
innovative companies. The second part of the mainstream is the late majority that
accounts to the same relative number of users, but this time less committed to
technology and very price sensitive. Lastly, in the curve there are the laggards
who are usually the sceptics of new technologies.
Fig. 1: The Adopters’ Curve. Source: Based on Rogers (1995) Diagram from Idea
Couture by Morgan Gerard
Following Rogers (1995) adoption curve, early adopters become the first
group of users innovations have to face. Mohr et al. (2011:241) refer to them as
“visionaries in their market”. Because of that, usually the production of
innovations is done in parallel with these users. As Bunduchi et al. (2011:507)
state “lead users and early adopters tend to become involved in innovation
during the early stages of evolution, when the take-up is generally slow.”

16
2.3.1. Characteristics
Early adopters are generally described as “younger in age, willing to
take risks, more positive about the usefulness of an innovation, very social, and
are often viewed as opinion leaders in relation to the new innovation.” (Hixon et
al., 2012:102). This group can be used to polish the final innovation, and to get in
touch of what the mainstream market is willing for. The early adopters struggle
against the uncertainty of new technologies, which is one of the factors that
impede later adopters to embrace an innovation. They “develop and contribute to
a collective knowledge base concerning instructional technology. Early adopters
make an innovation visible to the mainstream and decrease its uncertainty. ” (Lu,
2009) They are opinion leaders, and can influence the mainstream users to
embrace it (Rogers, 1995).
Non-early adopters, or late adopters of technology, search for additional
information to reduce risk. They look at early adopters as “testers”, and trust their
experience. Bennet & Bennet (2003:60) say that “offering demonstrations of how
the technology can be utilized” is very important to promote adoption.
2.3.2. Expectations
Users also build expectations about what the new innovation can and
cannot give. Early adopters can be used to show specifically its advantages.
Thus, it is highly important to discover what types of information consumers use
to build their opinion. This opinion will affect the decision of accepting or rejecting
an innovation (Motohashi et al., 2012). Motohashi et al. (2012) continue, by
pointing out four assumptions. 1) innovativeness is different from firm to firm; 2)
early adopters are distinct from the late adopters, with specific characteristics; 3)
the different categories of adopters can interact/communicate with each other
with relative ease (Park, 2004); and 4) early adopters are effective opinion
leaders, and capable of influencing other adopters.
This way, early adopters are defined by the first users of a new
technology, which can affect the adoption of the innovation by other users. The
reasons that motivate the action of adopting before others will be studied further
on this paper.

17
2.4. Consumer motivation literature
“To be motivated means to be moved to do something.”
Ryan & Deci (2000:54)
Yeo (2012) discusses the motivations of consumers by pointing out the
Metatheoretic model of motivation and personality (3M) from Mowen (2000) that
uses four traits to analyse behaviour. They are the following (Yeo, 2012:298):
 elemental traits (e.g. the Big Five factors);
 compound traits (e.g. need for play, need for information);
 situational traits (e.g. susceptibility to influence); and
 surface-level traits (e.g. healthy-diet lifestyles).
Even though this model may be seen too complex and difficult to use in
order to achieve a proper analysis, Yeo (2012) and Baumgartner (2002)
recommend the use of a framework with broader personality traits. This focus
brings us to the “Big Five” personality dimensions (Yeo, 2012:299):
Extraversion Tendency to be sociable, talkative, confident, and enjoy change and
excitement.
Agreeableness Tendency to be trusting, sympathetic, and cooperative.
Conscientiousness Degree of organization, conformity, diligence, and socially prescribed
impulse control in an individual.
Neuroticism Tendency to experience chronic negative emotions and to display
related behavioural and cognitive characteristics.
Openness Willingness to consider alternative approaches, be intellectually
curious, and enjoy artistic pursuits.
Table 3: Big Five Factors from Yeo (2012:299)
These reflect different personality, and behavioural characteristics of
consumers. In connection with the personality traits, there are motives that
involve the consumers. These can be presented in two types:
● Utilitarian - rational and task-oriented (Babin et al., 1994)
● Non-Utilitarian - concerned with experiential aspects such as pleasure and
escape (Yeo 2012:300 from Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
In the same study Yeo (2012:306) continues that the motivation to
contribute with content for websites like Amazon and Wikipedia have self-
oriented or utilitarian motives (“self-expression, and personal development”) and
other non-utilitarian oriented motives such as hedonism (“social affiliation,
altruism, and reciprocity”).

18
2.4.1. Early adopters motives
Concerning early adopters’ motives, Lu (2009:82) quotes Geoghegan
(1998) who advises that “relative advantage is the most important factor in early
adopter acceptance”. The following 4 factors of Rogers (1995) - complexity,
compatibility, and trialability - affect in a much broader extent the mainstream,
who tend to be a “more deliberate, pragmatic, and sceptical group.” (Lu 2009:82).
Early adopters can build on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
(Mohammad & Som, 2010) to be attracted to adopt an innovation. The intrinsic
motivations relate to true motives that express honest interest or joy on that
particular aspect. For instance, playing football, simply for the fun or adopting a
technology just for the pleasure of playing with it. On the other hand extrinsic
motivations are motives that express interest in a resulting indirect outcome, for
instance, to play football just to make a lot of money. Another example is to adopt
an innovation with the purpose of becoming famous for being the first one to use
it. So the main difference is the instrumental value that extrinsic motivations have
(Ryan & Deci, 2000).
2.4.2. Word-Of-Mouth
Word-of-mouth (WOM) has been studied by many authors (Godes, et
al., 2004; Keller & Fay, 2012; Berges & Schwartz, 2011) as highly influencing
consumers towards positive or negative feelings about a product or service.
WOM can be described as the power of information communicated between
adopters and potential adopters. Due to the development of the internet, and
globalization in general, consumers are increasingly connected with each other.
It is quick and easy to search for reviews about a specific product or even an
innovation. Users share their information publicly very quickly through blog posts
and tweets, making the WOM flow in extremely high speeds all across the globe.
The fact that many social networks (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) rely on
user generated content increases the amount of information that is shared
amongst users. Katona et al., (2011) believe that the traditional revenue sources
of these online networks are having poor results. This is moving the attention to
“influencers”, users that influence a large amount of other users in online
platforms. One can make the difference between personal and virtual WOM -
pWOM and vWOM (Parry, et al. 2012). The former refers to exchange of
information between people, during conversation mainly amongst acquaintances,
whilst the latter is the exchange of information online usually without knowing the
person. pWOM does not mean it cannot be online, in fact instant message
systems can allow friends to communicate through a computer. So the main

19
difference is between interacting with friends or strangers. vWOM tends to be
more powerful thanks to the almost unlimited sources of information that are
available to the user.
Late adopters feel unsafe with new products or services so they tend to
look at early adopters as an assurance before stepping into something new
(Katona et al. 2011). The late adopters tend to follow early adopters, since the
latter provide valuable user information to the former, thus making them feel
safer in adopting an innovation. References are very important for this
conservative group of adopters (Godes, 2012). WOM can be very important to
connect these two groups of users.
2.5. Networks/Social Networks
In literature it is very common to see the term networks used extensively
in many areas. Social networks, business networks, biology networks, spatial
networks are just a few examples. What tends to be more difficult is the raw
definition of a network. Håkansson and Ford (2002:133) define it as a “number of
nodes that are related to each other by specific threads.” They continue by
describing a business market as a network. Business units, such as
manufacturers and service providers are the set of nodes, whilst the relationships
between them are the threads. Meaning that the better relationships - due to
partnerships, investments - the stronger these threads will be. Networks exist
thanks to relationships, the link between two nodes is basically a relationship,
and the interaction between the nodes may change the threads. There might be
tangible and intangible relationships (Håkansson and Ford, 2002) which will
result in more or less complex interactions between the nodes.
2.5.1. Networks
The complexity of networks can help firms get a lead in their market.
Alliances can increase the strength of particular threads, gaining advantage
against competitors. But this is never a one-way decision. At least two nodes
have to be connected, and both parties can share efforts, and gain benefits. So if
one fails, the other one will lose too, there is a dependency relationship. One
party cannot completely ignore the other. Håkansson and Ford (2002:134) point
this out as the first network paradox which states that “the stronger the threads
are, the more important they will be in giving life to the node, but the more they
will also restrict the freedom of the node to change.” The second network
paradox is that one party is simultaneously influencing and influenced. A node is

20
not valuable without the thread, but the thread is useless without the nodes. So a
network always affects both nodes, meaning that none can be egocentric to a
point to not believe it is not influenced. The third paradox of a network is that the
more a network is attempted to be controlled, the less it effectively is. This results
in the fact that in a network many nodes exist, which develop strong and weak
ties. These exist because each node has different threads that connect to
different nodes. In practice the goal to control a network might result in
crystallization, and the development of other threads connecting the nodes. A
more anecdotic evidence of this is Microsoft and Nokia trying to control their
network, which ended up stopping their evolution whilst other parties developed
in other ways.
2.5.2. Network-marketing
Network-marketing is a concept coined by Katona et al. (2011) referring
to the possibility of identifying influencers and forecast early consumer’s adoption
patterns. There are three factors that influence user’s adoption using the
Network-marketing concept:
1. Network effects - the power of the structure of connections between
already adopters and potential adopters;
2. Influencer effects - influential power of the current adopters;
3. Adopter effects - adopter’s individual characteristics, both
demographic and the adopter’s global network position.
Additionally Katona et al., (2011) found that the diffusion of adoption is
also influenced by many other effects that arise from the network interaction of
individuals. The “number of connections an individual has (degree effect) (…)
and the density of connections in a group” (Katona et al., 2011:426) affect
adoption. Meaning that not only the more connections a user has with current
adopters can affect the decision of adoption; but also the number of adopters in
specific groups (circle of friends, work) can do so as well. A tighter group can
also enforce a quicker adoption than a loser social group (clustering effects).
Ritvala & Salmi (2010:906) also refer to the different levels of power in
networks, where not the number of connections matter, but the value each
connection has. Some adopters can influence more strongly others to adopt a
social network. This is the case of some bloggers and popular personalities that
do not just rely on the number of connections they have, but also on how they
are connected in their network. Curiously, Katona et al., (2011:426) say “that the
average influential power of individuals is lower the larger their social network is”.
This describes the fact that having many followers is not a guarantee of social
influence.

21
2.6. Research Question and Theoretical Framework
2.6.1. Research Question
“What are the motivations to join a social network before anyone else?”
The mix between the concepts of social network and early adopters is
purposeful. The idea is to understand what the reasons that move early adopters
to join a new social network are, before any network effects take place. In order
to go deeper in the main question, two sub questions follow:
1) Is there any relevant difference between utilitarian and non-utilitarian
motives?
2) Is being an Early Adopter influencing the decision to adopt?
With this study motives will be clustered in utilitarian and non-utilitarian
groups, and then their importance will be analysed. In order to reach the answers
for this study we will use this research question, with the relevant sub-questions.
An adaptation of the work of Shih & Venkatesh (2004) and their Use-Diffusion
model will serve as the framework.
2.6.2. Theoretical Framework
The framework follows the Use-Diffusion model (Shih & Venkatesh
(2004) which will influence the entire master thesis. One might ask adoption or
usage? It is hard to separate these two concepts, but this study will focus on the
usage of early adopters of social networks. This is due to the fact that by simply
adopting a new network that will not show the true motivations and interests
behind it. The actual usage (even if it is low or high) is a better factor of analysis
and make sure that the actual users will provide a more valuable input than
random adopters.
Figure 2: Theoretical Framework (adapt.)

22
This study will cluster the early adopter’s motivations into Utilitarian and
Non-Utilitarian motives. The latter relates to a more pleasure side, mainly
emotional aspects, of the decision to adopt. Whereas the former is more on the
reason side of the decision, is the adoption instrumental, is the adoption a mean
to something more? It is probable that the motives can encompass both areas.
Nevertheless, it is intended to verify if there are significant differences between
the groups or if one is more relevant than the other.
Clustering these motivations is interesting to find if there are different
drivers for these early adopters. In addition to that the ability to understand how
different motivations are from each other and their different levels will bring us to
a new level of comprehension of early adopters’ behaviour.

23
3. Research Design
3.1. Research Methodology
This will be an exploratory study about early adopters’ motivations, with
an inductive approach. An interpretative method will be followed in order to allow
a more flexible analysis of an almost “uncharted” space for early adopters'
motivations. This qualitative method will help analyse a smaller number of
interviews in more detail. Hence avoiding losing “many of the social and cultural
aspects” (Myers, 2011:9) of the individuals, which are very important to discover
their motivations. As Myers (2011:8) puts it “qualitative data can help us
understand people, their motivations and actions, and the broader context within
which they work and live”. Thus, a pure positivistic approach was not followed
because it could miss the opportunity to find unseen motives of the early
adopters. The researcher shares Myers (2011) view that the best way to “access
reality is through social constructions such as language, consciousness, shared
meanings, and instruments.” As the study will have an inductive nature, the
research will rely on the social construction of the reality instead of a defined
positivistic view of it. There is a lack of research about early adopters’
motivations and the unstable nature of this group makes it harder to have any
defined reality (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008).
3.2. Sample
Fifteen early adopters of the recent social network Joining were
interviewed. The early adopters were chosen using a random selection between
the first one hundred active early users. Active users are those that are
registered members in the Joining platform, and 1) planned an activity or 2)
joined an activity. This way we will remove the members that joined with no
reason at all and give emphasis to those members that are effectively interested
in using Joining. The choice will fall not only on active users, but also on the first
hundred. We can then guarantee a selection of the “first of the first” that joined,
hence reducing to a residual rate the network effects. Technically, a list was
created with the first one hundred active users of Joining in sign-up date order.
Each participant then received a number, and the 5th was contacted. If after

24
reaching the 100th there was still space for more interviews the 5th-1 would be
contacted, and so on. Following this, we could assure that the selection of
participants was done in a completely random manner in order to reach the most
unbiased group possible. The result was a group of the earliest active members
that could share their expectations and experiences. The interviews were held in
the English language, since many of the users of Joining are expats - working or
studying in English. Thus, it is assumed that they are comfortable with the
language.
The researcher stopped interviewing on the 15th
participant because the
amount of new information each user was bringing was starting to repeat itself.
Thus, a level of saturation was reached. There were three reasons to choose
Joining as the social network of study. First, as it is a very recent social network,
with less than a year it was easier to find and contact early adopters. The fact
that still very few people know about it, avoids network effects to be already
present in their decision. Second, this particular network has low resources
allocated to communication of the platform, which means that the majority of the
early adopters searched for it and not randomly joined without any relevant
interest. Finally, the author of this paper has direct access to these users, since
he is one of the launching members of this organization. This enabled to reach
the users faster and also to understand better how this social network works.
The interviews were anonymous, with only three demographic
characteristics. Of a total of 15 interviews, 60% of the participants were female
and the rest male. The average age was of 27.8 years old, which the youngest
was 24 and the oldest 37. The members did not know who the other participants
in this survey were. As the participants were part of the first 100 active users,
everyone had signed-up within the first months of activity of the website. None of
the users were previously related to the researcher, or had joined the platform
only because he or she was connected with someone from the Joining team.
This strongly validates the information gathered from this study. The findings are
related to how users expected and effectively interacted with the platform.
3.3. Interviews
The interviews were conducted by the thesis author, and their duration
was between 15 and 30 minutes. They took place wherever the interviewee felt
more comfortable, in some cases at their homes, others at a café, library, and
also through Skype. Asking the interviewees to choose the environment ensured
a more relaxed environment and made the meetings much more informal. A
recorder was used, as well as a notebook. The notes were used to follow up

25
some aspects that the interviews could point out. These notes allowed going
more in depth in some topics brought up by the participants.
The five grand questions asked followed the Theoretical Framework:
1) Technological Background and past experiences in social network
platforms. This way we could assess and contextualize the participant’s profile;
2) Getting to know. The second questions allowed understanding how
the participant got to know Joining. Also we could know what were the immediate
expectations and thoughts about this new platform;
3) Getting to sign up. After knowing about the platform, what reasons did
the participant have to sign up and use Joining. This is important to understand
the motivations of registering in a new social network;
4) Getting to use. Here we could find the motivations of becoming an
active user, which led to start joining and planning activities. We could assess the
benefits that the user found when using Joining and if it was what he or she
expected.
5) Perception of being an Early Adopter of Joining. With this final grand
question, the participants could share their knowledge of being an early adopter.
In addition, it was also assessed if knowing that they were early adopters did
influence their behaviour on the platform.
These grand questions are based not only on the theoretical framework
but also on the literature review that served as a secondary source of data.
Although framed in five questions, the interview was not a fixed script. The goal
was to have a conversation with the participant and let him/her comfortable to
explain his/her motivations. These grand questions served as themes that helped
keeping the conversation on track, but still allowing to discover new findings.
3.4. Interview Guide
In order to structure the interview an interview guide has been
developed (Appendix 1). It is not only used to structure but also to avoid potential
problems that could arise. One of these is related to possible lack of trust, since
the interviewees do not know the interviewer, which can limit the transfer of
information. The ambiguity of the language may be another issue, since the
interviews will not be held in the native language, which might bring difficulties in
expression (Myers & Newman, 2007). Nevertheless, as the language of the
platform is English it is assumed that the participants are fluent.
Some other practical suggestions were followed to develop the interview
guide (Myers, 2011:133): “[having] short, clear questions that lead to detailed
responses”. Ergo the interviewer can get the most information possible and have

26
the participant comfortable in sharing his/her experiences: “questions that ask
participants to recall specific events or experiences in detail encourage fuller
narratives”. This is another way to let the interviewee comfortable with the
conversation and get the richest possible outcome: “a few broad open-ended
questions work better than a long series of close ended questions”. It is very
important for a semi-structured interview to allow open-ended questions and let
the session flow. If new information arises from the conversation it will strengthen
the study.
3.5. Data collection
In order to collect data from Early Adopters, a set of interviews was
prepared to reach the early members of a new social network. Five grand
questions were prepared, which could be combined, and allowed the
interviewees to freely speak about their motivations. These grand questions were
organized as semi-structured questions that offer consistency without taking the
freedom of adding new questions (Myers, 2011). The decision of not having
unstructured questions was made due to the risk of losing control of the
interview. Also unstructured questions would be very time consuming. The
researcher was merely a facilitator that guided the participants and sought for the
“real” motives underlying users’ adoption.
The interviews would start with a brief explanation of some formalities of
the research: The fact that it was an academic study, the thesis topic,
confidentiality terms and exchange of contacts. It was important to let the
participants know about the methodology in order to avoid short and direct
answers. After understanding that an interpretative method was being used they
agreed to be as explanatory as possible with their answers. The first questions of
the interview were direct, for demographic purposes - age, gender, and current
occupation. After that the interviews could start to talk about their relationship
with technology and social media in general. These broad themes had the clear
intent of allowing free space for the participants to explore what areas they found
more relevant. Depending on what the participant would talk about, some other
ideas for discussion were introduced. This guaranteed that the interview would
fulfil its purpose. Below is a list of the participants:

27
Number Age Occupation
1 24 Teacher
2 24 Engineer
3 37 Lawyer
4 28 Engineer
5 27 Business Developer
6 25 Project Manager
7 28 Engineer
8 29 Financial Specialist
9 25 Teacher
10 24 Student
11 25 Consultant
12 31 Engineer
13 31 Engineer
14 25 Student
15 34 Engineer
Table 4: Participant’s List
The interview guide was never showed to the participants to avoid
influencing their answers. It covered the users’ technological background and
interest, usage of social media, and the particular use of Joining. It also analysed
their relationship with this new social network and the fact they were early
adopters. In the end all the interviews were transcribed, and analysed gathering
the major themes that appeared from the respondents input. The interview
transcripts are available upon request.
3.6. Limitations
There are of course limitations to this study, as in any other. Some of
these limitations are related to the lack of resources to make a wider and more
complete study. Other limitations are related to the difficulty to really understand
which motivations drive adopters. The fact that some adopters might cover or
even unwillingly hide their motives can be a complex issue to solve. The early
adopters might have also “second interests”, that are not purely related to the
adoption of the social network. They could be about friendship, or have financial
gains on it. The concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can help minimize
this limitation.

28
The fact that the researcher is himself working in the organization being
studied might be an obstacle for a less biased overview of the situation.
Nevertheless, as it is impossible to be unbiased, the fact that the researcher is
close to the data brings benefits that clearly overcome the liabilities. Some of the
findings derived from the experience and closeness of the researcher to the data,
not only from the interviews, which strengthens the whole study. As the
researcher is active in the technology industry, many times social networks and
online social networks appear interchangeably. It can be discussed that online
social networks are more specific than social networks, but for this study there is
no benefit on separating both, therefore it will continue to be used
simultaneously.
Another aspect that can call attention is the fact that products, services,
ideas, innovations, and technologies appear very often interchangeably as well.
The scope of this study is not to understand the differences between these
words. The state of the development, their characteristics or specifications will be
ignored in this paper. They all refer to the same for the sake of simplicity. It is not
being said that simplicity overcomes rigorous writing however, their differences
are not important for the message of this master thesis.

29
4. Findings
4.1. Introduction
The perception of the participants in the study about being an early
adopter of Joining was very interesting. 50% of the respondents perceived
themselves as early adopters. Some even clearly stated that they knew they
were one of the first users of the platform, even though that information was
never public. The other half did not have any clue, and were even surprised with
that fact. From the ones that knew, most of them guessed it was a new platform
because they had never heard about it before - (“If it was older I would probably
have heard about it.” – #8). There is no clear indication on the Joining platform
about the number of registered members and the launch of the platform was
made softly with no big apparatus. However, there were some signs pointed out
by the participants that they knew they were early users. Firstly, the counter of
number of planned activities on the homepage would give the feeling that there
was not much activity. Secondly, in some cities, especially in smaller ones, there
were not many planned activities. Lastly, when activities were planned, not many
people joined them, reinforcing the early stage of the website. Another aspect of
relevance is that even though this is an online social network, one third of the
respondents perceived him or herself as a conservative user of technology. The
other two thirds are considered active users of technology, mostly for work
purposes. It is safe to conclude that this group was not technologically savvy and
generally not heavy users of social networks.
Whilst interviewing the participants, three domains were covered: 1) The
relationship with technology, with a special focus on social networks; 2) The
experience with Joining, and how they interacted with the platform; and 3) How
they perceived the Early Adoption. From these domains, several themes were
brought up. These themes emerged from the set of responses, and from the
researcher’s interpretation of the data. Whilst analysing the data, the author
clustered the responses in ten themes, and three domains. These three domains
showed three key findings from the interviews’ data. The first is that almost none
of the participants are heavy users of technological and/or social networks. They
are comfortable with technology, especially because they have to use some tools
at work, but they are neither expert users nor influential individuals. The second

30
key finding was that most of the users came to the platform thanks to
recommendations of friends or other people. They needed some kind of proof of
the trustworthiness of the platform to join. The third key finding was that the
majority of the members did not have any special feeling about becoming an
early adopter. In fact, being an early adopter was seen as a consequence, rather
than a cause to join, for most of the interviewees. The majority ended up
subscribing to Joining due to personal reasons, such as moving from one city to
another, or being an expat. In “normal” conditions most would not have joined it.
Below these findings are covered in more detail.
4.2. Findings
Domains Themes Quotes
Relation with
technology
The importance of
being new
“If something catches my interest, in the
sense that I think it will really be useful
for me yes! I am not somebody who will
go for the latest thing, just because it is a
new gadget” - #3
“Or my camera, as long as it is a
good camera, it doesn’t matter it
is the latest, and a DSLR is a
DSLR.” - #11 referring to a
second hand camera
Listening to others
"Not only reviews on the web, but people
that I trust. If they tell me you should
definitely buy this particular brand, this
type of product is good. I go further from
what is written on the internet, it is more
like a human contact you know..." - #8
“I would like to see reviews first,
before I try out or use it.” - #9
The main reason to
use social networks
“I use different social networks with
different motivations” - #2
“I'm a member of all social
networks” - #6
Joining as an
example of early
adoption
First wave
” [I noticed I was an early adopter] a little
bit. Because the number of activities
wasn’t as huge as I had expected. But I
didn’t have an idea if I was the user 100,
user 10 or 1000000.” - #8
"I would react the same way. For
me, because I have a clear
reason to use joining, I want to
plan activities. So yes it doesn’t
matter if I am joining early or
later. For me it doesn’t matter." -
#9
Being recommended
“I have to say that I hardly find websites
on my own.” - #10
"For me it is important to have a
recommendation ,especially in
this kind of online... oh when
comparing joining I call it an
online dating for friends and so I
would never go to an online
dating unless a friend of mine, I
mean I have never been there,
but unless a friend of mine
recommended it or so." - #11

31
The Message
“Everything is location based. So I can
see it can be useful for me if I want to try
or try to discover some events which are
new to me it is very convenient.” - #13
“I like the fact that it is very clear
when you just look at the
homepage you can see a lot of
things at once. And it is simple, it
is not cluttered you just look and
it is very obvious” - #1
The Feeling “I liked the looks of it!” - #1
“The reason I signed-up was that
it was genuine.” - #5
Downside
”I wouldn't use that much since I don't
have many connections” - #4
“Like the restaurants. If they are
not busy when it is supposed to
be... It is clear that it doesn’t
attract the people. For me without
trying it is the best judgement. I
was more cautious probably... I
would have joined more events
straight away. In the end I would
expect more events to happen. If
you search for one city it really
narrows down.” - #10
Becoming an
Early Adopter
Discovery
“I started immediately; I just filled my
profile, my picture, everything about me,
my interests. Because I thought I’d like
to try to use it. (...) So I started to search
if there was something to do in
Rotterdam and I found something, but at
first I didn't like something. Another time
I didn’t have time. At a certain point I
liked and then I joined.” - #7
"Of course if there aren’t many
people, you think would there be
enough to do? Or to connect
with? If people don’t know
about... well you don’t know you
just try." - #7
Not Tech Savvy
“Definitely, definitely the late majority
adopter. Especially from the industry I
am interested in. I feel that I should
really be a sort of an early adopter at
least.” - #10
"I would say I use it for the basic
things. Checking email,
WhatsApp, but I am not so into
technology that I use very fancy
features. More the basic." - #14
Table 5: Findings’ Domains and Themes
4.2.1. The importance of being new
Joining was launched in the end of August 2012, with a low profile
promotion. Due to several reasons (mainly financial and technical) it was a soft
launch, so not many people got to know that the platform was new. The
participants generally stated that being a new platform does not interfere on their
decision of subscribing or not to a platform:
"If something catches my interest, in the sense that I think it will really be
useful for me yes! I am not somebody who will go for the latest thing, just
because it is a new gadget" - #3
However, their level of activity can be in fact influenced by the
knowledge, or not, that it is a new website. Being a new platform brings risks,
and not knowing anyone that is also participating in it makes it less interesting to
become active:

32
“It doesn’t matter [to be new] as long as I can get to know it is
trustworthy and people have used it. For me the fact that it was new didn’t matter
because I got to know it from some friends. If it was something completely new,
with no connection or recommendation from these people… For example if I had
seen an ad in the tram station or at the grocery shop I would probably have had a
look but not necessarily joined.” - #14
Thus, being new presents more risks than benefits. Some members
pointed out the high price of new technology (“I believe new technology comes
with a big premium.” - #10). Whilst others referred that older technology can
deliver the expected results, and still perform very well. ("My [old] camera, as
long as it is a good camera, it doesn’t matter if it is the latest one, and a DSLR is
a DSLR.” - #11
4.2.2. Listening to others
When promotion is low, and network effects are difficult to take off since
the network is still small, there are very few ways to grow. One of these few ways
is through recommendations. Most of the participants value recommendations as
the most important aspect when adopting a new technology, or more specifically
a social network. The fact that someone, supposedly, more expert than them can
share their knowledge is highly valuable. However, in some cases
recommendations value differently from where they come from:
"Not only reviews on the web, but people that I trust. If they tell me you
should definitely buy this particular brand, this type of product is good. I go
further from what is written on the internet, it is more like a human contact you
know..." - #8
So for some of the respondents knowing who is recommending is more
important than their search. The closest and more direct the recommendation is,
the more willing the participants will be to adopt a technology or join a network:
“For these people [friends] to have recommended it to me I assumed
they had used it for a while.” - #11
Furthermore, a combination of comments can also increase time
efficiency, since it diminishes the time one spends searching for information. It is
easier to read from several comments, rather than testing all the possibilities one
by one:
“The comments of the website are a collective thing from lots of different
people. They are quick to read so you can kind of see what it is about.” - #15

33
4.2.3. The main reason to use social networks
Generally all the respondents assumed that they will only adopt a
technology if it is useful for them. In very few cases the researcher found more
mundane reasons related with the “coolness” of something. One participant even
pointed out:
“I am in to it [new technology], but not enough to pay the premium they
ask” - #10
One of the goals of the interviews was to assess the level of “coolness”
that a member gives to a particular choice. From the participants, it is safe to say
that it is not enough to like something, to actually use it. Adopting a new
technology requires spending money, time to understand it, and commitment to
take the most out of it. Thus, if a new technology does not score high on its
“practical utility”, the members will not adopt it.
Nevertheless, the participants are very opened concerning social
networks, probably due to the fact that there are less entry barriers in the online
world. It is usually easy, and most of the times free to join social networks. Thus,
many participants join many social networks:
"I'm a member of all social networks" - #6
However, they do not consider themselves heavy users, most of the
times the participants join a social network, use it for a bit and then leave. This is
a way to assess its “practical utility”. So most of the users join a platform, use it
for a bit and then if it is useful they continue, once it becomes useless they
immediately leave:
“Another example is Joining. I feel like I want to see more people,
expand my social life. So it is very much purpose driven.” - #3
4.2.4. First wave
As pointed out previously only half of the respondents knew they were
early adopters. But even from this half, only very few were 100% sure about it.
This fact makes us believe that early adoption was not a motivation to join the
social network. When asked if they knew for sure they were early adopters, if
they would have had a different reaction all of the participants clearly stated that
they would not have changed their behaviour. Thus, they would not have joined
sooner or later than they did:
"I would react the same way. (...) because I have a clear reason to use
Joining, I want to plan activities. So yes... it doesn’t matter if I am joining early or
later. For me it doesn’t matter." - #9

34
Some responses were quite curious, because even though not having
any particular pleasure to be one of the first, they do not tend to join with the
mainstream, preferring instead to not join:
“I usually don’t join in the first wave, but more the second wave, third
wave. Or else I don’t adopt at all.” - #15
4.2.5. Being recommended
Recommendations are very important, and to join this new social
network they played a crucial role. When questioned about how they got to know
about Joining, all of the participants referred to someone. Or that they had read a
post about an activity there, or that someone directly told them. So even though,
the network is quite small, some network effects were present.
With very low promotion, the only way people could get to know about
the platform was through others. People that they knew, or as in many cases,
people that would just post on other networks:
“I went to this expat blog or some kind of network and there I saw an
activity from Joining and someone else before had mentioned it to me... a Dutch
person, whose name I can’t remember now” - #15
“Basically a friend of mine (...) had a friend in The Hague that used
Joining. So it was random, because I don’t think I would have found it on the
internet, really.” - #11
“One of my friends told me and I went to the link. And there I saw
Joining. I swathe potential right away” - #13
4.2.6. The Message
The transcriptions confirmed that the users got very clearly the
message, and utility of the website. Most came back, because they found it
useful for their needs, and even recommended to others. When asked about their
experience entering for the first time the website almost all of the respondents
said that they understood it was a place to meet people for social activities. With
several activities going around in a sliding bar on the homepage, the users could
easily click and join these events. But before they could join, they had to sign-up,
and so they did. The participants made clear that the process was quick and
simple. Some respondents even pointed that, even though there were not many
members the concept was so good that sooner or later it would start to have
more people:
“I like that it is very clear when you just look at the homepage and you
can see a lot of things at once. And it is simple, it is not cluttered you just look

35
and it is very obvious. You just click through and if something catches your eye
you just click it” - #1
“It is just starting. I saw the potential. Give it some time; I am quite sure
that people will find more about this website. They will see the benefits of it. So I
just gave it some time. And it has grown a lot.” - #13
4.2.7. The Feeling
The feeling that the user got from the platform, was another aspect that
came up from the transcripts. Many participants pointed out the looks of the
website, and how it convinced them about its value:
“Because it looked like a nice website and the perfect place for social
events.” - #3
Most of the websites that provide a similar experience to meet new
people, are based on forums or outdated websites. So the image of the Joining
website also helped to form the perception of the utility of such a platform. With
the light blue colour, and friendly interface the website inspired trust to these
members. The fact that the website shares many design features from other well-
known websites, shows maturity and trustworthiness:
“I like the layout of the website, it is quite straightforward. It is also clear
and very user friendly.” - #9
“Yes. I found the website very clean and clear. So it was very easy to
get the message.” - #3
“From the layer of the website, my first experience it seemed much more
useful and matured than I think it actually was. It is nicely designed.” - #15
4.2.8. Downside
The transcripts also showed some disappointment about the small
network. Social networks benefit from connections: If a new member does not
have connections, or it is hard to connect with others, their experience tends to
decrease, according to the data collected. The majority of the participants
admitted that the network wasn’t a reason to decide whether to join or not. It is
seen more as a certification of the website, especially to become active. So, in
order to be practical to plan or join activities most of these members preferred if
the network of connections was bigger, or if it could increase more easily:
“I think it was more when I saw there were not that many activities, that I
just didn’t use it that much. The relationship was directly related to the number of
activities.” - #2

36
Some of the transcripts however, suggest an interest in continuing to be
an exclusive platform and that it is easy to make connections. Since the idea of
Joining is to bring people physically together it is easier to make contacts that
don’t extend to the Joining website:
“I feel comfortable to plan an activity over there because it is not really
mainstream. If it becomes really big and everybody can access that... It raises
some types of worries.” - #7
“I don’t think [a large network would benefit], because it is relatively easy
to bring people together. It is just to make a connection. No, I don’t think it would
change my expectations.” - #11
4.2.9. Discovery
The research participants affirmed that most of the times they signed-up
for new platforms that they had not heard before, they did it for discovery
purposes. They wanted to know what it was, and see if these websites could be
useful for them or not. Most of the times signing-up is made by impulse, but
becoming active is a more complex process. Participants also mentioned that
they entered the website, checked the activities in their city, and left:
“I searched for Rotterdam and looked at the activities.” - #12
“I searched for the current events offered... there weren’t many that
interested me. When I got back I saw an event that got my attention. […] it was a
photography event in Rotterdam. When I saw that event I registered in the
website, and signed up for the event. That’s how it all started.” - #13
“From my experience, there aren’t many members in Joining especially
in my area.” - #9
It was a process of exploring what the website could bring them. Joining
has a Learn More page completely dedicated to its benefits, and what it is made
for. This page is generally seen by all the users that try to search for activities,
who are still not logged on. So when a non-member tries to go around the
website, he or she is redirected to this page or is asked to register:
“I searched more or less on Joining. I read through the website to know
a little bit about what Joining is. And I browsed activities at that time before
joining.” - #9
So even after signing-up, the discovery period continues. Members
continue to look for activities in their city, or try to see which contacts are already
using it. When asked about when the participants signed-up and effectively used
it - joining or planning an activity - they tended to separate these two moments.
Firstly they would sign-up, almost instantly, by impulse. The second moment

37
came when they felt they could benefit somehow of these activities. In some
responses these benefits were about meeting new people, trying new activities,
and also promoting activities.
In addition to that, some responses showed that this Discovery period is
characterized by different behaviours. In the first moment after signing-up there is
a period of a more passive behaviour. The participants say they search but don’t
interact that much, just try to understand what is happening on the website. The
second moment, right before joining or planning, is characterized by a more
active behaviour. Becoming eager to meet people, to comment on pages, and
invite friends.
“When you come to a new place, including a cyber-place, in the
beginning you don’t know exactly what is going on. And I think many other
adopters, not only from Joining but other networks too, are a bit more passive in
the beginning.” - #3
4.2.10. Non-Tech Savvy
Another aspect that can be found on the results is that even though two
thirds of the respondents consider themselves active with technology, it was not
obvious that they had any special interest with technology. Very few cases had
an IT background, and the majority clearly stated their computer expertise arouse
from work experience:
“Concerning computers I know how to work with them! I am good with all
the programs I use for work.” “I am [present on social media channels] but mostly
for work. For example Joining, I created an account because I am working for an
international comedian and that’s why I try to be online, in expat organizations.” -
#6
Not being a tech-savvy group can be seen as a limitation or an
interesting finding from the data. The data from this group of respondents
suggests that non-tech savvy users are quite active on social networks by
searching, interacting, and reviewing. The fact that they did not need any specific
skills allowed them to browse around the website and use it as they wish:
“First of all because it is easy to [plan activities] on the website” - #3
It is not a prerequisite of an early adopter to be extremely tech-savvy,
and this suggestion lowers down the expectations that only tech experts can be
part of this group. It is easier now to participate in early platforms, and these non-
tech experts become very valuable since they are a closer match to the
mainstream market group, usually the cash-cow for any organization. It becomes
easier to search online, and as practically everyone in the western world has

38
connection to the internet it is also easy to take advantage of these social
networks. Due to the relatively low age of the respondents, many are digital
natives, people that grew up with several types of technology especially
computers and internet. They tend to be very comfortable and familiar with high-
tech, easily learning about new improvements. Again, not only IT experts will
become early adopters, more and more people will enter this group.

39
5. Discussion
The following section will discuss the findings, using the theoretical
framework discussed previously. The Determinants - Patterns - Outcomes
adapted diagram will enable us to understand the motivations of early adopters
of social networks. The analysis will take into account the consumer perspective
of adopting the recent social network Joining. Finally a connection with the theory
will be made to strengthen the discussion.
5.1. Determinants
5.1.2. Internal Factors
After analysing the results of the study, the determinants of the group
showed well-educated, young, and active technological users. This group
characterization is important because it allows describing a potential group of
early adopters of social networks. The fact that this group shares these
characteristics cannot be overlooked when studying early adopters. The
determinants influence the more or less likelihood of some phenomenon to
happen. The social context of the group suggests that a young, educated, and
tech aware group of people is more likely to try new social networks. However,
the fact that they become early adopters is not a special motivation for them.
From a consumer point of view new social networks are highly reviewed in order
to understand their usefulness. The fact that these consumers are usually highly
educated demonstrates that they are very demanding with the platforms they
use. Even though almost none is a tech expert, most are active with different
types of technology. This makes them aware of what is available, and at ease
searching for alternatives. In the theory section, we have seen that early
adopters are more risk taking, and Joining’s early users tend to follow that path
to.
Even if social networks benefit from Network effects, this study showed
that it was not critical to build an initial base. This was mainly thanks to Adopter
effects. Their demographic characteristics made them a more risk taking group,
reducing the importance of having other connections already in the platform. In

40
some cases, participants even realised the prospect that the platform would soon
grow, so the size of the network was not an issue.
5.1.2. External Factors
As Joining is present only live in the Netherlands and Belgium, two of
the most developed and safe countries in the world might have also influenced
adoption. Only activities in these two countries can be placed on Joining,
enhancing the chances of people to adopt the network. The adopters’
determinants also evaluate the personal context. As Joining is a platform to meet
new people, most of the respondents were expats. They all wanted to build a
network of friends in their new city. Following this token, Joining was exactly
made for that. So this aspect of being an Expat increased the likelihood of
adopting such network in an early stage.
Even though Joining is a recent social network, and not many resources
were used to promote it, recommendations still played an important role in
bringing people to the website. Prior experience of some users enabled others to
join. By sharing planned activities on other social networks, or by word-of-mouth.
Organizers of activities would benefit if more people joined their activities, so they
were happy to share on their network the links. These made it easy for more
people to get to know about Joining, and to reinforce the reliability of the
platform. It was perceived from the findings that physical word-of-mouth was
stronger than virtual word-of-mouth. When the participants heard about the
platform from someone they met they would be more strongly motivated to join,
as compared to when they would just see the link on Facebook or a Blog.
Naturally when current users recommend to others, the latter will be more likely
to become active. The experience on Joining increases when more people join
activities, and more activities are planned. If friends join too, that is even better;
nevertheless other social networks are more established in connecting friends.
5.2. Patterns
As previously stated in the theoretical section, the usage pattern help
understand the commitment and interest of using social networks. From the
participants involved two groups stand out, since there are two clear groups with
different behaviours. On one hand, the Joiners, who are simply interested in
joining and searching activities in their city or nearby cities. They might also
interact with other users by posting comments on activities, and sending
messages to organizers. They also visit regularly the website to find out if new

41
activities were planned. However, they generally have some aversion to plan
activities. On the other hand the Planners, mostly interested in one aspect of the
website - to plan activities. They use the platform to promote their activities,
usually by earning some kind of reward or payments in the end of the activity.
They tend to plan several activities, and have a less personal approach. No
demographic aspects were found that could help us identify who are Joiners and
who are Planners before they actually used the platform.
So depending on the variety of the use of the platform, two types of
users can be found. Their rate of use is also different. Joiners tend to come more
frequently to the website, and spend less time simply checking their cities’
activities. The Planners, come less times but spend more time when they come.
They plan activities, which take more time than searching and they respond to
users that are interested in their activities. Nevertheless, the variety of use is
generally the main differentiator in the usage pattern. It is important to have a
healthy ratio between Joiners and Planners. For the former, they need planned
activities to join so a wide choice is beneficial. For the latter, knowing that many
people can join is also beneficial. If Planners plan activities, and no one joins, the
motivation to plan again decreases. Their driver (e.g. financial, status) is stronger
when the number of potential users that can join is bigger.
5.3. Outcomes
5.3.1. Introduction
This discussion section is based on the adapted methodological
framework that was used to guide the research. It proves useful to understand
the connections between individual choices, societal pressures, and background.
Following the diffusion of innovation literature that aims to help us understand
how users adopt a new technology, we can see how the data gathered relates to
that. The early adopter’s literature classified users according to the moment of
adoption. In addition to the time horizon, the type and frequency of use was also
analysed. Clearly adopting a social network before others, and more than others,
affects early adoption. Concerning the relation with consumer motivations
literature, we were able to correlate user’s adoption with specific motivations.
Although these motivations were not all the time obvious, the interpretative view
enabled to discover some interesting points for further research. The fourth area
of theoretical research was about networks. And this literature together with the
data collected proved very useful to understand the relations between members.
Social networks become richer with more users, but they still are able to grow

42
from almost zero. The majority of the members of Joining are expats which make
them more willing to meet new people.
5.3.2. Utilitarian vs. Non-Utilitarian motives
Two of the main questions of this research were concerning early
adoption and utilitarian and non-utilitarian motives. It was quite clear that every
user had a specific reason to join the network. They did not state, however, that
early adoption was a factor that motivated them to join the platform. They joined
at this early stage, because it was when they heard about it. Nevertheless, their
experience was affected by this fact, making them more or less active due to the
low number of users, and activities. More specifically about utilitarian and non-
utilitarian motives, the two groups of users had different results. Joiners were
both motivated by irrational and rational motives. The former was related to the
fact that they wanted to simply have a good time, not expecting any particular
outcome besides a hangout. They would just create a profile to gather with
people and have a good time. There were also, in the latter case, motives of
increasing professional networks by joining networking events. Thus, Joiners
were both emotionally involved, but also in some cases rationally interested in
the hangouts. The planners are mostly interested in getting dividends of their
activities, so they use the platform as an instrument to reach other outcomes.
These outcomes can be in the form of getting more people to bars, to sell more
tickets for shows, to promote theatre plays, or to increase the status of an event
organizer.
5.3.2. Early Adoption
As social networks need members to grow, the fact that there are some
nodes that come first, with no apparent connection, is quite interesting. Social
network adopters, especially on Joining, tend to try out different platforms. Using
one does not mean they will not use another one, or that they will simply stop
searching for more. They are looking to satisfy a need, but a need that can be
constantly changing. Also due to the low barriers of entrance - usually these
platforms are free or have free trial periods - it is easy to change from one to
another. Users are very demanding because of the many competitive platforms
that exist, and also because they usually have experience with other platforms. If
they don’t find what they want on platform A, they can easily try B, or C. The
same happens with Joining - members try to find activities with people that they
can meet, and have a good time with. If they find this on Joining they will be
satisfied, or else they will try on another website. So exploring is an important

43
reason for users to try out new platforms. Joining’s early users tend to research
about the utility of the platform, through recommendations, or reading reviews
about it on a website. They tend to read the Learn More page of Joining, and
very frequently send e-mails for feedback, compliments and suggestions to
improve. Ergo any user can assess how genuine the platform is, and know if it
can be useful or not. Motivation requires someone to be interested in something:
Joining members are interested in meeting new people, try new activities, or
promote their events. It is quite straightforward for users to get this message.
Following this token, it is easier to find motivation to use the platform. However,
the concept may be good but it depends on a variable that is not at all controlled
by the organization. The number of people joining and planning is random, and
that can affect the motivation of the early members to continue to use it.
5.3.3. Expectations
To more comprehensively understand the motivations of joining an early
social network users have to see potential of current benefits or future growth.
Since users form expectations according to what the innovation can and cannot
give, it is important that the platform provides a clear message. This message
can be direct or indirect, for instance a direct message would be a list of benefits
in the form of a booklet or a web page. Whilst an indirect message, more difficult
to control, would be the feeling the users have in the design or images used.
Another reason to adopt an early stage network is that it can be used to
get close to the organization behind it. It is possible that some users join before
others to get a closer connection to the management of the platform. This can
happen for several reasons. Getting close to the founders or team managing the
platform can enable people to get privileged information that can be used for
status purposes but also for monetary gains. The possibility of future employment
or partnering can be another motivation to participate early on these social
networks. It can also be the case that users have a pure sense of helping out a
start-up and enjoy taking part of the testing period. Even though not directly
stated by the interviewees, it is possible to conclude that the users tend to get
close to the social network team. For an early stage social network as Joining
this is valuable since feedback comes quicker and iterations are more often.
There is a correlation between the motivations and the behaviour of the early
adopters. The more motivated these users are the more active and close they
become to the Joining team. The reverse does not have the same relationship.
So most of the times, users with no connection at all with the platform are the

44
most willing to test and give feedback with the interest of exploring and getting
closer to the organization.

45
6. Conclusion
The final goal of this study was to answer the question about what are
the motivations behind adopting early stage social networks. Deriving from this
main question, two other questions were brought up. The first was if there were
differences between the motives, if they are more or less utilitarian and
instrumental for the users. The second question was to explain if the fact of being
an early adopter had any influence in the motivation of joining early stage social
networks. Following an interpretative method, with an inductive mind-set it was
able to build up some results from the data gathered. This data was collected
through semi-structured interviews with the first active users of the Joining online
social network website.
6.1. Theoretical implications
This study intended to prove the theoretical implications of early
adopters’ motivations. Studies concerning early adopters have been scarce, and
hopefully with this work, more will follow. Especially from a consumer’s point of
view, this issue deserves a more in depth interest and thorough discussion.
Consumer motivations are dynamic and change over time, the analysis of the
first group of adopters can be very rich to understand the causes and
consequences of specific choices. Social networks are a central theme of our
society, the way we behave with each other, how we interact, and finally how we
live our life. Now, more than ever, we consume social networks: we consume
what social networks bring us, we “sow” for future benefits, we curate them with
all the instruments we now have at our reach. Social networks are around us,
and even though they were always present we see an increase of possibilities to
create or multiple more. With this in perspective, the choice of analysing social
networks from an early consumer’s point of view proved to be very useful.
Ten topics were found from the research, which can be clustered in the
following three topics: 1) Perception; 2) Interaction; 3) Experience. The first
involved the perceived meaning of social networks for users. The rationale
behind what the value of a social network can be plays an important role in
motivating users to join one. We could see from this work that recommendations,

46
the message, and image of the platform create an idea about the benefits that
users can get from the social network. Independently of the actual benefits, the
expectation of future gains is a very strong driver to join. Thus, it creates an
interest of promoting the social network and making it grow. Trust is built from the
perception that is created prior joining the platform. This was an aspect pointed
out by many respondents that they could feel that it was a genuine platform, with
trustworthy goals. Secondly, the interaction was vital to become active on a
recent social network. As seen in the theory section, a social network needs
nodes to be connected. In order to become active, these nodes have to be able
to find each other. Interaction here shows the importance of connecting these
nodes. In the end if users can’t find others, they will not use or even leave the
network. Therefore it is important to find ways of increasing the interaction of the
users, and just giving the opportunity to interact will be enough. In the research,
users could connect with each other through their Facebook profile which was
embedded on the Joining profile. This feature was not clearly stated anywhere,
however most of the users found it and made use of it. In a chronological order,
first users get to know about a social network, then join it and finally they use it
and become active. This last point is related to what users experience from the
social network. Most of the experience of joining an early stage social network is
related to the interest of discovering new things. As an explorer, these users tend
to test and try out different things, different combinations, and travel all around
the platform. They tend to be very demanding, since there are many other
platforms that they can use. Also the perceptions created in the beginning, make
these users expect outcomes that sometimes might not occur.
6.2. Future Research
The starting point for this study was the lack of importance that previous
research has made concerning the motivations of early adopters. However, this
landscape motivated the author to seek aspects of interest about this theme, and
as a final note that has been achieved. After selecting a case study and
interviewing random participants, the results found can be validated. This can be
a first step for future studies in the Technology Marketing field. The intended
results of this piece of work were achieved. As a first achievement, we were able
to start a discussion around the importance of early adopters from a consumer’s
perspective. That can allow academics and also practitioners to understand the
motivations that drive consumers towards early stage social networks. In addition
to that achievement, a second one was also achieved concerning more
specifically the motivations behind early adopters. Despite not having found a

47
relevant difference between utilitarian and non-utilitarian motives, the first steps
are given to further these findings. Even though there were some individual
reasons, it was clear that some of the motives could be seen as a collective
force. Finding these motives can help us understand more what drives early
adopters, and from there extrapolate to other fields.
Future research can be explored through multiple dimensions. The
author would refer four specific themes for further understanding. The first would
be to expand the study to products instead of services. Social networks can, in
some cases, be seen as services thus it would be interesting to analyse how
early adopters behave when adopting physical products before others. We
had the opportunity to discuss early adopters of social networks, but early
adopters of specific products (e.g. cars, clothes, food) could help forward the
knowledge about consumers. The second and third themes are related to each
other. We could discuss the importance of early adopters throughout the life
of social networks. How important are early adopters to sustain social networks
growth and maturation? Do they play an important role in helping these social
networks to continue strong? Will they grow more easily if early adopters stick to
it? These questions lead to the third theme which is about the consequences of
early adopters leaving the social networks. What happens to the network after
the first users leave? What kind of impact can we expect from that? The fourth
and last recommended theme is about the new demographics of early
adopters. As seen in this study Joining’s early adopters are not so tech savvy,
does that mean that the general profile is changing? A more in depth research is
welcome so we can discuss further if the DNA or ID of an early adopter is
different now with the proliferation of technology.
6.3. Managerial Implications
For managerial purposes the results found can be used as a starting
point for further studies. The theoretical framework can easily be adapted to help
managers understand the motivations of their early adopters. Many practitioners
use social networks as the base of the success of their ventures. They may be
social media, theatres, bars, or basically any organization that benefits from
social interaction. Thus, it is important to know what drives their users or
customers, in order to serve them better and keep on improving with valuable
offerings. However, the results of this study can open some possibilities of
getting to know better their adopters. For future early stage social networks,
understanding that users do value discovering new platforms is important, but
showing a committed community already in place, almost as a small tribe, can

48
trigger the interest in becoming active. What might sound like a contradiction
makes sense in the way that early users don’t like to “join in the first wave, but
more in the second or third wave” (#15). A social network has to be social from
the first moment, not meaning that it is expected to be crowded.
The author hopes that the first step of this discussion of early adopter’s
motivations has been done, and from now on research can be directed towards
developing it. As seen on this piece there are many interesting points that could
benefit from a more in depth research. Both for the academia and the business
world, these are themes that will become more present in our discussions about
consumer motivations.

Motivations of Early Adopters of Technology - The case of Social Networks

Motivations of Early Adopters of Technology - The case of Social Networks

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Motivations of Early Adopters of Technology - The case of Social Networks

Similaire à Motivations of Early Adopters of Technology - The case of Social Networks (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Motivations of Early Adopters of Technology - The case of Social Networks