SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  79
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE
ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE
TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION
THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
Chimeren Peerbhai
Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Business
Administration at the University of Westminster
MBA 2014
DECLARATION
I declare that no portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.
Further, all the work in this dissertation is entirely my own, unless referenced in the text as a specific source
and included in the bibliography.
Word count = 10,460
Not inclusive of cover page, table of contents, table of figures, abstract, declaration, charts, captions,
headings/subheadings, inline references, bibliography list of references or appendices.
ABSTRACT
Wearables offer significant implications as a new marketing channel, however the technology has to
overcome multiple barriers to gain mainstream adoption. This research explored perceptions of strength for
these barriers and the possibility that early market conditioning during tourism, could accelerate the
adoption cycle.
It employed an exploratory, qualitative, grounded theory approach comprised of an in-depth investigation of
relevant literature to develop key variables into hypotheses. Hypotheses were utilised as the basis to
generate targeted questions for semi-structured interviews, with influential industry experts.
Findings concluded that the trial of wearables during tourism can effect purchase decisions, either positively
or negatively, by accelerating consumers through the adoption cycle. However it has greater potential to be
influential in future, after current barriers are lowered.
Factors found to have the most potential to influence consumer adoption through tourism for future
research are:
 Power of social influencers and “Collective Group Theory”
 Ability to try products for a low cost
 Use of change agents to educate consumers of value and reduce perceived complexity of use
Further implications this research found that practitioners and manufacturers can also leverage are:
 Development of applications to showcase relative advantage
 Creation of venues or attractions where consumers can try products before purchasing
 Marketing strategies to ignite a “Fear of Missing Out” as consumers observe others enjoyment
The combination of these diffusion factors in parallel with efforts to lower current barriers, may accelerate
mainstream adoption, thus ensuring wearable’s future success as a viable marketing channel.
CONTENTS
Declaration ...........................................................................................................................................................1
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................1
Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................4
Introduction and importance of wearables as a new advertising channel..........................................................6
Key business issue.............................................................................................................................................6
Key aims and objectives....................................................................................................................................6
Background and context.......................................................................................................................................7
What are wearable technologies?....................................................................................................................7
Predicted growth of the wearables sector .......................................................................................................9
Literature review............................................................................................................................................... 12
Current barriers to mainstream consumer adoption of wearables .............................................................. 12
Consumers are unaware of product or capabilities................................................................................... 12
High cost prohibitive .................................................................................................................................. 12
Aesthetic and social concerns.................................................................................................................... 13
Perceived limited functionality & technological limitations...................................................................... 16
Other barriers not in scope for this research............................................................................................. 18
Considerations of tourism as an early market conditioning platform........................................................... 18
Acceleration through adoption process..................................................................................................... 18
Trial through tourism ................................................................................................................................. 20
Change agents to educate consumers of product and benefits................................................................ 20
Augmented reality to overlay contextual information .............................................................................. 21
Hands free usage........................................................................................................................................ 22
Translation of signs & voice ....................................................................................................................... 23
Social and environmental influencers “holiday mind-set” ........................................................................ 24
Real-time social sharing ............................................................................................................................. 25
Rented devices remove high cost of entry barrier..................................................................................... 26
Social fashion stigmas and aesthetic concerns mitigated by collective group behaviour theory ............. 26
Controlled environment to create positive first impression of capabilities .............................................. 26
Geo-targeted applications (location based services)................................................................................. 28
Biometric data (fitness, health tracking) and gaming (treasure hunt, geocaching) .................................. 29
Key theoretical conclusions of literature review........................................................................................... 34
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 35
Research objective......................................................................................................................................... 35
Research philosophy and approach............................................................................................................... 35
Previous research’s influence upon research strategy and methodology .................................................... 37
Research design strategy............................................................................................................................... 37
Research methods and design of data collection.......................................................................................... 37
Interview sample criteria............................................................................................................................... 38
Limitations, ethical considerations and miscellaneous ................................................................................. 39
Results And Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 40
Connection to overall research aims and objectives..................................................................................... 40
Summary of findings...................................................................................................................................... 40
Barrier: consumer’s unawareness of products and their value proposition................................................. 44
Strength of barrier...................................................................................................................................... 44
Mitigation through tourism professionals acting as change agents to educate and evangelise the
technology.................................................................................................................................................. 44
Being in a holiday mind-set could influence a consumer’s willingness to try wearables.......................... 45
Barrier: High Cost........................................................................................................................................... 49
Strength of barrier...................................................................................................................................... 49
Mitigation through rental of wearables to increase opportunities for trial .............................................. 49
Influence of cost after a positive tourism trial........................................................................................... 49
Barrier: Perceived limited functionality......................................................................................................... 54
Strength of barrier...................................................................................................................................... 54
Maximizing technology through use of controlled environments to deliver more contextually aware
positive first experiences ........................................................................................................................... 55
Influence of a controlled user experience upon future purchase after positive tourism trial .................. 55
Barrier: Aesthetic and social fashion stigmas................................................................................................ 59
Strength of barrier...................................................................................................................................... 59
Mitigation through collective group behaviour theory ............................................................................. 59
Influence after positive tourism trial on aesthetic and social stigma concerns......................................... 60
The danger of failed diffusion........................................................................................................................ 64
New findings .................................................................................................................................................. 64
Future applications of the findings................................................................................................................ 64
Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................ 72
Conclusion of findings in relation to the key aims and objectives ................................................................ 72
Conclusion summary...................................................................................................................................... 72
Contribution to future research................................................................................................................. 73
Contribution for theorists .......................................................................................................................... 73
Contribution to practitioners ..................................................................................................................... 73
References......................................................................................................................................................... 75
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Examples of Current Wearable Technologies Chart; adapted from original sources (Euromonitor
International 2013, McKendrick 2013).................................................................................................................8
Figure 2 Examples of Wearables Source: (Euromonitor International 2013) ......................................................9
Figure 3 Global Volume Sales of Wearable Electronics by Type Source: (Golovko 2014) & Wearable Growth
Forecasts Source: (Euromonitor International 2014)........................................................................................ 10
Figure 4 Rapid increase in global interest in wearables from 2011-2014 (Solutions 2014).............................. 11
Figure 5 Average price by market in 2014 for wearables (Solutions 2014) ...................................................... 12
Figure 6 Respondents were mainly neutral in opinions of wearables & majority would prefer a wearable
clipped onto clothing or wrist (Solutions 2014, Rotman Epps 2013)................................................................ 13
Figure 7 Comparison of form vs function in some current wearables.............................................................. 15
Figure 8 Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate user acceptance of wearables (Davis 1989) .................. 16
Figure 9 Relative Device Score to Compare Wearable Products & Predicted Battery Life Curve of Wearable
Devices (Solutions 2014..................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 10 Adoption Categories, Adapted from New Product Adoption and Diffusion (Rogers 1976).............. 18
Figure 11 Five stages of the adoption process (original/later modified by Rogers)(Rogers 1976)................... 19
Figure 12 Five stages of the adoption process with possible influence of tourism trial (Rogers 1976............. 19
Figure 13 Smart Glasses can be used to overlay tourism information onto the user’s field of view and answer
questions about objects in view........................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 14 Benefits of hands free usage of wearables verses tablets to view augmented reality in a museum22
Figure 15 Use of Smart Glasses to translate both audio and text..................................................................... 23
Figure 16 Benefits of smart glasses hands free usage and built in camera to share experiences real-time .... 25
Figure 17 Benefits of hands free usage to navigate with directions overlaid onto field of view verses looking
down at a smartphone ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 18 Combined use of Smart Glasses and Smart Band to display biometric data for fitness and compete
with friends in a geo-location based game ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 19 Suggested uses of augmented reality for tourism with a smart phone, also applicable to wearables
(Yovcheva, Buhalis et al. 2012).......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 20 Suggested uses and benefits of Augmented Reality applications for tourism for Smartphones,
similar potential for wearables ......................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 21 Use of contextual awareness for smartphone travel applications, similar use case can apply to
wearables (Yovcheva, Buhalis et al. 2012) ........................................................................................................ 32
Figure 22 Diffusion Of Innovations Attributes, modified from original source (Daugherty 2002) ................... 33
Figure 23 Hypotheses derived from the literature used to formulate interview questions............................. 34
Figure 24 Process used in research philosophy and approach modified but based upon chart p 580 (Bryman,
Bell 2011)........................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 26 Industry Expert Sample Criteria......................................................................................................... 39
Figure 25 List of Interview Participants............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 27 Comparison of strength of current barriers and possible level of influence after a positive tourism
trial .................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 28 Possible level of influence of variables during a tourism trial........................................................... 42
Figure 29 Interviewees opinion of level of intensity for current adoption barriers ......................................... 43
Figure 30 Intensity of barrier that consumers are unaware of wearable products or their capabilities.......... 46
Figure 31 Intensity of influence being in a holiday mind-set would impact a consumer’s willingness to try a
wearable device................................................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 32 Intensity of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would
positively influence consumers to purchase it.................................................................................................. 48
Figure 33 Intensity of barrier that consumers feel wearables are currently cost prohibitive ......................... 51
Figure 34 Intensity of likelihood consumers would try wearables during tourism, if the devices could be
rented for a small fee ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Figure 35 Intensity of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would
positively influence consumers to purchase it, if the current barrier of being high cost prohibitive were
lowered.............................................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 36 Level of intensity of the barrier that consumers perceive wearables as having limited functionality
beyond that of smartphones and still have some technological limitations .................................................... 56
Figure 37 Level of intensity of influence the ability to place sensors/beacons and perform extensive testing
within a controlled environment would have on the ability of wearable applications, to deliver a better user
experience over that of uncontrolled ............................................................................................................... 57
Figure 38 Level of intensity a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would
positively influence consumers to purchase it, if the current barrier of the perceived limited functionality &
technological limitations were lowered............................................................................................................ 58
Figure 39 The level of intensity of barrier that consumers believe the current wearable products are
unfashionable or unstylish ................................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 40 The level of influence being in a collective group where the majority were also wearing the devices
would mitigate social or aesthetic stigmas of wearables whilst in this context............................................... 62
Figure 41 The level of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would
positively influence consumers to purchase it, if in future the styling became more fashionable .................. 63
Figure 42 Chart of future applications of the findings for future research and industry development ........... 71
Figure 43 Five stages of the adoption process with possible influence of tourism trial (Rogers 1976) ........... 72
INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE OF WEARABLES AS A NEW ADVERTISING CHANNEL
“Physical-digital convergence and location technologies are powerful forces reshaping
customer experiences…”
(Dalton, Costa 2014)
As technology evolves, advancements will continue to invoke disruptive changes in our lives. Thus opening
up new business models for customer centric marketing opportunities, to ensure efficacy of advertising
investments. Wearable technologies have strong potential, if widely adopted, to create a disruptive change
in the way many organizations advertise (Manyika 2013).
The next evolution in digital marketing thrives on expanding capabilities to acquire more consumer data.
Wearables such as Wristbands and Smart Watches/Glasses have unique capabilities to share and track
information about a consumer’s physical activity, health metrics, emotions, location and more (McDermott
2013). Brands can use this data to deliver more immersive advertising experiences, if consumers embrace
co-creating personalised relationships with them by sharing data from multiple facets of their lives via
wearables (Sloane 2014).
The proliferation of wearables has the capacity to enable brands to connect with consumers more deeply,
than ever before (Euromonitor International 2013). This new wearable prosumer channel will provide a
persistent data gateway to consumer’s physical and digital lives. Thereby providing a unique platform to gain
insights to create more accurately targeted and contextually relevant marketing messages. This
transformative new channel could allow brands to build more intimate customer relationships and develop
stronger brand loyalty (Manyika, Chui 2013).
Firms that are able to capitalise on this emerging technology to deliver value to customers, may create a
competitive advantage. Gartner predicts that mobile advertisement expenditure will collectively grow by US
$13.2 billion from 2013 to 2016 (Euromonitor International 2013). Furthermore, personalised advertising
expenditure through location enabled ads, is also expected to increase by 25% from 2012-2017
(Euromonitor International 2013). However, diffusion of the technologies needs to reach the tipping point of
mass consumer adoption, before wearables can become a viable marketing channel.
KEY BUSINESS ISSUE
The key business issue is, while the benefits of this new marketing channel are immense, the current user
adoption rate is quite low. It can be argued, that these devices are a manufacturer-driven initiative
(Euromonitor International 2013). Survey data is conflicted, as to whether or not consumers are educated
about the capabilities and benefits of wearable technologies. Therefore, presently many consumers are
unaware of the technologies or cannot identify any major use cases which would be enhanced beyond
current smartphone capabilities (Shannon-Missal 2013, Eddy 2014).
Guglielmo elaborates on additional adoption barriers “The problem is the hype is years ahead of the market.
Big and unresolved questions remain about pricing (too high), battery life (too short), utility (too limited),
looks (too ugly) and privacy (too scary).”(Guglielmo 3/3/2014). In order to become a viable marketing
channel, these technologies must provide enough value to overcome these barriers and gain mainstream
adoption.
KEY AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
While wearables display promise of becoming a new disruptive marketing platform, the technology is still in
its infancy. Consequently, it still has multiple barriers to overcome from: high cost, technological limitations,
social stigmas, regulatory policies, privacy concerns and aesthetic challenges. The majority of adoption
categories are unaware of, or lack a strong interest in the technologies, as currently the primary users are
from either the “innovator” or “early adopter” groups.
The primary objective of this research, is to explore perceptions on the use of tourism to move mainstream
consumers through the wearable technology adoption cycle more rapidly. The exploratory study that follows,
aims to examine how industry experts perceive the current barriers to adoption of wearable technologies. As
well as, explore to what degree they believe consumers could be influenced to hasten their adoption of the
technology, through trial during tourism. By examining the possibility that some of the current barriers could
be mitigated through tourism activities, thereby accelerating the cycle from the “unaware phase” directly to
the “trial phase” of user adoption. Additionally, it explores perceptions as to what extent a negative tourism
trial experience, could impact consumers to reject devices before reaching their mature iteration. Based on
the results, which have been compared and contrasted with the literature review, it will make suggestions,
as to which factors could most influence consumer adoption for future research investigation.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
WHAT ARE WEARABLE TECHNOLOGIES?
Wearable technologies, also called wearables, wearable devices or wearable computers are comprised of
any computing device that is worn on the user’s body and in most cases has internet connectivity. Many of
these devices also include cameras, GPS location sensors, biometric sensors, health/fitness monitors and
some have augmented reality capabilities (McKendrick 2013). For the purposes of this report, the term
“Wearables” will be used to describe the devices. Furthermore, the wearables of primary focus will be smart
glasses, smart watches and activity trackers given they currently have the most applicable use during travel.
Figure 1 Examples of Current Wearable Technologies Chart; adapted from original sources (Euromonitor International 2013,
McKendrick 2013)
Figure 2 Examples of Wearables Source: (Euromonitor International 2013)
PREDICTED GROWTH OF THE WEARABLES SECTOR
Currently, adoption of wearables is low and most available devices are passive. Meaning they can gather
data but users cannot interact directly with them without another device; such as a smartphone. Whereas,
autonomous wearables allow users to interact with the device directly and have more engaging experience
capabilities. However these devices have only recently become available to the mainstream public in some
geographies (Golovko 2013).
According to Euromoniter, the increased availability of autonomous wearables is predicted to increase global
sales up to almost 250 million units by 2018 (Euromonitor International 2013). Juniper Research forecasts
the wearable market is expected to grow from $1.4 billion in 2014 to $19 billion by 2018 (McCafferty 2014).
Although their adoption pattern is expected to closely follow that of tablets, their predicted growth is
expected to be slower and gain less market share, as they are considered a secondary device to smartphones
(Euromonitor International 2013).
Figure 3 Global Volume Sales of Wearable Electronics by Type Source: (Golovko 2014) & Wearable Growth Forecasts Source: (Euromonitor International 2014)
Figure 4 Rapid increase in global interest in wearables from 2011-2014 (Solutions 2014)
LITERATURE REVIEW
CURRENT BARRIERS TO MAINSTREAM CONSUMER ADOPTION OF WEARABLES
CONSUMERS ARE UNAWARE OF PRODUCT OR CAPABILITIES
Many studies agree mainstream consumers are currently unaware of wearables or their capabilities. A
recent poll reported 37% of respondents said they're "not at all familiar" with wearables, 33% said they've
heard of the term but didn’t know anything about them, while 59% didn’t understand the need for them
(Shannon-Missal 2013). Furthermore, another survey said 40% of respondents did not know enough about
Google Glass to consider purchasing it (Golovko 2013).
Many wearables, such as Google Glass, are not currently commercially available in all geographies. However,
even when available, many consumers are still uninformed of their benefits, "Americans aren't yet displaying
truly decisive opinions either for or against wearables, which may reflect a simple lack of clear understanding
of the category as a whole" (Eddy 2013). Another study suggests the disinterest is due to a lack of a
concerted effort from wearable manufactures to educate consumers of their value proposition (McCafferty
2014).
Conversely, an Accenture 2014 survey (polling 6000 consumers in 6 countries) found respondents were
enthusiastic about the new functionality of wearables. Almost 50% expressed interest in buying a smart
watch and over 40% were interested in smart glasses. However of the sample surveyed, 35% indicated they
were from either the early majority or early adopters categories (Accenture 2014), therefore these groups
may take a more active role in pursuing wearables without any outside motivation or influence (Veneris
1990).
HIGH COST PROHIBITIVE
“Consumers are interested in
maximizing the ratio of a
product’s perceived value relative
to its price. For two products of
similar function and perceived
value, the price may be the
determining factor in a consumer’s
purchasing decision.”
(Solutions 2014)
High price points of wearables appear to be
a consistent concern amongst many
consumer surveys. In one survey 72% of all
respondents said they wished wearables
were less expensive and those interested in
purchasing in the near future said that cost will likely be a limiting factor (Eddy 2013). In a similar 2013
American poll, 41% of respondents said wearables would be too expensive to own (Shannon-Missal 2013).
It’s been questioned if wearables were more affordable, would they become successful? In a different 2013
survey, only 14% of respondents said they would consider purchasing Google Glass, depending upon price
(Golovko 2013). Whereas, when Google Glass was released to the general USA public, it sold out in a single
Figure 5 Average price by market in 2014 for wearables (Solutions 2014)
day despite the high cost of $1,500, however it was primarily purchased by early adopters. It may prove
more challenging to convince mainstream consumers to purchase, until the price point becomes more
palatable (Reisinger 2014).
Conversely, in the aforementioned 2014 Survey, 33% of respondents planned to increase spending on digital
devices, within the next 12 months. Which Accenture believes could be partially due to the rapidly
expanding amount of objects becoming connected to internet, referred to as the IoT “Internet of Things”.
Thereby speculating, as more form factors become internet capable, consumer’s increased appetite for
enhanced digital lifestyles, may influence their spending on devices (Accenture 2014).
AESTHETIC AND SOCIAL CONCERNS
The dominant viewpoint held that aesthetics and social acceptance are currently some of the largest
adoption challenges facing wearables (Guglielmo 3/3/2014). The current iteration of devices have been
primarily designed by engineers for technical functionality. The prototypes were then later reworked by
designers which resulted in form factors that are still perceived as being “more geeky” than stylish (Pallister
2014). Simonite elaborates "To make this something that someone would want to wear full time, there
needs to be adjustments to the aesthetics and styling—it reads as a device and not a pair of fashion
eyewear."(Simonite 2013).
In a recent survey, 1 in 5 respondents said they had aesthetic concerns regarding Google Glass (Golovko
2013). Although many consumers report strong style concerns, American opinions were evenly split when
questioned if wearables can be stylish, 43% agreed and 41% disagreed (Eddy 2013). This divide could be
influenced by a recent US launch of the first designer frames for Glass (designed outside of Google) by a
known fashion name, Diane von Furstenberg (McCormick 2014).
Others argue that wearables cannot succeed without social acceptance because if people feel that it's not
"cool" to wear them, they will reject them (Reisinger 2014). Self-image can be positively or negatively
Figure 6 Respondents were mainly neutral in opinions of wearables & majority would prefer a wearable clipped onto clothing or wrist
(Solutions 2014, Rotman Epps 2013)
affected by the perceptions of others, which influences how people feel about themselves. This capacity to
increase or decrease self-confidence could greatly influence wearable adoption, if either stigmatised or
perceived as a status symbol (Buenaflor, Kim 2013).
Alternatively, some consumers wanted to see wearables designed in other form factors or would prefer
devices that were smaller, less obtrusive and more discreet (Buenaflor, Kim 2013). According to a 2014
report, 62% said they wish wearables came in forms besides wristbands and watches, and 53% wanted
wearables that looked more like jewellery (Eddy 2014). In a recent Harris Poll, 43% of all respondents said
they'd be more likely to buy wearables if they couldn't be seen (Shannon-Missal 2013).
Figure 7 Comparison of form vs function in some current wearables
PERCEIVED LIMITED FUNCTIONALITY & TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
Due to the infancy stage of these product’s lifecycle, there are still many technical hardware and software
limitations to be overcome, in addition to environmental factors; such as inaccurate location tracking
(Euromonitor International 2013a). These teething issues have influenced their perceived limited
functionality, even within the early adopter technology community. Some studies cite that no public
perception marketing efforts will be effective, until the technological limitations are lowered and more
useful applications are developed (Lapowsky 2014).
A study examining acceptance factors for wearables, used the Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate
user adoption. The author concludes that when comparing potential benefits of a new technology, users
must perceive it as being easy to use and more advantageous than the technology they are already familiar
with (Buenaflor, Kim 2013).
Euromoniter states that many consumers do not believe wearables have any major use case that would be
more valuable, over that of a smart phone. Which could be influenced by the fact that primarily only passive
wearables are available, which are still reliant on smartphones to process and display data. Active wearables
which are not as closely linked to smartphones, have yet to become widely obtainable (Euromonitor
International 2013). Whereas, a Harris poll found that 48% would like to access smartphone functions
without having to dig into their pockets, which is one of the key differentiating features of wearables
(Shannon-Missal 2013). Conversely, others state that simply being hands free, is not enough of a value add,
to be a driving incentive force (Guglielmo, Olson 2014).
Vandrico is aiding consumer purchase decisions by providing an enhanced understanding of how wearables
compare, through use of a “Relative Device Score” system. It compares devices by calculating attributes of
compatibility, components, connectivity, battery, uniqueness, potential and benefits to derive a relative
score. Vandrico believes that the major limiting factors for wearables are poor battery life, incompatibility
between devices and operating systems that mismanage resources because they are not tailored to the form
factors, consequently limiting software features (Solutions 2014).
Complementary research states that wearables must integrate with other devices and provide third-party
developer support. The walled garden approach that companies like Apple take to stop integration with
competing devices, will need to be broken down, in order to make wearables successful. As the more
wearables can integrate with the IoT “internet of things” the more useful for everyday tasks they will
become (Reisinger 2014).
Figure 8 Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate user acceptance of wearables (Davis 1989)
Figure 9 Relative Device Score to Compare Wearable Products & Predicted Battery Life Curve of Wearable Devices (Solutions 2014)
OTHER BARRIERS NOT IN SCOPE FOR THIS RESEARCH
This research did not examine all of the barriers to wearable adoption, as it primarily focused on the aims
and objectives to explore barriers which had the most mitigation potential through tourism trial. Other
barriers such as privacy issues, legislation, community stigmas and other factors of a speculative nature were
too difficult to expound upon at this early stage of adoption. Therefore they will not be analysed fully in this
research effort, however for further information on these topics please refer to appendix E.
CONSIDERATIONS OF TOURISM AS AN EARLY MARKET CONDITIONING PLATFORM
ACCELERATION THROUGH ADOPTION PROCESS
Roger’s divides groups of adopters into five main categories and many scholars believe these risk level
characteristics are intrinsic and determine how rapidly one will adopt an innovation (Rogers 1976). Currently,
the primary users of wearables fall into the innovator or early adopter categories, according to one theory,
this is because many products have still not been released to the full market. Understanding that this early
stage in the diffusion curve is a crucial one, Google launched its explorer program targeted at early adopters
who were selected by lottery for the limited release of Glass. Thereby, using the early adopters to test for
general consumption, as well as create market awareness for future adoption (Aspire 2014).
Roger’s diffusion of innovation theory states that consumers must believe that the innovation will yield a
utility which overcomes any uncertainty of a positive cost-benefit outcome. Beyond price, consumers must
evaluate the level of disruption to their lives; in terms of functionality, reliability, ease of use, compatibility
and social acceptance (Veneris 1990).
Figure 10 Adoption Categories, Adapted from New Product Adoption and Diffusion (Rogers 1976)
Figure 11 Five stages of the adoption process (original/later modified by Rogers)(Rogers 1976)
Figure 12 Five stages of the adoption process with possible influence of tourism trial (Rogers 1976
TRIAL THROUGH TOURISM
According to Roger’s theory, before adoption, a consumer must go through a decision-making process of
awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption (If the user does not reject the innovation during any
point) (Rogers 1976). Given many are risk adverse, this doubt can cause delay of any decision until more
evidence can be supported. However, many will not pursue evidence instead preferring to wait until an
influencer has endorsed the product (Veneris 1990). However, Rogers developed the diffusion of innovation
theory based on agricultural data a few decades ago. Hence, many criticise his approach because it only
addresses one way communication. Whereas nowadays there is a greater extent of two way dialog through
the internet and social media, thus allowing for greater influence and input throughout the adoption cycle
(Veneris 1990).
CHANGE AGENTS TO EDUCATE CONSUMERS OF PRODUCT AND BENEFITS
Consider the concept if wearables were offered to be rented during tourism activities, at places like
museums, guided tours or cultural centres. The first step of adoption (Awareness) would be initiated, as the
consumer would be exposed to the technology. They would still lack detailed information however, when
they enter stage two and express an (Interest), then tourism professionals can act as change agents. To
provide them education of the relative advantage attributes; such as being hands-free, displaying contextual
information to navigate user, translation, providing information overlaid on top of the object and real-time
sharing experiences with friends (Harteveldt 2010).
The opportunity to educate consumers on the features and benefits, may help persuade them to move to
step three of (Evaluation). Where they will consider the (Complexity) attribute of diffusion and assess the
level of difficulty in learning to use the technology. The change agents can guide them through the initial
learning curve by providing training, to help them become comfortable with features (Fino 2013). If
successful, then the consumer would rent the device and move onto step four of (Trial), thereby moving
through the first four stages of the cycle, quite rapidly.
AUGMENTED REALITY TO OVERLAY CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
Figure 13 Smart Glasses can be used to overlay tourism information onto the user’s field of view and answer questions about objects in view
HANDS FREE USAGE
Figure 14 Benefits of hands free usage of wearables verses tablets to view augmented reality in a museum
TRANSLATION OF SIGNS & VOICE
Figure 15 Use of Smart Glasses to translate both audio and text
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCERS “HOLIDAY MIND-SET”
Moore believes social influencers and opinion leaders can directly impact the tipping point of innovation
diffusion (Moore 1999). Social influencers can be quite strong, as humans put importance on the sentiments
of their close interpersonal relationships, thus considering their opinions when making when making
decisions. With the increase of online social sharing, influencer power is expanding as positive or negative
perceptions are more rapidly disseminated throughout the network, which can influence other consumer’s
adoption cycles (Buenaflor, Kim 2013).
If social networks were combined with the capabilities of wearables to take advantage of features such as
geo-targeting locations, real time social sharing (photos, videos and recommendations) and
virtual/augmented reality experiences, it could allow users to engage with each other from different
locations. For example, one could be compare their friend’s previous trip with their own by viewing their
friend’s comments, tips, and media overlaid on their field of view, while visiting the same location.
Furthermore, users could upload their own experiences, for others to engage in live or afterward, creating a
crowd-sourced virtual tourism platform.
Similar wearable applications were explored through a campaign called the “Melbourne Remote Control
Tourist”. The participants explored Melbourne by taking directives from online users and streamed their
experiences live, while wearing helmets fitted with cameras, microphones and GPS tracking devices. The
campaign provided tourists with a good sense of the city and drew them to featured venues, even if they
had watched the videos after its completion and never had the opportunity to give tasks to the remote
tourists (Rafat 2013).
Real-time sharing through smart glasses of first-hand experiences could also be utilised by social influencers
(such as celebrities) to share their travel adventures. Other use cases, such as competitions for fitness
activities or location based gaming, could also influence the “Observability” of wearables. This attribute of
diffusion measures the degree of visibility the outcome of an innovation is to others (Reisinger 2014).
Skift agrees, stating brands are already taking advantage of many tourist’s smartphone capabilities by crowd-
sourcing content from their customers for use in their social media marketing efforts. Thereby allowing
consumers to lead the conversation by using hashtags and geotagging to share their experiences (Rafat
2014). For example, a recent DiscoverLA campaign, aimed to attract tourism by highlighting celebrity and
local experiences around Los Angeles, utilised Instagram influencers instead of traditional media buys. Which
proved that a single post was more valuable than an entire magazine ad, as the Instagram posts doubled the
reach of the campaign, through organic social media impressions (Shankman 2014).
Daugherty, believes consumers are more easily influenced by endorsements, if they’ve had a positive trial
experience (Daugherty 2002). Accordingly, if exposed to positive social influencers then when other barriers
are also overcome, early market conditioning efforts can also help to accelerate the rate of diffusion (Canada
2007). Providing the potential for the early majority, late majority and sometimes even leap froggers to be
persuaded to adopt earlier (Motohashi 2012). Additionally, environmental factors can also be influential, as
a study found that individuals often engage in uncharacteristic behaviours when in group vacation settings.
Thus, demonstrating that while in a holiday mind-set and environment, one maybe more inclined to try new
experiences (Zajonc 1968).
REAL-TIME SOCIAL SHARING
Figure 16 Benefits of smart glasses hands free usage and built in camera to share experiences real-time
RENTED DEVICES REMOVE HIGH COST OF ENTRY BARRIER
The “Trial Ability” attribute of diffusion influences the adoption path, to the degree in which a technology
may be tested or experimented with. As high cost is a current barrier limiting consumer’s amount of trial
ability, the possibility of renting wearables during tourism activities could allow for more experimental time.
Consumers may be less hesitant to try wearables, if given the opportunity to rent them for a nominal fee,
without the fear of damaging their own devices. Renting could allow consumers to try wearables without a
large monetary or evaluation time investment. Thereby, possibly facilitating accelerated movement through
the first four stages of the adoption cycle (Rogers 1976). Simonite argues while renting cannot mitigate
current high cost barriers, it could still premarket condition for when the price point declines, as predicted
(Simonite 2013).
SOCIAL FASHION STIGMAS AND AESTHETIC CONCERNS MITIGATED BY COLLECTIVE GROUP BEHAVIOUR
THEORY
Collective behaviour theory argues that someone who would not normally wear a device, may feel
comfortable doing so, if other tourists in their surroundings were also wearing them. Thereby creating a
collective crowd environment, where it feels more socially acceptable to wear a device than in other
situations. Tourism cannot mitigate aesthetic concerns for everyday purchase, however if used in a
conducive group setting for trial purposes, aesthetics may be temporarily overlooked (Goldstone, Gureckis
2009).
In traditional diffusion theories a primary driver of adoption is gratification motivated directly by perceived
enjoyment, social norms and network externalities. A recent technology adoption study found that the
influence of enjoyment and social norms, were stronger drivers towards adoption than the influence of
usefulness (Dickinger, Arami et al. 2008).
The diffusion attribute of observability may cause a “Fear of Missing Out” (FoMO) occurrence in tourists,
who view others enjoying the visible benefits of wearables. FoMO is a new concept spurred by social media
and is defined “as a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which
one is absent.” It can influence consumer’s behaviour, as they feel uneasy about missing out on something
their peers are doing, that is perceived as more enjoyable than their current state (Przybylski, Murayama et
al. 2013).
CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT TO CREATE POSITIVE FIRST IMPRESSION OF CAPABILITIES
It is critical that wearables can incorporate a great deal of contextual awareness to deliver an acceptable
experience to consumers (Euromonitor International 2013a). In a recent survey, users ranked “Location
Based Services” higher than any other wearable feature they were interested in, even social media (Golovko
2013).
A technological limitation of delivering contextual awareness in an uncontrolled environment, is the lack of
precise geo-targeting capabilities. Given the static nature of many tourist destinations, there is an ability to
place location beacons/sensors to improve geo-location targeting. Furthermore, the ability to perform a
large degree of functionality testing at these predefined locations, can help demonstrate the capabilities of
wearables by delivering a highly contextual experience.
Further integration of wearables with commonplace applications (Facebook, G-mail, Google Maps,
Instagram, Yelp, etc.) to perform common tasks through the new medium, could also affect the diffusion
attribute of “Compatibility”; by being consistent with user’s existing values and experiences while better
achieving their needs. For instance, a user wearing smart glasses could have Google map directions displayed
in their field of view, rather than looking at phone while cycling down a mountain (Kounavis 2012).
Some application features could surpass user’s expectations of functionality, by taking advantage of
predefined environments to test heavily and place sensors/beacons to enhance location based services.
Thereby showcasing wearable’s future potential by maximising their current capabilities, which could prove
more challenging to demonstrate in an uncontrolled environment.
GEO-TARGETED APPLICATIONS (LOCATION BASED SERVICES)
Figure 17 Benefits of hands free usage to navigate with directions overlaid onto field of view verses looking down at a smartphone
BIOMETRIC DATA (FITNESS, HEALTH TRACKING) AND GAMING (TREASURE HUNT, GEOCACHING)
Figure 18 Combined use of Smart Glasses and Smart Band to display biometric data for fitness and compete with friends in a geo-location based game
Figure 19 Suggested uses of augmented reality for tourism with a smart phone, also applicable to wearables (Yovcheva, Buhalis et al. 2012)
Figure 20 Suggested uses and benefits of Augmented Reality applications for tourism for Smartphones, similar potential for wearables
Figure 21 Use of contextual awareness for smartphone travel applications, similar use case can apply to wearables (Yovcheva, Buhalis et al. 2012)
Figure 22 Diffusion Of Innovations Attributes, modified from original source (Daugherty 2002)
KEY THEORETICAL CONCLUSIONS OF LITERATURE REVIEW
The conclusions formulated from the literature review were the basis for the questions asked to interview participants. After reviewing the barriers to adoption of
wearables and considering their mitigation through tourism, a series of hypotheses to further explore were formed.
Figure 23 Hypotheses derived from the literature used to formulate interview questions
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
This report aims to explore perceptions of influencers in the wearable technology sector, about the current
barriers to adoption for wearables. In addition, to comparing opinions on the potential use of tourism trial to
accelerate wearable adoption through pre-market conditioning. Furthermore, other key questions this
dissertation aims to shed fresh light upon are:
a. To what extent could a positive tourism trial experience, impact the consumer's purchasing
behaviour in future, when the current barriers are lowered?
b. To what extent could a negative tourism trial experience, impact consumers to reject the product
before it reached its mature iteration?
RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH
A primary research design consideration is whether to take a deductive approach and develop a hypothesis
first, or an inductive approach that considers observations/findings first and then develops a theory. The
inductive approach is sometimes perceived as producing empirical generalizations, whereas the deductive
approach is primarily subjected to empirical scrutiny, often through quantitative analysis (Bryman, Bell 2011).
Given the emerging nature of this sector’s constantly evolving landscape and the consumer’s lack of
awareness, a purely deductive approach could be more challenging to prove empirically (Creswell 2013).
Given the speculative nature of this study, which examined perspectives based upon potential variables, the
author concluded a grounded theory approach would be best suited. Grounded theory is an iterative
approach that does not follow a linear path between developing theories and conducting research. This
approach is often considered to produce theories that carry a stronger theoretical significance, than a purely
inductive approach (Glaser, Strauss 2009).
The first phase employed a deductive method starting with a broad hypothesis that “Tourism could act as a
gateway for consumer adoption of wearables”. This hypothesis was then carefully refined through an
inductive approach, reviewing the relevant literature to guide the development of a series of more refined
hypotheses. These hypotheses were then used to collect further qualitative data, as the empirical
substantiation to form a more theoretically grounded conclusion (Adams, Schvaneveldt 1991).
Figure 24 Process used in research philosophy and approach modified but based upon chart p 580 (Bryman, Bell 2011)
PREVIOUS RESEARCH’S INFLUENCE UPON RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY
The current research addressing wearable’s low adoption has inconsistent and differing opinions. A number
of survey attempts to understand consumer’s level of interest in purchasing wearables and which features
would be most valuable to them, have been carried out. However, responses were divergent between
studies, possibly due to the variation of each study’s participant adopter groups. However, there was
consensus between studies that consumers have low awareness of the products and their capabilities
(Shannon-Missal 2013, Accenture 2014).
While many articles have been written on the subject of eTourism, which employs use of augmented reality,
location based services and crowdsourcing travel advice, none have specifically explored using tourism to
accelerate the first four steps of the adoption cycle (Kounavis 2012, Lanir 2013, Fino 2013, Emmanouilidis
2013).
Where this research differs from other wearable adoption studies, is in the explicit questions modelled
towards tourism, as an early market conditioning tool. Posed at key industry stakeholders and decision
makers for the wearables industry, to gain the company insider’s perspective. Focusing on innovator or early
adopter categories ensures first-hand experience and knowledge of the device’s capabilities and limitations.
As opposed to the consumer’s perspective who are currently, predominantly unaware of these technologies.
As implied by previous research that found most consumers had never tried the devices and therefore the
opinions given were primarily speculative (Dalton, Costa 2014, Shannon-Missal 2013, Eddy 2013, McKendrick
2013, Eddy 2014). This work aims to provide fresh insights about wearables, through the key differentiating
factors of a focus on tourism as an entryway to adoption and the criteria of industry influencers as the
sample selection.
RESEARCH DESIGN STRATEGY
There are three primary types of research strategies, each has its own merits and disadvantages, and
therefore they are sometimes combined for a mixed method approach. Descriptive is used more for topics
that lend themselves well to describing variables but do not aim to form any causal relationships between
them. Whereas analytical research, can continue on previous descriptive research, to analyse and explain
the underlying causes or relationships between data points, to provide deeper insights. Exploratory research
is often used when topics have not been researched widely, therefore the amount of data is not sufficient to
test or confirm a hypothesis (Bryman, Bell 2011).
Due to the contemporary nature of this emerging technology, currently no long term comprehensive studies
have been conducted on its user adoption. Furthermore, little formal research has been conducted on the
use of tourism to aid in premarket conditioning for wearables. Therefore, this research employs an
exploratory approach by examining insights from the literature and wearable industry experts, to aid in
further development of ideas for future research hypothesis testing (Neville 2007).
RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN OF DATA COLLECTION
There are both benefits and disadvantages to primary methods of research. Qualitative research can be used
systematically, semi-structured or unstructured to collect evidence and its findings often include opinions,
perspectives and social context. Its strength is in capturing information about intangible human factors
towards an issue. Its disadvantage is it can be contradictory and emotionally driven given the contextual
differences between participant’s social backgrounds. The primary techniques for collecting data in
qualitative research consist of in-depth interviews, participant observations, focus groups and diary notes.
Quantitative research is primarily used for highly structured methods, like questionnaires, to gather
numerical data or answers to close ended questions. It’s beneficial when trying to predict causal
relationships, describe characteristics of a population or analyse data built upon statistical methods (Mack,
Woodsong et al. 2005).
The design of this research incorporated a qualitative in-depth investigation of key variables collected from
contemporary relevant literature and foundational consumer behaviour theories. These variables were then
coded into underlying themes and the data was analysed to develop themes into hypotheses. The
hypotheses were utilised as the basis to generate targeted questions for semi-structured interviews, with
influential industry experts. Participants were chosen due to their level of expertise and high level of
engagement within the wearable industry, to insure their opinions were reliable. The selection/sampling of
the respondents will be analysed further below.
The primary qualitative approach was reinforced by use of a quantitative Likert scale, to measure the level of
intensity of responses between participants, for added weight. This method was chosen, as multiple studies
believe that asking only qualitative questions, is not as reliable to draw conclusions from, as they are
subjective and not directly measurable. Whereas, incorporating some aspects of quantitative measurement
of sentiment, can provide a more valid and reliable measurement to make inferences based upon (Kinard,
Capella 2006, Gliem, Gliem 2003). The scale ranged from 1-7 with different variables per question (primarily
1 was not influential and 7 was very influential) in order to measure the intensity of structured questions
with some level of quantification. The results of the intensity of opinions from the Likert scales were
analysed and converted into charts.
Proper research processes were followed by gaining consent of participants for their names and companies
to be mentioned without any anonymity issues. The interview questions were shown on power point slides
that also contained images of the Likert scale, to allow participants the opportunity to re-read and clarify
comprehension. This method ensured validity and reliability of the results, by confirming replication was
accounted for. All interviews were recorded and the transcriptions of the interviews, notes and impressions
recorded by the author were coded with the software Nvivo, to ensure strength of analysis. A mixed method
of inductive and deductive approaches were taken to create grounded hypotheses to be built upon by future
researchers, for further studies to collect additional data in which to develop a formal theory.
INTERVIEW SAMPLE CRITERIA
This research was aimed towards gaining the industry’s perspective, therefore participants were selected
who work at companies with relevance to the wearable sector. Importance was placed on selecting
professionals who have significant responsibilities, access to strategic information and who were key
decision makers influencing the wearables industry. The target group was senior executives who have broad
experience with wearables and are key influencers in the future of this space. Obtaining their significant
points of view was essential towards gaining important and valid findings.
It is important to note, this research did not focus on the consumer’s perspective as a sample because of the
inconsistences of results found in previous consumer survey research. The divergent results insinuate that
many consumers were still too unaware of the technologies to give informed, consistent answers (Rackspace
2013, Shannon-Missal 2013, Eddy 2013, Accenture 2014, Rotman Epps 2013). Therefore, it was important to
select people from the innovator or early adopter categories, who could provide direct and valuable
information about current industry activities, to aid in the validity of the results.
Tables with information about the interview participants and the sample criteria are below. The appendices
C and D contain the full list of questions and transcriptions of answers. Each participant had a different role
in the wearables space, to ensure triangulation from diverse viewpoints.
LIMITATIONS, ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS
The interviews were semi-structured for consistency, however when the primary research conducted is
subject to forms of bias from participants, there can be data quality issues as opinions are not always a
reliable data source. While measures were taken to ensure the validity of information by selecting industry
experts, the nature of qualitative research can pose issues of generalisability. Some unexpected results arose
during the research due to the subjectivity of many of the topics questioned around aesthetics, cost and
social stigmas.
Whilst, there’s a quantitative-like nature to some of the results presented, they should not be perceived as
that of a survey, due to the limitation of only five respondents. Furthermore, all participants were early
adopters, who work within positions of influence in the industry and are well versed on the technology.
Additionally, this research only looked at consumer opinions through secondary research and no primary
research was conducted.
While the targeted sample group interviewed was small, this report aims to provide a unique perspective by
gaining insights from those most knowledgeable about the industry. In contrast to previous research
conducted via large scale surveys of a consumer base less well-informed about wearables and their
capabilities. Moreover, there were additional barriers such as privacy concerns, legislation and social stigmas
which could not be addressed given assignment constraints and the current speculative nature of these
topics.
As wearables are an emerging technology the current research is limited, therefore this exercise cannot
provide any conclusive results with a high certainty, until further analysis can been conducted later in the
product life cycle. This works aims to form a more holistic viewpoint on the potential use of tourism, as an
Figure 26 List of Interview Participants
Figure 25 Sample Criteria for Interview Participants
early market conditioning tool for wearables, rather than predict the size of impact upon future wearable
adoption.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter will include both the results of the findings and the discussion of their implications. Further
detailed results are included in the appendices C, D and F, including full interview transcripts, coding reports
and additional charts.
CONNECTION TO OVERALL RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
This report aimed to explore perceptions of strength for the current barriers to adoption, from influencers
within the wearables industry. As well as, accrue opinions, on the hypotheses that some barriers could be
mitigated through tourism trial, to more rapidly move consumers through the adoption cycle. Thereby
influencing future purchase decisions by early market conditioning.
Data was collected from semi-structured interviews, in which non-open ended questions used a Likert scale
so the intensity of the responses could be reflected in the results. Open ended questions resulted in new
topics and considerations that were not derived from the literature review. Respondents elaborated their
rationale behind each answer, considering the impact and features required to add value for mainstream
adoption.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The majority of participants felt that the barrier of perceived or actual limited functionality, was the highest
current barrier to adoption. Another theme that harmoniously came through, was the lack of useful
applications being an additional limiting factor, besides hardware. The second highest barrier was tied
between both “High Cost” and “Privacy, Social and Legislative Concerns”. Interviewees felt that a positive
tourism trial could certainly impact future purchase decisions (if other barriers were lowered) but their
opinions varied as to its level of influence. However, all agreed that both the price point and functionality,
would still take precedence in buying decisions.
The results of exploring participant’s sentiments of the “willingness to try a device while on holiday” and “the
ability of a controlled environment to deliver the best first impression” were more consistently agreed upon.
Most concurred, was that being in a collective group where everyone was wearing the devices, would increase
consumers’ willingness to try wearables. As they would not feel socially isolated or fear stigmas.
It was also agreed that many would likely try wearables if they could be rented for a small fee, rather than
purchasing them outright for a higher cost. Interviewees felt that being in a holiday mind-set could influence
willingness to try, however not as highly as the power of collective group theory and a low rental fee. Many
believed a controlled environment could deliver a better user experience, however in order to warrant
purchasing, applications would need to also work in uncontrolled environments to perform daily life tasks.
Figure 25 Comparison of strength of current barriers and possible level of influence after a positive tourism trial
Figure 26 Possible level of influence of variables during a tourism trial
Figure 27 Interviewees opinion of level of intensity for current adoption barriers
BARRIER: CONSUMER’S UNAWARENESS OF PRODUCTS AND THEIR VALUE PROPOSITION
STRENGTH OF BARRIER
The interview results of unawareness being a medium barrier, closely related to the literature findings that
30-40% of mainstream consumers are unaware of wearables. Furthermore, more than half of those aware,
still did not recognise the value of their capabilities (Shannon-Missal 2013, Golovko 2013).
Interviewees agreed this barrier’s strength is not as high as others, due to the belief that consumers were
curious about the devices, even if unaware of their capabilities. Correlating to a study citing an increasing
interest in purchasing wearables (50% smart watch / 40% smart glasses). The author suggests considering
that both the survey (35%) and interview participants (100%) are early adopters, there is an increased
likelihood of exposure to other early adopters, which could sway their opinions (Accenture 2014, Veneris
1990).
However, some interviewees considered unawareness as a high barrier, especially due to the lack of
marketing from the industry. Which has caused some consumers, to have the wrong interpretation of
wearables as being an accessory to smartphones (Romeo 2014). Andy Caddy (CIO Virgin Active) reasons
wearables are still not in the mainstream radar stating “This is still quite a niche area and from my
knowledge of what is already a quite savvy audience in Virgin Active, we know it’s only 3-4 % of our
members who currently use apps or wearables”(Caddy 2014). Furthermore, others felt unawareness was not
the primary issue and that until other more significant challenges were solved, increasing awareness alone
could not aid adoption (Skidmore 2014, Romeo 2014).
MITIGATION THROUGH TOURISM PROFESSIONALS ACTING AS CHANGE AGENTS TO EDUCATE AND
EVANGELISE THE TECHNOLOGY
Consensus was established that if wearables were tried during tourism activities, the first step of adoption
(Awareness) would be initiated, as the consumer would be exposed to the technology (Romeo 2014,
Skidmore 2014, Caddy 2014). The majority felt the opportunity to educate consumers on the features and
benefits, could persuade them to move to step two (Interest). Citing relatively firm views that the use of
change agents to educate tourists on how to use the devices, would be a medium or high influence to lower
consumer’s perceptions of the degree of complexity of use, which could aid in progressing to step three
(Evaluation) (Romeo 2014, Skidmore 2014, Caddy 2014).
Those in high favour, felt the role of changes agents to make consumers more comfortable, was critically
important. Especially for the adoption categories less familiar with the technologies. Paul Skidmore
illuminates “…there is a level of suspicion with the technology, that if you haven’t encountered it before,
technology that you actually place on your person, something that changes what I see, can be quite invasive,
or shocking, or surprising” (Skidmore 2014).
Moreover, many felt a positive tourism trial could help fill in current marketing gaps by demonstrating the
unique capabilities of wearables. Thereby potentially influencing future purchase decisions through the
diffusion attribute of “Relative Advantage” to substantiate their value (Harteveldt 2010, Romeo 2014,
Skidmore 2014, Caddy 2014).
Interviewees who questioned the high influence were of the opinion that this exposure and education would
not be enough to overcome the other barriers that would still exist outside of the tourism experience.
However, most agreed that consumers would be interested in future, if these barriers were lowered
(Meixner 2014).
BEING IN A HOLIDAY MIND-SET COULD INFLUENCE A CONSUMER’S WILLINGNESS TO TRY WEARABLES
Many interviewees believed that being in a holiday mind-set, could highly influence a consumer’s willingness
to try wearables, even if they had minimal previous exposure or knowledge of their benefits. Citing that
people would be more liberated and willing to try new things when on holiday. As while on holiday,
consumers have more free time and are looking to be entertained by trying new interesting experiences
(Meixner 2014).
Although one respondent stated that while people are willing to try new things on holiday, the holiday mind-
set is not enough to convince them to try wearables, without the benefits being clearly explained and
operational education provided to them (Skidmore 2014).
Figure 28 Intensity of barrier that consumers are unaware of wearable products or their capabilities
Figure 29 Intensity of influence being in a holiday mind-set would impact a consumer’s willingness to try a wearable device
Figure 30 Intensity of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it
BARRIER: HIGH COST
STRENGTH OF BARRIER
Consensus between the literature and interviewees placed a strong weight on the variable of cost being the
second strongest barrier tied with privacy concerns. Due to consumer’s demanding an advantageous cost-
benefit ratio when purchasing new technologies. Revealing that the current capabilities and useful
applications for fitness bands ($100-120) and smart glasses ($700-$1500) are still considered as not offering
good value for money, even for some early adopters (Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014).
A number of respondents stated this barrier would go down in future, when introductory prices are lowered
and that currently many people are willing to pay for expensive smartphones, which could translate to
wearables in future (Skidmore 2014, Romeo 2014). Furthermore, another issue raised was the current lack
of availability in many markets, making price a moot point (Jenkinson 2014, Solutions 2014, Eddy 2014,
Shannon-Missal 2013, Golovko 2013).
MITIGATION THROUGH RENTAL OF WEARABLES TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRIAL
The vast majority of interviewees were evenly split between believing consumers would be “very” or “highly”
likely to rent a device during tourism. The respondents gave different examples indicating factors behind this
high rating. One interviewee stated that people were already curious about wearables and would be eager
to try them for a low cost. Another cited that after he purchased Google Glass, he had interested people
queuing up just to try them (Jenkinson 2014). Sentiments were also strong, that consumers are more likely
to engage in uncharacteristic behaviours when in a holiday mind-set, thus potentially being more open to
trying wearables (Zajonc 1968, Meixner 2014).
Overall, most believed the concept of renting was viable and that change agents were imperative to support
the diffusion attribute of “Complexity” by lowering the initial learning curve to persuade users that the
devices will be easy to use (Skidmore 2014). Also citing that facilitating this opportunity for a small fee is a
good driver for wearables, as people may be more likely to try them in a tourism environment (Romeo 2014).
Furthermore, low rental fees can facilitate the diffusion attribute of “trial ability”, by allowing tourists to test
and experiment with wearables for a limited time (Daugherty 2002).
Some respondents believe the use of wearables combined with augmented reality, would be the next logical
step from renting audio guides, to create a more fully immersive tourism experience. Stating that people
want to learn about the exhibits and this technology allows them to experience another layer on the world,
which is more visually stimulating (Skidmore 2014).
In contrast, Andy Caddy agreed that the novelty factor of renting could persuade some of the early or late
majority groups to try wearables. However, he was not convinced it could highly impact the later adoption
categories. Stating “I think that people that are technology adverse, would be even more polarized, to be
even more technically adverse for Google Glass because the perception of it is so technical”(Caddy 2014).
INFLUENCE OF COST AFTER A POSITIVE TOURISM TRIAL
From the interviews, it was evident that a range of perspectives existed about the level of influence (medium
or major) that a tourism trial would have upon future purchases, if prices were dropped.
Some questioned the amount of purchase influence that change agents or trial ability could have. Echoing
sentiments that the cost-benefit ratio is quite subjective, especially for different adopter groups (Caddy
2014). While some in the early or late majority adopter groups may perceive a high cost-benefit ratio, other
groups such as laggards, may not consider wearables as valuable at any price (Fino 2013). Additionally some
believed consumers were led by cost first and functionality second (Caddy 2014).
In contrast, many participants believed consumers would pay a premium, if the cost-benefit outcome was
favourable, as currently exhibited today with expensive smartphone sales (Romeo 2014, Skidmore 2014).
Harmony between the literature and participants cited that adding more value through integration with (IoT)
and improved applications, could help positively shift the wearable cost-benefit ratio (Accenture 2014,
Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014, Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014).
Many factors play into the purchase path, and while cost was the second strongest barrier, renting during
tourism cannot have as significant an impact upon adoption, until other dependent variables are also
lowered.
Figure 31 Intensity of barrier that consumers feel wearables are currently cost prohibitive
Figure 32 Intensity of likelihood consumers would try wearables during tourism, if the devices could be rented for a small fee
Figure 33 Intensity of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if the current barrier of being high cost
prohibitive were lowered
BARRIER: PERCEIVED LIMITED FUNCTIONALITY
STRENGTH OF BARRIER
Limited functionality of both software and hardware was rated the highest barrier of all examined, equally
for participants and previous studies. Many contend consumers consider wearables as having no major use
case above smartphones (Shannon-Missal 2013, Guglielmo 3/3/2014). According to one respondent, the
misconception about the capabilities of wearables, is due to poor marketing strategies (Romeo 2014).
Whereas the literature attributed the misconception to the lack of availability of wearables that do not rely
on smartphones to display data (Euromonitor International 2013).
It’s been argued that, in order to adopt a new technology, consumers must perceive a greater value over
that of a familiar technology (Buenaflor, Kim 2013). However, perceived technological limitations are not
only due to poor marketing (although a factor) but in actuality are still a challenge for manufactures and
application developers (Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014, Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014). Vandrico postulates
the highest barriers for wearables are poor battery life and incompatibility between devices and operating
systems (Solutions 2014). For example, one interviewee mentioned the need to make devices more
convenient, by comparing the short three day battery life of an unstylish smart band, to that of a beautiful
watch that only needs a new battery every few years (Caddy 2014).
Beyond hardware limitations, the vast majority of interviewees cited the primary barrier to adoption was the
lack of applications that were useful and added value, commonly referred to as a “killer apps”. Andrew
Jenkinson, an early adopter, states despite purchasing a device like Google Glass and enjoying telling his
friends about the features, there still are not enough “killer apps” to entice mainstream consumers. “…the
one thing I would struggle telling them, because they would always ask me when a new device comes out, is
should they buy it and why? And I could not give them a good reason to buy Glass right now” (Jenkinson
2014).
Markus Meixner agrees that developers need to produce useful applications that support daily life beyond
smartphone capabilities “If I’m repairing my car, I don’t want to do that with my phone, because it’s in my
hands…a glasses application that would give you instructions of how to fill in oil to your car, that would be a
justification or a push for the industry… if the applications got better and devices got better, it’s more likely
that they buy such a device” (Meixner 2014).
The importance of applications using data captured from multiple devices intelligently, to provide useful
multifunctional feedback was particularly apparent in some of the interviews (Romeo 2014, Caddy 2014).
The commonly held view was that the current lack of connectivity and integration between wearables and
IoT is a barrier that will continue to expand, as more disparate objects come online (Reisinger 2014). Andy
emphasizes the importance of integration and interoperability “So every one of these is a point solution, it
does one thing (except maybe Glass) and does one thing well, but isn’t connected or doesn’t talk to other
things. So I think its usefulness is always going to be very narrow” (Caddy 2014).
Similarly, another interviewee explains there will always be a combination of form factors, due to multiple
use cases, however these devices can’t be stand alone. In order to go mainstream, a more open approach is
required to allow devices from multiple manufacturers to amalgamate numerous data sources. In order to
analyse them together to intelligently infer insights about the user’s behaviour and then seamlessly and
transparently offer targeted services and features to them (Skidmore 2014).
Interview suggestions to overcome current limitations included the need to build useful applications, provide
a larger field of view, greater functionally in uncontrolled environments and ensure devices are
interconnected and compatible with the IoT (internet of things) (Romeo 2014, Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014,
Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014).
MAXIMIZING TECHNOLOGY THROUGH USE OF CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS TO DELIVER MORE
CONTEXTUALLY AWARE POSITIVE FIRST EXPERIENCES
Through the interviews, it was established that contextual awareness was an integral component to
mainstream adoption (Jenkinson 2014, Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014, Caddy 2014). The vast majority felt
that using a controlled environment where application developers could place sensors/beacons and perform
rigorous testing, would be a high influence towards creating a positive first user experience. In agreeance
with the literature, they concluded that to deliver an experience that is attractive to users, incorporation of a
great deal of contextual awareness is required, as dealing with an uncontrolled environment is incredibly
difficult (Euromonitor International 2013a, Skidmore 2014).
A respondent cited that creating a high level of contextual awareness was partially dependent upon, having
a finite level of location targeting to draw insights from and cross device connectivity with the IoT to
interface with the environment (Caddy 2014). Additionally, another respondent cited that using testing
within a controlled environment can support the development of more sophisticated applications, which can
better cope with uncontrolled environments (Romeo 2014). Some had strong feelings that wearables would
fail without this integration (Skidmore 2014) while others were more uncertain that the benefits were
mutually exclusive to wearables, considering smartphones can also use sensors/beacons (Meixner 2014) and
not all applications require the user/object’s location, to be valuable (Jenkinson 2014).
INFLUENCE OF A CONTROLLED USER EXPERIENCE UPON FUTURE PURCHASE AFTER POSITIVE TOURISM TRIAL
Opinions were polarised, as to the amount of influence a controlled environment tourism experience would
have upon future adoption. Some felt it could aid in the diffusion attribute of “Compatibility” by allowing
users to experience that wearables are consistent with their existing values and smartphone application
experiences. Through allowing them to perform common tasks, such as using a smartphone restaurant
review application, through a new medium like smart glasses. Those who identified it to be a major/high
influence, positively believed that users would see their value over smartphones, by having a guide to help
them translate, provide recommendations, navigation, etc. without having to stare down at a screen
(Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014).
Furthermore, many felt the use of a controlled environment to help mitigate some of the current
technological obstacles, could create a positive first user experience. This positive experience could aid in the
diffusion attribute of “Relative Advantage” by persuading consumers that wearables offer unique capabilities.
Whereas, their capabilities may not be as strongly demonstrated in an uncontrolled environment, where the
user experience could potentially be negative due to technological challenges (Romeo 2014, Meixner 2014,
Skidmore 2014).
Interviewees who were more doubtful that it would influence adoption, said the value of the device is still
dependent upon on what the applications can deliver in the uncontrolled environment consumers live in
(Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014). Others noted that many applications do not require precision location
targeting and therefore would not be as impacted by the use of a controlled environment (Jenkinson 2014).
However, all parties believed that if key technical issues were solved to provide real value, this factor could
be more influential.
Figure 34 Level of intensity of the barrier that consumers perceive wearables as having limited functionality beyond that of smartphones and still have some technological limitations
Figure 35 Level of intensity of influence the ability to place sensors/beacons and perform extensive testing within a controlled environment would have on the ability of wearable applications, to deliver
a better user experience over that of uncontrolled
Figure 36 Level of intensity a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if the current barrier of the perceived limited
functionality & technological limitations were lowered
BARRIER: AESTHETIC AND SOCIAL FASHION STIGMAS
STRENGTH OF BARRIER
There was a range of perspectives on the strength of the barrier concerning aesthetic and social acceptance
but overall interviewees and the literature agreed, they have a high influence upon mainstream adoption
(Guglielmo 3/3/2014, Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014, Skidmore 2014). The respondents indicating a major
barrier, felt current devices had a science fiction aesthetic, (Jenkinson 2014) and were too geeky to be a
mainstream product (Caddy 2014). Both the literature and respondents cited that these form factors could
be largely attributed to the design being informed by the technology limitations around battery life,
compartmentalisation, lower power chip sets and specific operating system optimisations that restrict
design freedom (Skidmore 2014, Solutions 201).
In discussing the impact of designer versions of wearables, many felt that improved styling could increase
adoption, if created by a multifunctional collaborative team. Some believed development teams should be
formed from diverse skillsets, to incorporate different viewpoints of technology, aesthetics, marketing and
retailing, in order to create a more holistic product (Romeo 2014, Caddy 2014). Unlike the current iteration
of devices, designed by engineers and then later reworked by designers (Pallister 2014, Romeo 2014, Caddy
2014).
Views were fragmented both from interviewees and the literature, on whether current wearables are stylish
(Eddy 2013). A few interviewees stated they felt Google Glass and many smart watches were quite stylish
and in some cases, they felt manufactures put more importance on the form, than the function (Meixner
2014). Others thought that if smart glasses were styled more like normal eyewear, the social acceptance
would be higher (Caddy 2014). This divergence of opinions, is not unexpected considering the subjectivity of
personal preferences. Another theme highlighted throughout the interviews, was that fashion represents
the message one wants to convey about their statement of individuality (Romeo 2014).
Similarly, another interviewee acknowledged that there’s no one size fits all approach. Thereby, creating a
manufacturing challenge to produce a range of devices that identify with multiple target markets strongly
enough for mass consumer adoption. While still managing supply and demand to maintain healthy margins
and keep overstock down (Skidmore 2014).
MITIGATION THROUGH COLLECTIVE GROUP BEHAVIOUR THEORY
The majority of participants were in agreement with the literature, that collective behaviour theory could be
a major influence upon making a consumer comfortable to wear the devices, if other tourists were also
wearing them. One interviewee stated that people do not want to stand out of the crowd. Therefore, if
everyone else was wearing devices, it would be similar to a fancy dress party where inhibitions are lowered
as everyone is dressed up (Jenkinson 2014). Other respondents gave examples of wearing outfits in specific
group contexts, that they would normally never wear but as everyone one else was also wearing them, it
wasn’t a big issue (Caddy 2014, Meixner 2014).
Furthermore, many also felt if tourists could observe others having a positive experience with wearables,
they could be influenced by a “Fear of Missing Out” (FoMO) occurrence (Przybylski, Murayama et al. 2013,
Dickinger, Arami et al. 2008, Skidmore 2014). One interviewee cited that it’s a human condition that we
don’t want to feel we are not part of the group, so in a group environment, if the majority is wearing the
devices, it’s a major influence (Skidmore 2014). Therefore, if everyone else is experiencing wearables and
you’re not, you may have a fear of missing out, because you see other people having reactions to an
experience that you’re not able to enjoy.
Additionally, the experience could facilitate the diffusion attribute of “Observability” by allowing consumers
to view others having a positive experience, both first-hand during tourism and from social media influences
of other’s sharing their wearable experiences.
INFLUENCE AFTER POSITIVE TOURISM TRIAL ON AESTHETIC AND SOCIAL STIGMA CONCERNS
In describing the influence of aesthetic and social concerns after a positive experience, several interviewees
spoke of how they felt designer brands could be a major influence. It was argued that most people already
wear a watch, therefore migrating to a smart watch might be easier than smart glasses, as not all people
wear glasses. In fact, Lasik surgery and contacts were invented so people who needed to wear glasses, would
not have to. Therefore, beyond aesthetics, adding an additional accessory that one might not normally wear
is an additional challenge, as Andrews explains “…it’s kind of like deciding that you’re going to start wearing
hats from now on, when I never wore hats before. So there still is that barrier, do I even want to wear
anything on my face at all?” (Jenkinson 2014).
Consensus concluded that tourism trial cannot mitigate current aesthetic concerns for everyday purchase
(Goldstone, Gureckis 2009). As fashion is subjective and a variety of form factors and styles would be
required, to align with divergent target group’s needs (Eddy 2014, Jenkinson 2014). Especially for wearables
which may be a new accessory that a consumer wouldn’t normally wear, given the strong influence of social
acceptance on one’s self-image. Therefore, this barrier can be more challenging, both in terms of supply
chain issues and the volatility of socially impactful fashion trends (Reisinger 2014, Buenaflor, Kim 2013,
Jenkinson 2014). However, overcoming aesthetic concerns while in the tourism context can influence
consumers through the diffusion attributes of “Observability” and “Trail Ability”. Thereby accelerating the
adoption cycle to prime consumers for future purchase, when more stylish devices are available.
Figure 37 The level of intensity of barrier that consumers believe the current wearable products are unfashionable or unstylish
Figure 38 The level of influence being in a collective group where the majority were also wearing the devices would mitigate social or aesthetic stigmas of wearables whilst in this context
Figure 39 The level of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if in future the styling became more
fashionable
THE DANGER OF FAILED DIFFUSION
Interviewees had mixed views on the danger of failed diffusion, if consumer’s had a negative tourism trial
experience. Those advocating a negative impact upon future purchase decisions thought first impressions
are lasting and if expectations of functionality are not met consumer’s will reject the product before it’s
reached its mature iteration (Meixner 2014, Caddy 2014). Citing an example of failed diffusion where some
consumers felt sick or got a headache while watching stereoscopic 3-D films will now only watch 2-D films,
due to this initial bad experience, even though the technology has advanced (Jenkinson 2014).
Conversely, some believed that a negative experience is subjective to the user’s level of comfort and
forgiveness of new technology teething problems. Citing that consumer’s understand that technology
evolves (like smartphones) and that incremental innovation will improve the performance of these devices.
Therefore, a negative experience would not be a major barrier but just an experience that didn’t go well, as
many of us have experienced in our lives but have still tried again (Romeo 2014, Jenkinson 2014).
Additionally, another interviewee Paul Skidmore cites how strong social influences can be, “What’s more
likely to drive my decision to take this, is if my social environment and my social connections start to use it.
You can be swayed quite easily if everyone else is doing it, and in that case, that first negative impression can
be unwound, if you like, social influencers are more important than this one time negative experience, now
that these problems have been solved” (Skidmore 2014).
NEW FINDINGS
The author of this project found that the technical limitations barrier resulted in being rated higher, than
others like privacy and social stigmas. Thereby insinuating that the influence of a positive trial experience
during tourism, might not be as impactful in early market conditioning, until these challenges are mitigated.
Seemingly, in order to accelerate adoption, one barrier cannot be perceived as mutually exclusive of others.
However, as technology and society norms continue to rapidly evolve, other barriers may not be as impactful
in future, as found during the time of this research.
FUTURE APPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
As a new area to be explored, these findings could have potential application for future further research and
practical application for:
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
Figure 40 Chart of future applications of the findings for future research and industry development
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSION OF FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE KEY AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The conclusions below are presented according to the key aims and objectives and were formulated from
the literature review and interviews of wearable industry experts, to gain their perspectives on the current
barriers to adoption. As well as, their sentiments on a series of hypotheses formulated to explore if current
barriers where lowered, to what extent could a positive tourism trial impact consumer's purchasing
behaviour. Furthermore, perspectives were also analysed, as to what extent a negative tourism trial, could
impact consumers to reject the product before it reached its mature iteration.
CONCLUSION SUMMARY
Wearable technologies offer a new disruptive marketing channel, which could have significant implications
for advertising. However, the technology is still in its infancy and has multiple barriers to overcome to gain
mainstream adoption. Currently, primarily only innovators or early adopters are using the devices and most
other adoption categories are unaware of the technologies.
While, the purpose of this research aimed to consider the possibility of tourism trial to mitigate some of the
current adoption barriers, the author argues these barriers are interdependent. Therefore mitigation of one,
will not necessarily equate to increased adoption, until others are also lowered. However, if current barriers
were lowered in future, the experience (if positive) could premarket condition by having consumers evaluate
their purchase decision from step four within the adoption cycle.
Figure 41 Five stages of the adoption process with possible influence of tourism trial (Rogers 1976)
Reasoning that consumers who tried wearables during tourism, would move more rapidly through the
adoption cycle steps of one to four. As change agents can educate on features/benefits and ease
apprehensions over the degree of difficulty by providing user’s training. High entry cost could be mitigated
by a small rental fee, although it cannot overcome the current high price point. However, consumers have
shown historically though high sales of expensive smartphones that they will pay a premium if the cost-
benefit outcome is favourable. Therefore, allowing easier access to the diffusion attribute of “Trail Ability”
through the low rental fee can help to prime the market, as current technology improves its value add
through integration with (IoT), improved applications and enhanced styling.
It was concluded that some consumers are more likely to try new experiences while in a holiday mind-set.
Similarly, they might feel more comfortable wearing an unfashionable device while in a collective group of
others wearing them. Furthermore, social influencers can ignite a fear of missing out, which could be
propagated through social media, as they share their experiences. Thereby, also moving their social network
to step two (Interest) through increasing awareness of the products. However outside of tourism, aesthetics
and social acceptance may still take precedence, especially for an accessory that a consumer may not
normally wear (Zajonc 1968). The subjectivity of fashion poses a large challenge for manufactures to create a
variety of form factors and styles to meet divergent consumer needs. Until this barrier is lowered,
consumers would not likely wear unstylish devices outside of the tourism context (Eddy 2014).
The controlled setting of tourism activities can allow developers to maximize the current technological
potential, by developing contextually aware positive user experiences. However, adoption for everyday use
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY

Contenu connexe

Similaire à IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY

Masters Dissertation by Viviane Campbell
Masters Dissertation by Viviane CampbellMasters Dissertation by Viviane Campbell
Masters Dissertation by Viviane CampbellVivianeCampbell
 
publised book cover
publised book coverpublised book cover
publised book coverike Tandoh
 
Factors influences consumer behavior towards multi brand outlets
Factors influences consumer behavior towards multi brand outletsFactors influences consumer behavior towards multi brand outlets
Factors influences consumer behavior towards multi brand outletsBiradar Shivshankar
 
9607 guideto supplierdevelopment
9607 guideto supplierdevelopment9607 guideto supplierdevelopment
9607 guideto supplierdevelopmentSherri Dobroskay
 
Business model multichanel
Business model multichanelBusiness model multichanel
Business model multichanelhockhon
 
Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: can online brands be extended to off...
Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: can online brands be extended to off...Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: can online brands be extended to off...
Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: can online brands be extended to off...Antonio_mar_alb
 
Privacy and Tracking in a Post-Cookie World
Privacy and Tracking in a Post-Cookie WorldPrivacy and Tracking in a Post-Cookie World
Privacy and Tracking in a Post-Cookie WorldAli Babaoglan Blog
 
Unido guide to suppler development
Unido guide to suppler developmentUnido guide to suppler development
Unido guide to suppler developmentDr Lendy Spires
 
Ifc good practicehandbook_cumulativeimpactassessment(1)
Ifc good practicehandbook_cumulativeimpactassessment(1)Ifc good practicehandbook_cumulativeimpactassessment(1)
Ifc good practicehandbook_cumulativeimpactassessment(1)Dr Lendy Spires
 
Research_Report_Hudson_Real Options_final
Research_Report_Hudson_Real Options_finalResearch_Report_Hudson_Real Options_final
Research_Report_Hudson_Real Options_finalJonathan Hudson
 
THE DIGITAL TURN Pathways for higher education in the digital age
THE DIGITAL TURN Pathways for higher education in the digital ageTHE DIGITAL TURN Pathways for higher education in the digital age
THE DIGITAL TURN Pathways for higher education in the digital ageeraser Juan José Calderón
 
Re-Imagining Customer Service in Government
Re-Imagining Customer Service in GovernmentRe-Imagining Customer Service in Government
Re-Imagining Customer Service in GovernmentGovLoop
 
Undergraduate Dissertation
Undergraduate DissertationUndergraduate Dissertation
Undergraduate DissertationPatrick Cole
 

Similaire à IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY (20)

yuveaj_final[1].docx
yuveaj_final[1].docxyuveaj_final[1].docx
yuveaj_final[1].docx
 
Masters Dissertation by Viviane Campbell
Masters Dissertation by Viviane CampbellMasters Dissertation by Viviane Campbell
Masters Dissertation by Viviane Campbell
 
publised book cover
publised book coverpublised book cover
publised book cover
 
Factors influences consumer behavior towards multi brand outlets
Factors influences consumer behavior towards multi brand outletsFactors influences consumer behavior towards multi brand outlets
Factors influences consumer behavior towards multi brand outlets
 
9607 guideto supplierdevelopment
9607 guideto supplierdevelopment9607 guideto supplierdevelopment
9607 guideto supplierdevelopment
 
Star cement [www.writekraft.com]
Star cement [www.writekraft.com]Star cement [www.writekraft.com]
Star cement [www.writekraft.com]
 
Star cement [www.writekraft.com]
Star cement [www.writekraft.com]Star cement [www.writekraft.com]
Star cement [www.writekraft.com]
 
Business model multichanel
Business model multichanelBusiness model multichanel
Business model multichanel
 
Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: can online brands be extended to off...
Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: can online brands be extended to off...Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: can online brands be extended to off...
Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: can online brands be extended to off...
 
Privacy and Tracking in a Post-Cookie World
Privacy and Tracking in a Post-Cookie WorldPrivacy and Tracking in a Post-Cookie World
Privacy and Tracking in a Post-Cookie World
 
Unido guide to suppler development
Unido guide to suppler developmentUnido guide to suppler development
Unido guide to suppler development
 
Impressions study-2013
Impressions study-2013Impressions study-2013
Impressions study-2013
 
MBA-7099-UWIC-MBA-MT-19-35
MBA-7099-UWIC-MBA-MT-19-35MBA-7099-UWIC-MBA-MT-19-35
MBA-7099-UWIC-MBA-MT-19-35
 
Ifc good practicehandbook_cumulativeimpactassessment(1)
Ifc good practicehandbook_cumulativeimpactassessment(1)Ifc good practicehandbook_cumulativeimpactassessment(1)
Ifc good practicehandbook_cumulativeimpactassessment(1)
 
Research_Report_Hudson_Real Options_final
Research_Report_Hudson_Real Options_finalResearch_Report_Hudson_Real Options_final
Research_Report_Hudson_Real Options_final
 
0809 garciac
0809 garciac0809 garciac
0809 garciac
 
SCM - Managing risk and disruptions
SCM - Managing risk and disruptionsSCM - Managing risk and disruptions
SCM - Managing risk and disruptions
 
THE DIGITAL TURN Pathways for higher education in the digital age
THE DIGITAL TURN Pathways for higher education in the digital ageTHE DIGITAL TURN Pathways for higher education in the digital age
THE DIGITAL TURN Pathways for higher education in the digital age
 
Re-Imagining Customer Service in Government
Re-Imagining Customer Service in GovernmentRe-Imagining Customer Service in Government
Re-Imagining Customer Service in Government
 
Undergraduate Dissertation
Undergraduate DissertationUndergraduate Dissertation
Undergraduate Dissertation
 

Dernier

UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UbiTrack UK
 
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024D Cloud Solutions
 
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership BlueprintEmpowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership BlueprintMahmoud Rabie
 
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptxBuilding AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptxUdaiappa Ramachandran
 
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdfMachine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdfAijun Zhang
 
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxCybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxGDSC PJATK
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding TeamAdam Moalla
 
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLDesigning A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLRuncy Oommen
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopBachir Benyammi
 
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostKubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostMatt Ray
 
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfIaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfDaniel Santiago Silva Capera
 
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxIntroduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxMatsuo Lab
 
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAAnypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAshyamraj55
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Adtran
 
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsComputer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsSeth Reyes
 
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarAI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarPrecisely
 
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-pyJamie (Taka) Wang
 
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019IES VE
 

Dernier (20)

UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
 
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
 
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership BlueprintEmpowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
 
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptxBuilding AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
 
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdfMachine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
 
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxCybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
 
20150722 - AGV
20150722 - AGV20150722 - AGV
20150722 - AGV
 
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLDesigning A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
 
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostKubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
 
20230104 - machine vision
20230104 - machine vision20230104 - machine vision
20230104 - machine vision
 
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfIaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
 
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxIntroduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
 
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAAnypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
 
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsComputer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
 
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarAI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
 
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
 
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
 

IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY

  • 1. IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE ENTRYWAY FOR WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION THE CASE OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY Chimeren Peerbhai Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration at the University of Westminster MBA 2014
  • 2. DECLARATION I declare that no portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. Further, all the work in this dissertation is entirely my own, unless referenced in the text as a specific source and included in the bibliography. Word count = 10,460 Not inclusive of cover page, table of contents, table of figures, abstract, declaration, charts, captions, headings/subheadings, inline references, bibliography list of references or appendices. ABSTRACT Wearables offer significant implications as a new marketing channel, however the technology has to overcome multiple barriers to gain mainstream adoption. This research explored perceptions of strength for these barriers and the possibility that early market conditioning during tourism, could accelerate the adoption cycle. It employed an exploratory, qualitative, grounded theory approach comprised of an in-depth investigation of relevant literature to develop key variables into hypotheses. Hypotheses were utilised as the basis to generate targeted questions for semi-structured interviews, with influential industry experts. Findings concluded that the trial of wearables during tourism can effect purchase decisions, either positively or negatively, by accelerating consumers through the adoption cycle. However it has greater potential to be influential in future, after current barriers are lowered. Factors found to have the most potential to influence consumer adoption through tourism for future research are:  Power of social influencers and “Collective Group Theory”  Ability to try products for a low cost  Use of change agents to educate consumers of value and reduce perceived complexity of use Further implications this research found that practitioners and manufacturers can also leverage are:  Development of applications to showcase relative advantage  Creation of venues or attractions where consumers can try products before purchasing  Marketing strategies to ignite a “Fear of Missing Out” as consumers observe others enjoyment The combination of these diffusion factors in parallel with efforts to lower current barriers, may accelerate mainstream adoption, thus ensuring wearable’s future success as a viable marketing channel.
  • 3. CONTENTS Declaration ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................1 Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction and importance of wearables as a new advertising channel..........................................................6 Key business issue.............................................................................................................................................6 Key aims and objectives....................................................................................................................................6 Background and context.......................................................................................................................................7 What are wearable technologies?....................................................................................................................7 Predicted growth of the wearables sector .......................................................................................................9 Literature review............................................................................................................................................... 12 Current barriers to mainstream consumer adoption of wearables .............................................................. 12 Consumers are unaware of product or capabilities................................................................................... 12 High cost prohibitive .................................................................................................................................. 12 Aesthetic and social concerns.................................................................................................................... 13 Perceived limited functionality & technological limitations...................................................................... 16 Other barriers not in scope for this research............................................................................................. 18 Considerations of tourism as an early market conditioning platform........................................................... 18 Acceleration through adoption process..................................................................................................... 18 Trial through tourism ................................................................................................................................. 20 Change agents to educate consumers of product and benefits................................................................ 20 Augmented reality to overlay contextual information .............................................................................. 21 Hands free usage........................................................................................................................................ 22 Translation of signs & voice ....................................................................................................................... 23 Social and environmental influencers “holiday mind-set” ........................................................................ 24 Real-time social sharing ............................................................................................................................. 25 Rented devices remove high cost of entry barrier..................................................................................... 26 Social fashion stigmas and aesthetic concerns mitigated by collective group behaviour theory ............. 26 Controlled environment to create positive first impression of capabilities .............................................. 26 Geo-targeted applications (location based services)................................................................................. 28 Biometric data (fitness, health tracking) and gaming (treasure hunt, geocaching) .................................. 29 Key theoretical conclusions of literature review........................................................................................... 34 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 Research objective......................................................................................................................................... 35 Research philosophy and approach............................................................................................................... 35 Previous research’s influence upon research strategy and methodology .................................................... 37
  • 4. Research design strategy............................................................................................................................... 37 Research methods and design of data collection.......................................................................................... 37 Interview sample criteria............................................................................................................................... 38 Limitations, ethical considerations and miscellaneous ................................................................................. 39 Results And Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 40 Connection to overall research aims and objectives..................................................................................... 40 Summary of findings...................................................................................................................................... 40 Barrier: consumer’s unawareness of products and their value proposition................................................. 44 Strength of barrier...................................................................................................................................... 44 Mitigation through tourism professionals acting as change agents to educate and evangelise the technology.................................................................................................................................................. 44 Being in a holiday mind-set could influence a consumer’s willingness to try wearables.......................... 45 Barrier: High Cost........................................................................................................................................... 49 Strength of barrier...................................................................................................................................... 49 Mitigation through rental of wearables to increase opportunities for trial .............................................. 49 Influence of cost after a positive tourism trial........................................................................................... 49 Barrier: Perceived limited functionality......................................................................................................... 54 Strength of barrier...................................................................................................................................... 54 Maximizing technology through use of controlled environments to deliver more contextually aware positive first experiences ........................................................................................................................... 55 Influence of a controlled user experience upon future purchase after positive tourism trial .................. 55 Barrier: Aesthetic and social fashion stigmas................................................................................................ 59 Strength of barrier...................................................................................................................................... 59 Mitigation through collective group behaviour theory ............................................................................. 59 Influence after positive tourism trial on aesthetic and social stigma concerns......................................... 60 The danger of failed diffusion........................................................................................................................ 64 New findings .................................................................................................................................................. 64 Future applications of the findings................................................................................................................ 64 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................ 72 Conclusion of findings in relation to the key aims and objectives ................................................................ 72 Conclusion summary...................................................................................................................................... 72 Contribution to future research................................................................................................................. 73 Contribution for theorists .......................................................................................................................... 73 Contribution to practitioners ..................................................................................................................... 73 References......................................................................................................................................................... 75
  • 5. TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 Examples of Current Wearable Technologies Chart; adapted from original sources (Euromonitor International 2013, McKendrick 2013).................................................................................................................8 Figure 2 Examples of Wearables Source: (Euromonitor International 2013) ......................................................9 Figure 3 Global Volume Sales of Wearable Electronics by Type Source: (Golovko 2014) & Wearable Growth Forecasts Source: (Euromonitor International 2014)........................................................................................ 10 Figure 4 Rapid increase in global interest in wearables from 2011-2014 (Solutions 2014).............................. 11 Figure 5 Average price by market in 2014 for wearables (Solutions 2014) ...................................................... 12 Figure 6 Respondents were mainly neutral in opinions of wearables & majority would prefer a wearable clipped onto clothing or wrist (Solutions 2014, Rotman Epps 2013)................................................................ 13 Figure 7 Comparison of form vs function in some current wearables.............................................................. 15 Figure 8 Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate user acceptance of wearables (Davis 1989) .................. 16 Figure 9 Relative Device Score to Compare Wearable Products & Predicted Battery Life Curve of Wearable Devices (Solutions 2014..................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 10 Adoption Categories, Adapted from New Product Adoption and Diffusion (Rogers 1976).............. 18 Figure 11 Five stages of the adoption process (original/later modified by Rogers)(Rogers 1976)................... 19 Figure 12 Five stages of the adoption process with possible influence of tourism trial (Rogers 1976............. 19 Figure 13 Smart Glasses can be used to overlay tourism information onto the user’s field of view and answer questions about objects in view........................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 14 Benefits of hands free usage of wearables verses tablets to view augmented reality in a museum22 Figure 15 Use of Smart Glasses to translate both audio and text..................................................................... 23 Figure 16 Benefits of smart glasses hands free usage and built in camera to share experiences real-time .... 25 Figure 17 Benefits of hands free usage to navigate with directions overlaid onto field of view verses looking down at a smartphone ...................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 18 Combined use of Smart Glasses and Smart Band to display biometric data for fitness and compete with friends in a geo-location based game ....................................................................................................... 29 Figure 19 Suggested uses of augmented reality for tourism with a smart phone, also applicable to wearables (Yovcheva, Buhalis et al. 2012).......................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 20 Suggested uses and benefits of Augmented Reality applications for tourism for Smartphones, similar potential for wearables ......................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 21 Use of contextual awareness for smartphone travel applications, similar use case can apply to wearables (Yovcheva, Buhalis et al. 2012) ........................................................................................................ 32 Figure 22 Diffusion Of Innovations Attributes, modified from original source (Daugherty 2002) ................... 33 Figure 23 Hypotheses derived from the literature used to formulate interview questions............................. 34 Figure 24 Process used in research philosophy and approach modified but based upon chart p 580 (Bryman, Bell 2011)........................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 26 Industry Expert Sample Criteria......................................................................................................... 39 Figure 25 List of Interview Participants............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 27 Comparison of strength of current barriers and possible level of influence after a positive tourism trial .................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 28 Possible level of influence of variables during a tourism trial........................................................... 42 Figure 29 Interviewees opinion of level of intensity for current adoption barriers ......................................... 43 Figure 30 Intensity of barrier that consumers are unaware of wearable products or their capabilities.......... 46 Figure 31 Intensity of influence being in a holiday mind-set would impact a consumer’s willingness to try a wearable device................................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 32 Intensity of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it.................................................................................................. 48 Figure 33 Intensity of barrier that consumers feel wearables are currently cost prohibitive ......................... 51
  • 6. Figure 34 Intensity of likelihood consumers would try wearables during tourism, if the devices could be rented for a small fee ........................................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 35 Intensity of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if the current barrier of being high cost prohibitive were lowered.............................................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 36 Level of intensity of the barrier that consumers perceive wearables as having limited functionality beyond that of smartphones and still have some technological limitations .................................................... 56 Figure 37 Level of intensity of influence the ability to place sensors/beacons and perform extensive testing within a controlled environment would have on the ability of wearable applications, to deliver a better user experience over that of uncontrolled ............................................................................................................... 57 Figure 38 Level of intensity a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if the current barrier of the perceived limited functionality & technological limitations were lowered............................................................................................................ 58 Figure 39 The level of intensity of barrier that consumers believe the current wearable products are unfashionable or unstylish ................................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 40 The level of influence being in a collective group where the majority were also wearing the devices would mitigate social or aesthetic stigmas of wearables whilst in this context............................................... 62 Figure 41 The level of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if in future the styling became more fashionable .................. 63 Figure 42 Chart of future applications of the findings for future research and industry development ........... 71 Figure 43 Five stages of the adoption process with possible influence of tourism trial (Rogers 1976) ........... 72
  • 7. INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE OF WEARABLES AS A NEW ADVERTISING CHANNEL “Physical-digital convergence and location technologies are powerful forces reshaping customer experiences…” (Dalton, Costa 2014) As technology evolves, advancements will continue to invoke disruptive changes in our lives. Thus opening up new business models for customer centric marketing opportunities, to ensure efficacy of advertising investments. Wearable technologies have strong potential, if widely adopted, to create a disruptive change in the way many organizations advertise (Manyika 2013). The next evolution in digital marketing thrives on expanding capabilities to acquire more consumer data. Wearables such as Wristbands and Smart Watches/Glasses have unique capabilities to share and track information about a consumer’s physical activity, health metrics, emotions, location and more (McDermott 2013). Brands can use this data to deliver more immersive advertising experiences, if consumers embrace co-creating personalised relationships with them by sharing data from multiple facets of their lives via wearables (Sloane 2014). The proliferation of wearables has the capacity to enable brands to connect with consumers more deeply, than ever before (Euromonitor International 2013). This new wearable prosumer channel will provide a persistent data gateway to consumer’s physical and digital lives. Thereby providing a unique platform to gain insights to create more accurately targeted and contextually relevant marketing messages. This transformative new channel could allow brands to build more intimate customer relationships and develop stronger brand loyalty (Manyika, Chui 2013). Firms that are able to capitalise on this emerging technology to deliver value to customers, may create a competitive advantage. Gartner predicts that mobile advertisement expenditure will collectively grow by US $13.2 billion from 2013 to 2016 (Euromonitor International 2013). Furthermore, personalised advertising expenditure through location enabled ads, is also expected to increase by 25% from 2012-2017 (Euromonitor International 2013). However, diffusion of the technologies needs to reach the tipping point of mass consumer adoption, before wearables can become a viable marketing channel. KEY BUSINESS ISSUE The key business issue is, while the benefits of this new marketing channel are immense, the current user adoption rate is quite low. It can be argued, that these devices are a manufacturer-driven initiative (Euromonitor International 2013). Survey data is conflicted, as to whether or not consumers are educated about the capabilities and benefits of wearable technologies. Therefore, presently many consumers are unaware of the technologies or cannot identify any major use cases which would be enhanced beyond current smartphone capabilities (Shannon-Missal 2013, Eddy 2014). Guglielmo elaborates on additional adoption barriers “The problem is the hype is years ahead of the market. Big and unresolved questions remain about pricing (too high), battery life (too short), utility (too limited), looks (too ugly) and privacy (too scary).”(Guglielmo 3/3/2014). In order to become a viable marketing channel, these technologies must provide enough value to overcome these barriers and gain mainstream adoption. KEY AIMS AND OBJECTIVES While wearables display promise of becoming a new disruptive marketing platform, the technology is still in its infancy. Consequently, it still has multiple barriers to overcome from: high cost, technological limitations,
  • 8. social stigmas, regulatory policies, privacy concerns and aesthetic challenges. The majority of adoption categories are unaware of, or lack a strong interest in the technologies, as currently the primary users are from either the “innovator” or “early adopter” groups. The primary objective of this research, is to explore perceptions on the use of tourism to move mainstream consumers through the wearable technology adoption cycle more rapidly. The exploratory study that follows, aims to examine how industry experts perceive the current barriers to adoption of wearable technologies. As well as, explore to what degree they believe consumers could be influenced to hasten their adoption of the technology, through trial during tourism. By examining the possibility that some of the current barriers could be mitigated through tourism activities, thereby accelerating the cycle from the “unaware phase” directly to the “trial phase” of user adoption. Additionally, it explores perceptions as to what extent a negative tourism trial experience, could impact consumers to reject devices before reaching their mature iteration. Based on the results, which have been compared and contrasted with the literature review, it will make suggestions, as to which factors could most influence consumer adoption for future research investigation. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT WHAT ARE WEARABLE TECHNOLOGIES? Wearable technologies, also called wearables, wearable devices or wearable computers are comprised of any computing device that is worn on the user’s body and in most cases has internet connectivity. Many of these devices also include cameras, GPS location sensors, biometric sensors, health/fitness monitors and some have augmented reality capabilities (McKendrick 2013). For the purposes of this report, the term “Wearables” will be used to describe the devices. Furthermore, the wearables of primary focus will be smart glasses, smart watches and activity trackers given they currently have the most applicable use during travel.
  • 9. Figure 1 Examples of Current Wearable Technologies Chart; adapted from original sources (Euromonitor International 2013, McKendrick 2013)
  • 10. Figure 2 Examples of Wearables Source: (Euromonitor International 2013) PREDICTED GROWTH OF THE WEARABLES SECTOR Currently, adoption of wearables is low and most available devices are passive. Meaning they can gather data but users cannot interact directly with them without another device; such as a smartphone. Whereas, autonomous wearables allow users to interact with the device directly and have more engaging experience capabilities. However these devices have only recently become available to the mainstream public in some geographies (Golovko 2013). According to Euromoniter, the increased availability of autonomous wearables is predicted to increase global sales up to almost 250 million units by 2018 (Euromonitor International 2013). Juniper Research forecasts the wearable market is expected to grow from $1.4 billion in 2014 to $19 billion by 2018 (McCafferty 2014). Although their adoption pattern is expected to closely follow that of tablets, their predicted growth is expected to be slower and gain less market share, as they are considered a secondary device to smartphones (Euromonitor International 2013).
  • 11. Figure 3 Global Volume Sales of Wearable Electronics by Type Source: (Golovko 2014) & Wearable Growth Forecasts Source: (Euromonitor International 2014)
  • 12. Figure 4 Rapid increase in global interest in wearables from 2011-2014 (Solutions 2014)
  • 13. LITERATURE REVIEW CURRENT BARRIERS TO MAINSTREAM CONSUMER ADOPTION OF WEARABLES CONSUMERS ARE UNAWARE OF PRODUCT OR CAPABILITIES Many studies agree mainstream consumers are currently unaware of wearables or their capabilities. A recent poll reported 37% of respondents said they're "not at all familiar" with wearables, 33% said they've heard of the term but didn’t know anything about them, while 59% didn’t understand the need for them (Shannon-Missal 2013). Furthermore, another survey said 40% of respondents did not know enough about Google Glass to consider purchasing it (Golovko 2013). Many wearables, such as Google Glass, are not currently commercially available in all geographies. However, even when available, many consumers are still uninformed of their benefits, "Americans aren't yet displaying truly decisive opinions either for or against wearables, which may reflect a simple lack of clear understanding of the category as a whole" (Eddy 2013). Another study suggests the disinterest is due to a lack of a concerted effort from wearable manufactures to educate consumers of their value proposition (McCafferty 2014). Conversely, an Accenture 2014 survey (polling 6000 consumers in 6 countries) found respondents were enthusiastic about the new functionality of wearables. Almost 50% expressed interest in buying a smart watch and over 40% were interested in smart glasses. However of the sample surveyed, 35% indicated they were from either the early majority or early adopters categories (Accenture 2014), therefore these groups may take a more active role in pursuing wearables without any outside motivation or influence (Veneris 1990). HIGH COST PROHIBITIVE “Consumers are interested in maximizing the ratio of a product’s perceived value relative to its price. For two products of similar function and perceived value, the price may be the determining factor in a consumer’s purchasing decision.” (Solutions 2014) High price points of wearables appear to be a consistent concern amongst many consumer surveys. In one survey 72% of all respondents said they wished wearables were less expensive and those interested in purchasing in the near future said that cost will likely be a limiting factor (Eddy 2013). In a similar 2013 American poll, 41% of respondents said wearables would be too expensive to own (Shannon-Missal 2013). It’s been questioned if wearables were more affordable, would they become successful? In a different 2013 survey, only 14% of respondents said they would consider purchasing Google Glass, depending upon price (Golovko 2013). Whereas, when Google Glass was released to the general USA public, it sold out in a single Figure 5 Average price by market in 2014 for wearables (Solutions 2014)
  • 14. day despite the high cost of $1,500, however it was primarily purchased by early adopters. It may prove more challenging to convince mainstream consumers to purchase, until the price point becomes more palatable (Reisinger 2014). Conversely, in the aforementioned 2014 Survey, 33% of respondents planned to increase spending on digital devices, within the next 12 months. Which Accenture believes could be partially due to the rapidly expanding amount of objects becoming connected to internet, referred to as the IoT “Internet of Things”. Thereby speculating, as more form factors become internet capable, consumer’s increased appetite for enhanced digital lifestyles, may influence their spending on devices (Accenture 2014). AESTHETIC AND SOCIAL CONCERNS The dominant viewpoint held that aesthetics and social acceptance are currently some of the largest adoption challenges facing wearables (Guglielmo 3/3/2014). The current iteration of devices have been primarily designed by engineers for technical functionality. The prototypes were then later reworked by designers which resulted in form factors that are still perceived as being “more geeky” than stylish (Pallister 2014). Simonite elaborates "To make this something that someone would want to wear full time, there needs to be adjustments to the aesthetics and styling—it reads as a device and not a pair of fashion eyewear."(Simonite 2013). In a recent survey, 1 in 5 respondents said they had aesthetic concerns regarding Google Glass (Golovko 2013). Although many consumers report strong style concerns, American opinions were evenly split when questioned if wearables can be stylish, 43% agreed and 41% disagreed (Eddy 2013). This divide could be influenced by a recent US launch of the first designer frames for Glass (designed outside of Google) by a known fashion name, Diane von Furstenberg (McCormick 2014). Others argue that wearables cannot succeed without social acceptance because if people feel that it's not "cool" to wear them, they will reject them (Reisinger 2014). Self-image can be positively or negatively Figure 6 Respondents were mainly neutral in opinions of wearables & majority would prefer a wearable clipped onto clothing or wrist (Solutions 2014, Rotman Epps 2013)
  • 15. affected by the perceptions of others, which influences how people feel about themselves. This capacity to increase or decrease self-confidence could greatly influence wearable adoption, if either stigmatised or perceived as a status symbol (Buenaflor, Kim 2013). Alternatively, some consumers wanted to see wearables designed in other form factors or would prefer devices that were smaller, less obtrusive and more discreet (Buenaflor, Kim 2013). According to a 2014 report, 62% said they wish wearables came in forms besides wristbands and watches, and 53% wanted wearables that looked more like jewellery (Eddy 2014). In a recent Harris Poll, 43% of all respondents said they'd be more likely to buy wearables if they couldn't be seen (Shannon-Missal 2013).
  • 16. Figure 7 Comparison of form vs function in some current wearables
  • 17. PERCEIVED LIMITED FUNCTIONALITY & TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS Due to the infancy stage of these product’s lifecycle, there are still many technical hardware and software limitations to be overcome, in addition to environmental factors; such as inaccurate location tracking (Euromonitor International 2013a). These teething issues have influenced their perceived limited functionality, even within the early adopter technology community. Some studies cite that no public perception marketing efforts will be effective, until the technological limitations are lowered and more useful applications are developed (Lapowsky 2014). A study examining acceptance factors for wearables, used the Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate user adoption. The author concludes that when comparing potential benefits of a new technology, users must perceive it as being easy to use and more advantageous than the technology they are already familiar with (Buenaflor, Kim 2013). Euromoniter states that many consumers do not believe wearables have any major use case that would be more valuable, over that of a smart phone. Which could be influenced by the fact that primarily only passive wearables are available, which are still reliant on smartphones to process and display data. Active wearables which are not as closely linked to smartphones, have yet to become widely obtainable (Euromonitor International 2013). Whereas, a Harris poll found that 48% would like to access smartphone functions without having to dig into their pockets, which is one of the key differentiating features of wearables (Shannon-Missal 2013). Conversely, others state that simply being hands free, is not enough of a value add, to be a driving incentive force (Guglielmo, Olson 2014). Vandrico is aiding consumer purchase decisions by providing an enhanced understanding of how wearables compare, through use of a “Relative Device Score” system. It compares devices by calculating attributes of compatibility, components, connectivity, battery, uniqueness, potential and benefits to derive a relative score. Vandrico believes that the major limiting factors for wearables are poor battery life, incompatibility between devices and operating systems that mismanage resources because they are not tailored to the form factors, consequently limiting software features (Solutions 2014). Complementary research states that wearables must integrate with other devices and provide third-party developer support. The walled garden approach that companies like Apple take to stop integration with competing devices, will need to be broken down, in order to make wearables successful. As the more wearables can integrate with the IoT “internet of things” the more useful for everyday tasks they will become (Reisinger 2014). Figure 8 Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate user acceptance of wearables (Davis 1989)
  • 18. Figure 9 Relative Device Score to Compare Wearable Products & Predicted Battery Life Curve of Wearable Devices (Solutions 2014)
  • 19. OTHER BARRIERS NOT IN SCOPE FOR THIS RESEARCH This research did not examine all of the barriers to wearable adoption, as it primarily focused on the aims and objectives to explore barriers which had the most mitigation potential through tourism trial. Other barriers such as privacy issues, legislation, community stigmas and other factors of a speculative nature were too difficult to expound upon at this early stage of adoption. Therefore they will not be analysed fully in this research effort, however for further information on these topics please refer to appendix E. CONSIDERATIONS OF TOURISM AS AN EARLY MARKET CONDITIONING PLATFORM ACCELERATION THROUGH ADOPTION PROCESS Roger’s divides groups of adopters into five main categories and many scholars believe these risk level characteristics are intrinsic and determine how rapidly one will adopt an innovation (Rogers 1976). Currently, the primary users of wearables fall into the innovator or early adopter categories, according to one theory, this is because many products have still not been released to the full market. Understanding that this early stage in the diffusion curve is a crucial one, Google launched its explorer program targeted at early adopters who were selected by lottery for the limited release of Glass. Thereby, using the early adopters to test for general consumption, as well as create market awareness for future adoption (Aspire 2014). Roger’s diffusion of innovation theory states that consumers must believe that the innovation will yield a utility which overcomes any uncertainty of a positive cost-benefit outcome. Beyond price, consumers must evaluate the level of disruption to their lives; in terms of functionality, reliability, ease of use, compatibility and social acceptance (Veneris 1990). Figure 10 Adoption Categories, Adapted from New Product Adoption and Diffusion (Rogers 1976)
  • 20. Figure 11 Five stages of the adoption process (original/later modified by Rogers)(Rogers 1976) Figure 12 Five stages of the adoption process with possible influence of tourism trial (Rogers 1976
  • 21. TRIAL THROUGH TOURISM According to Roger’s theory, before adoption, a consumer must go through a decision-making process of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption (If the user does not reject the innovation during any point) (Rogers 1976). Given many are risk adverse, this doubt can cause delay of any decision until more evidence can be supported. However, many will not pursue evidence instead preferring to wait until an influencer has endorsed the product (Veneris 1990). However, Rogers developed the diffusion of innovation theory based on agricultural data a few decades ago. Hence, many criticise his approach because it only addresses one way communication. Whereas nowadays there is a greater extent of two way dialog through the internet and social media, thus allowing for greater influence and input throughout the adoption cycle (Veneris 1990). CHANGE AGENTS TO EDUCATE CONSUMERS OF PRODUCT AND BENEFITS Consider the concept if wearables were offered to be rented during tourism activities, at places like museums, guided tours or cultural centres. The first step of adoption (Awareness) would be initiated, as the consumer would be exposed to the technology. They would still lack detailed information however, when they enter stage two and express an (Interest), then tourism professionals can act as change agents. To provide them education of the relative advantage attributes; such as being hands-free, displaying contextual information to navigate user, translation, providing information overlaid on top of the object and real-time sharing experiences with friends (Harteveldt 2010). The opportunity to educate consumers on the features and benefits, may help persuade them to move to step three of (Evaluation). Where they will consider the (Complexity) attribute of diffusion and assess the level of difficulty in learning to use the technology. The change agents can guide them through the initial learning curve by providing training, to help them become comfortable with features (Fino 2013). If successful, then the consumer would rent the device and move onto step four of (Trial), thereby moving through the first four stages of the cycle, quite rapidly.
  • 22. AUGMENTED REALITY TO OVERLAY CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION Figure 13 Smart Glasses can be used to overlay tourism information onto the user’s field of view and answer questions about objects in view
  • 23. HANDS FREE USAGE Figure 14 Benefits of hands free usage of wearables verses tablets to view augmented reality in a museum
  • 24. TRANSLATION OF SIGNS & VOICE Figure 15 Use of Smart Glasses to translate both audio and text
  • 25. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCERS “HOLIDAY MIND-SET” Moore believes social influencers and opinion leaders can directly impact the tipping point of innovation diffusion (Moore 1999). Social influencers can be quite strong, as humans put importance on the sentiments of their close interpersonal relationships, thus considering their opinions when making when making decisions. With the increase of online social sharing, influencer power is expanding as positive or negative perceptions are more rapidly disseminated throughout the network, which can influence other consumer’s adoption cycles (Buenaflor, Kim 2013). If social networks were combined with the capabilities of wearables to take advantage of features such as geo-targeting locations, real time social sharing (photos, videos and recommendations) and virtual/augmented reality experiences, it could allow users to engage with each other from different locations. For example, one could be compare their friend’s previous trip with their own by viewing their friend’s comments, tips, and media overlaid on their field of view, while visiting the same location. Furthermore, users could upload their own experiences, for others to engage in live or afterward, creating a crowd-sourced virtual tourism platform. Similar wearable applications were explored through a campaign called the “Melbourne Remote Control Tourist”. The participants explored Melbourne by taking directives from online users and streamed their experiences live, while wearing helmets fitted with cameras, microphones and GPS tracking devices. The campaign provided tourists with a good sense of the city and drew them to featured venues, even if they had watched the videos after its completion and never had the opportunity to give tasks to the remote tourists (Rafat 2013). Real-time sharing through smart glasses of first-hand experiences could also be utilised by social influencers (such as celebrities) to share their travel adventures. Other use cases, such as competitions for fitness activities or location based gaming, could also influence the “Observability” of wearables. This attribute of diffusion measures the degree of visibility the outcome of an innovation is to others (Reisinger 2014). Skift agrees, stating brands are already taking advantage of many tourist’s smartphone capabilities by crowd- sourcing content from their customers for use in their social media marketing efforts. Thereby allowing consumers to lead the conversation by using hashtags and geotagging to share their experiences (Rafat 2014). For example, a recent DiscoverLA campaign, aimed to attract tourism by highlighting celebrity and local experiences around Los Angeles, utilised Instagram influencers instead of traditional media buys. Which proved that a single post was more valuable than an entire magazine ad, as the Instagram posts doubled the reach of the campaign, through organic social media impressions (Shankman 2014). Daugherty, believes consumers are more easily influenced by endorsements, if they’ve had a positive trial experience (Daugherty 2002). Accordingly, if exposed to positive social influencers then when other barriers are also overcome, early market conditioning efforts can also help to accelerate the rate of diffusion (Canada 2007). Providing the potential for the early majority, late majority and sometimes even leap froggers to be persuaded to adopt earlier (Motohashi 2012). Additionally, environmental factors can also be influential, as a study found that individuals often engage in uncharacteristic behaviours when in group vacation settings. Thus, demonstrating that while in a holiday mind-set and environment, one maybe more inclined to try new experiences (Zajonc 1968).
  • 26. REAL-TIME SOCIAL SHARING Figure 16 Benefits of smart glasses hands free usage and built in camera to share experiences real-time
  • 27. RENTED DEVICES REMOVE HIGH COST OF ENTRY BARRIER The “Trial Ability” attribute of diffusion influences the adoption path, to the degree in which a technology may be tested or experimented with. As high cost is a current barrier limiting consumer’s amount of trial ability, the possibility of renting wearables during tourism activities could allow for more experimental time. Consumers may be less hesitant to try wearables, if given the opportunity to rent them for a nominal fee, without the fear of damaging their own devices. Renting could allow consumers to try wearables without a large monetary or evaluation time investment. Thereby, possibly facilitating accelerated movement through the first four stages of the adoption cycle (Rogers 1976). Simonite argues while renting cannot mitigate current high cost barriers, it could still premarket condition for when the price point declines, as predicted (Simonite 2013). SOCIAL FASHION STIGMAS AND AESTHETIC CONCERNS MITIGATED BY COLLECTIVE GROUP BEHAVIOUR THEORY Collective behaviour theory argues that someone who would not normally wear a device, may feel comfortable doing so, if other tourists in their surroundings were also wearing them. Thereby creating a collective crowd environment, where it feels more socially acceptable to wear a device than in other situations. Tourism cannot mitigate aesthetic concerns for everyday purchase, however if used in a conducive group setting for trial purposes, aesthetics may be temporarily overlooked (Goldstone, Gureckis 2009). In traditional diffusion theories a primary driver of adoption is gratification motivated directly by perceived enjoyment, social norms and network externalities. A recent technology adoption study found that the influence of enjoyment and social norms, were stronger drivers towards adoption than the influence of usefulness (Dickinger, Arami et al. 2008). The diffusion attribute of observability may cause a “Fear of Missing Out” (FoMO) occurrence in tourists, who view others enjoying the visible benefits of wearables. FoMO is a new concept spurred by social media and is defined “as a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent.” It can influence consumer’s behaviour, as they feel uneasy about missing out on something their peers are doing, that is perceived as more enjoyable than their current state (Przybylski, Murayama et al. 2013). CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT TO CREATE POSITIVE FIRST IMPRESSION OF CAPABILITIES It is critical that wearables can incorporate a great deal of contextual awareness to deliver an acceptable experience to consumers (Euromonitor International 2013a). In a recent survey, users ranked “Location Based Services” higher than any other wearable feature they were interested in, even social media (Golovko 2013). A technological limitation of delivering contextual awareness in an uncontrolled environment, is the lack of precise geo-targeting capabilities. Given the static nature of many tourist destinations, there is an ability to place location beacons/sensors to improve geo-location targeting. Furthermore, the ability to perform a large degree of functionality testing at these predefined locations, can help demonstrate the capabilities of wearables by delivering a highly contextual experience. Further integration of wearables with commonplace applications (Facebook, G-mail, Google Maps, Instagram, Yelp, etc.) to perform common tasks through the new medium, could also affect the diffusion attribute of “Compatibility”; by being consistent with user’s existing values and experiences while better achieving their needs. For instance, a user wearing smart glasses could have Google map directions displayed in their field of view, rather than looking at phone while cycling down a mountain (Kounavis 2012).
  • 28. Some application features could surpass user’s expectations of functionality, by taking advantage of predefined environments to test heavily and place sensors/beacons to enhance location based services. Thereby showcasing wearable’s future potential by maximising their current capabilities, which could prove more challenging to demonstrate in an uncontrolled environment.
  • 29. GEO-TARGETED APPLICATIONS (LOCATION BASED SERVICES) Figure 17 Benefits of hands free usage to navigate with directions overlaid onto field of view verses looking down at a smartphone
  • 30. BIOMETRIC DATA (FITNESS, HEALTH TRACKING) AND GAMING (TREASURE HUNT, GEOCACHING) Figure 18 Combined use of Smart Glasses and Smart Band to display biometric data for fitness and compete with friends in a geo-location based game
  • 31. Figure 19 Suggested uses of augmented reality for tourism with a smart phone, also applicable to wearables (Yovcheva, Buhalis et al. 2012)
  • 32. Figure 20 Suggested uses and benefits of Augmented Reality applications for tourism for Smartphones, similar potential for wearables
  • 33. Figure 21 Use of contextual awareness for smartphone travel applications, similar use case can apply to wearables (Yovcheva, Buhalis et al. 2012)
  • 34. Figure 22 Diffusion Of Innovations Attributes, modified from original source (Daugherty 2002)
  • 35. KEY THEORETICAL CONCLUSIONS OF LITERATURE REVIEW The conclusions formulated from the literature review were the basis for the questions asked to interview participants. After reviewing the barriers to adoption of wearables and considering their mitigation through tourism, a series of hypotheses to further explore were formed. Figure 23 Hypotheses derived from the literature used to formulate interview questions
  • 36. METHODOLOGY RESEARCH OBJECTIVE This report aims to explore perceptions of influencers in the wearable technology sector, about the current barriers to adoption for wearables. In addition, to comparing opinions on the potential use of tourism trial to accelerate wearable adoption through pre-market conditioning. Furthermore, other key questions this dissertation aims to shed fresh light upon are: a. To what extent could a positive tourism trial experience, impact the consumer's purchasing behaviour in future, when the current barriers are lowered? b. To what extent could a negative tourism trial experience, impact consumers to reject the product before it reached its mature iteration? RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH A primary research design consideration is whether to take a deductive approach and develop a hypothesis first, or an inductive approach that considers observations/findings first and then develops a theory. The inductive approach is sometimes perceived as producing empirical generalizations, whereas the deductive approach is primarily subjected to empirical scrutiny, often through quantitative analysis (Bryman, Bell 2011). Given the emerging nature of this sector’s constantly evolving landscape and the consumer’s lack of awareness, a purely deductive approach could be more challenging to prove empirically (Creswell 2013). Given the speculative nature of this study, which examined perspectives based upon potential variables, the author concluded a grounded theory approach would be best suited. Grounded theory is an iterative approach that does not follow a linear path between developing theories and conducting research. This approach is often considered to produce theories that carry a stronger theoretical significance, than a purely inductive approach (Glaser, Strauss 2009). The first phase employed a deductive method starting with a broad hypothesis that “Tourism could act as a gateway for consumer adoption of wearables”. This hypothesis was then carefully refined through an inductive approach, reviewing the relevant literature to guide the development of a series of more refined hypotheses. These hypotheses were then used to collect further qualitative data, as the empirical substantiation to form a more theoretically grounded conclusion (Adams, Schvaneveldt 1991).
  • 37. Figure 24 Process used in research philosophy and approach modified but based upon chart p 580 (Bryman, Bell 2011)
  • 38. PREVIOUS RESEARCH’S INFLUENCE UPON RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY The current research addressing wearable’s low adoption has inconsistent and differing opinions. A number of survey attempts to understand consumer’s level of interest in purchasing wearables and which features would be most valuable to them, have been carried out. However, responses were divergent between studies, possibly due to the variation of each study’s participant adopter groups. However, there was consensus between studies that consumers have low awareness of the products and their capabilities (Shannon-Missal 2013, Accenture 2014). While many articles have been written on the subject of eTourism, which employs use of augmented reality, location based services and crowdsourcing travel advice, none have specifically explored using tourism to accelerate the first four steps of the adoption cycle (Kounavis 2012, Lanir 2013, Fino 2013, Emmanouilidis 2013). Where this research differs from other wearable adoption studies, is in the explicit questions modelled towards tourism, as an early market conditioning tool. Posed at key industry stakeholders and decision makers for the wearables industry, to gain the company insider’s perspective. Focusing on innovator or early adopter categories ensures first-hand experience and knowledge of the device’s capabilities and limitations. As opposed to the consumer’s perspective who are currently, predominantly unaware of these technologies. As implied by previous research that found most consumers had never tried the devices and therefore the opinions given were primarily speculative (Dalton, Costa 2014, Shannon-Missal 2013, Eddy 2013, McKendrick 2013, Eddy 2014). This work aims to provide fresh insights about wearables, through the key differentiating factors of a focus on tourism as an entryway to adoption and the criteria of industry influencers as the sample selection. RESEARCH DESIGN STRATEGY There are three primary types of research strategies, each has its own merits and disadvantages, and therefore they are sometimes combined for a mixed method approach. Descriptive is used more for topics that lend themselves well to describing variables but do not aim to form any causal relationships between them. Whereas analytical research, can continue on previous descriptive research, to analyse and explain the underlying causes or relationships between data points, to provide deeper insights. Exploratory research is often used when topics have not been researched widely, therefore the amount of data is not sufficient to test or confirm a hypothesis (Bryman, Bell 2011). Due to the contemporary nature of this emerging technology, currently no long term comprehensive studies have been conducted on its user adoption. Furthermore, little formal research has been conducted on the use of tourism to aid in premarket conditioning for wearables. Therefore, this research employs an exploratory approach by examining insights from the literature and wearable industry experts, to aid in further development of ideas for future research hypothesis testing (Neville 2007). RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN OF DATA COLLECTION There are both benefits and disadvantages to primary methods of research. Qualitative research can be used systematically, semi-structured or unstructured to collect evidence and its findings often include opinions, perspectives and social context. Its strength is in capturing information about intangible human factors towards an issue. Its disadvantage is it can be contradictory and emotionally driven given the contextual differences between participant’s social backgrounds. The primary techniques for collecting data in qualitative research consist of in-depth interviews, participant observations, focus groups and diary notes. Quantitative research is primarily used for highly structured methods, like questionnaires, to gather numerical data or answers to close ended questions. It’s beneficial when trying to predict causal
  • 39. relationships, describe characteristics of a population or analyse data built upon statistical methods (Mack, Woodsong et al. 2005). The design of this research incorporated a qualitative in-depth investigation of key variables collected from contemporary relevant literature and foundational consumer behaviour theories. These variables were then coded into underlying themes and the data was analysed to develop themes into hypotheses. The hypotheses were utilised as the basis to generate targeted questions for semi-structured interviews, with influential industry experts. Participants were chosen due to their level of expertise and high level of engagement within the wearable industry, to insure their opinions were reliable. The selection/sampling of the respondents will be analysed further below. The primary qualitative approach was reinforced by use of a quantitative Likert scale, to measure the level of intensity of responses between participants, for added weight. This method was chosen, as multiple studies believe that asking only qualitative questions, is not as reliable to draw conclusions from, as they are subjective and not directly measurable. Whereas, incorporating some aspects of quantitative measurement of sentiment, can provide a more valid and reliable measurement to make inferences based upon (Kinard, Capella 2006, Gliem, Gliem 2003). The scale ranged from 1-7 with different variables per question (primarily 1 was not influential and 7 was very influential) in order to measure the intensity of structured questions with some level of quantification. The results of the intensity of opinions from the Likert scales were analysed and converted into charts. Proper research processes were followed by gaining consent of participants for their names and companies to be mentioned without any anonymity issues. The interview questions were shown on power point slides that also contained images of the Likert scale, to allow participants the opportunity to re-read and clarify comprehension. This method ensured validity and reliability of the results, by confirming replication was accounted for. All interviews were recorded and the transcriptions of the interviews, notes and impressions recorded by the author were coded with the software Nvivo, to ensure strength of analysis. A mixed method of inductive and deductive approaches were taken to create grounded hypotheses to be built upon by future researchers, for further studies to collect additional data in which to develop a formal theory. INTERVIEW SAMPLE CRITERIA This research was aimed towards gaining the industry’s perspective, therefore participants were selected who work at companies with relevance to the wearable sector. Importance was placed on selecting professionals who have significant responsibilities, access to strategic information and who were key decision makers influencing the wearables industry. The target group was senior executives who have broad experience with wearables and are key influencers in the future of this space. Obtaining their significant points of view was essential towards gaining important and valid findings. It is important to note, this research did not focus on the consumer’s perspective as a sample because of the inconsistences of results found in previous consumer survey research. The divergent results insinuate that many consumers were still too unaware of the technologies to give informed, consistent answers (Rackspace 2013, Shannon-Missal 2013, Eddy 2013, Accenture 2014, Rotman Epps 2013). Therefore, it was important to select people from the innovator or early adopter categories, who could provide direct and valuable information about current industry activities, to aid in the validity of the results. Tables with information about the interview participants and the sample criteria are below. The appendices C and D contain the full list of questions and transcriptions of answers. Each participant had a different role in the wearables space, to ensure triangulation from diverse viewpoints.
  • 40. LIMITATIONS, ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS The interviews were semi-structured for consistency, however when the primary research conducted is subject to forms of bias from participants, there can be data quality issues as opinions are not always a reliable data source. While measures were taken to ensure the validity of information by selecting industry experts, the nature of qualitative research can pose issues of generalisability. Some unexpected results arose during the research due to the subjectivity of many of the topics questioned around aesthetics, cost and social stigmas. Whilst, there’s a quantitative-like nature to some of the results presented, they should not be perceived as that of a survey, due to the limitation of only five respondents. Furthermore, all participants were early adopters, who work within positions of influence in the industry and are well versed on the technology. Additionally, this research only looked at consumer opinions through secondary research and no primary research was conducted. While the targeted sample group interviewed was small, this report aims to provide a unique perspective by gaining insights from those most knowledgeable about the industry. In contrast to previous research conducted via large scale surveys of a consumer base less well-informed about wearables and their capabilities. Moreover, there were additional barriers such as privacy concerns, legislation and social stigmas which could not be addressed given assignment constraints and the current speculative nature of these topics. As wearables are an emerging technology the current research is limited, therefore this exercise cannot provide any conclusive results with a high certainty, until further analysis can been conducted later in the product life cycle. This works aims to form a more holistic viewpoint on the potential use of tourism, as an Figure 26 List of Interview Participants Figure 25 Sample Criteria for Interview Participants
  • 41. early market conditioning tool for wearables, rather than predict the size of impact upon future wearable adoption. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter will include both the results of the findings and the discussion of their implications. Further detailed results are included in the appendices C, D and F, including full interview transcripts, coding reports and additional charts. CONNECTION TO OVERALL RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES This report aimed to explore perceptions of strength for the current barriers to adoption, from influencers within the wearables industry. As well as, accrue opinions, on the hypotheses that some barriers could be mitigated through tourism trial, to more rapidly move consumers through the adoption cycle. Thereby influencing future purchase decisions by early market conditioning. Data was collected from semi-structured interviews, in which non-open ended questions used a Likert scale so the intensity of the responses could be reflected in the results. Open ended questions resulted in new topics and considerations that were not derived from the literature review. Respondents elaborated their rationale behind each answer, considering the impact and features required to add value for mainstream adoption. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The majority of participants felt that the barrier of perceived or actual limited functionality, was the highest current barrier to adoption. Another theme that harmoniously came through, was the lack of useful applications being an additional limiting factor, besides hardware. The second highest barrier was tied between both “High Cost” and “Privacy, Social and Legislative Concerns”. Interviewees felt that a positive tourism trial could certainly impact future purchase decisions (if other barriers were lowered) but their opinions varied as to its level of influence. However, all agreed that both the price point and functionality, would still take precedence in buying decisions. The results of exploring participant’s sentiments of the “willingness to try a device while on holiday” and “the ability of a controlled environment to deliver the best first impression” were more consistently agreed upon. Most concurred, was that being in a collective group where everyone was wearing the devices, would increase consumers’ willingness to try wearables. As they would not feel socially isolated or fear stigmas. It was also agreed that many would likely try wearables if they could be rented for a small fee, rather than purchasing them outright for a higher cost. Interviewees felt that being in a holiday mind-set could influence willingness to try, however not as highly as the power of collective group theory and a low rental fee. Many believed a controlled environment could deliver a better user experience, however in order to warrant purchasing, applications would need to also work in uncontrolled environments to perform daily life tasks.
  • 42. Figure 25 Comparison of strength of current barriers and possible level of influence after a positive tourism trial
  • 43. Figure 26 Possible level of influence of variables during a tourism trial
  • 44. Figure 27 Interviewees opinion of level of intensity for current adoption barriers
  • 45. BARRIER: CONSUMER’S UNAWARENESS OF PRODUCTS AND THEIR VALUE PROPOSITION STRENGTH OF BARRIER The interview results of unawareness being a medium barrier, closely related to the literature findings that 30-40% of mainstream consumers are unaware of wearables. Furthermore, more than half of those aware, still did not recognise the value of their capabilities (Shannon-Missal 2013, Golovko 2013). Interviewees agreed this barrier’s strength is not as high as others, due to the belief that consumers were curious about the devices, even if unaware of their capabilities. Correlating to a study citing an increasing interest in purchasing wearables (50% smart watch / 40% smart glasses). The author suggests considering that both the survey (35%) and interview participants (100%) are early adopters, there is an increased likelihood of exposure to other early adopters, which could sway their opinions (Accenture 2014, Veneris 1990). However, some interviewees considered unawareness as a high barrier, especially due to the lack of marketing from the industry. Which has caused some consumers, to have the wrong interpretation of wearables as being an accessory to smartphones (Romeo 2014). Andy Caddy (CIO Virgin Active) reasons wearables are still not in the mainstream radar stating “This is still quite a niche area and from my knowledge of what is already a quite savvy audience in Virgin Active, we know it’s only 3-4 % of our members who currently use apps or wearables”(Caddy 2014). Furthermore, others felt unawareness was not the primary issue and that until other more significant challenges were solved, increasing awareness alone could not aid adoption (Skidmore 2014, Romeo 2014). MITIGATION THROUGH TOURISM PROFESSIONALS ACTING AS CHANGE AGENTS TO EDUCATE AND EVANGELISE THE TECHNOLOGY Consensus was established that if wearables were tried during tourism activities, the first step of adoption (Awareness) would be initiated, as the consumer would be exposed to the technology (Romeo 2014, Skidmore 2014, Caddy 2014). The majority felt the opportunity to educate consumers on the features and benefits, could persuade them to move to step two (Interest). Citing relatively firm views that the use of change agents to educate tourists on how to use the devices, would be a medium or high influence to lower consumer’s perceptions of the degree of complexity of use, which could aid in progressing to step three (Evaluation) (Romeo 2014, Skidmore 2014, Caddy 2014). Those in high favour, felt the role of changes agents to make consumers more comfortable, was critically important. Especially for the adoption categories less familiar with the technologies. Paul Skidmore illuminates “…there is a level of suspicion with the technology, that if you haven’t encountered it before, technology that you actually place on your person, something that changes what I see, can be quite invasive, or shocking, or surprising” (Skidmore 2014). Moreover, many felt a positive tourism trial could help fill in current marketing gaps by demonstrating the unique capabilities of wearables. Thereby potentially influencing future purchase decisions through the diffusion attribute of “Relative Advantage” to substantiate their value (Harteveldt 2010, Romeo 2014, Skidmore 2014, Caddy 2014). Interviewees who questioned the high influence were of the opinion that this exposure and education would not be enough to overcome the other barriers that would still exist outside of the tourism experience. However, most agreed that consumers would be interested in future, if these barriers were lowered (Meixner 2014).
  • 46. BEING IN A HOLIDAY MIND-SET COULD INFLUENCE A CONSUMER’S WILLINGNESS TO TRY WEARABLES Many interviewees believed that being in a holiday mind-set, could highly influence a consumer’s willingness to try wearables, even if they had minimal previous exposure or knowledge of their benefits. Citing that people would be more liberated and willing to try new things when on holiday. As while on holiday, consumers have more free time and are looking to be entertained by trying new interesting experiences (Meixner 2014). Although one respondent stated that while people are willing to try new things on holiday, the holiday mind- set is not enough to convince them to try wearables, without the benefits being clearly explained and operational education provided to them (Skidmore 2014).
  • 47. Figure 28 Intensity of barrier that consumers are unaware of wearable products or their capabilities
  • 48. Figure 29 Intensity of influence being in a holiday mind-set would impact a consumer’s willingness to try a wearable device
  • 49. Figure 30 Intensity of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it
  • 50. BARRIER: HIGH COST STRENGTH OF BARRIER Consensus between the literature and interviewees placed a strong weight on the variable of cost being the second strongest barrier tied with privacy concerns. Due to consumer’s demanding an advantageous cost- benefit ratio when purchasing new technologies. Revealing that the current capabilities and useful applications for fitness bands ($100-120) and smart glasses ($700-$1500) are still considered as not offering good value for money, even for some early adopters (Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014). A number of respondents stated this barrier would go down in future, when introductory prices are lowered and that currently many people are willing to pay for expensive smartphones, which could translate to wearables in future (Skidmore 2014, Romeo 2014). Furthermore, another issue raised was the current lack of availability in many markets, making price a moot point (Jenkinson 2014, Solutions 2014, Eddy 2014, Shannon-Missal 2013, Golovko 2013). MITIGATION THROUGH RENTAL OF WEARABLES TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRIAL The vast majority of interviewees were evenly split between believing consumers would be “very” or “highly” likely to rent a device during tourism. The respondents gave different examples indicating factors behind this high rating. One interviewee stated that people were already curious about wearables and would be eager to try them for a low cost. Another cited that after he purchased Google Glass, he had interested people queuing up just to try them (Jenkinson 2014). Sentiments were also strong, that consumers are more likely to engage in uncharacteristic behaviours when in a holiday mind-set, thus potentially being more open to trying wearables (Zajonc 1968, Meixner 2014). Overall, most believed the concept of renting was viable and that change agents were imperative to support the diffusion attribute of “Complexity” by lowering the initial learning curve to persuade users that the devices will be easy to use (Skidmore 2014). Also citing that facilitating this opportunity for a small fee is a good driver for wearables, as people may be more likely to try them in a tourism environment (Romeo 2014). Furthermore, low rental fees can facilitate the diffusion attribute of “trial ability”, by allowing tourists to test and experiment with wearables for a limited time (Daugherty 2002). Some respondents believe the use of wearables combined with augmented reality, would be the next logical step from renting audio guides, to create a more fully immersive tourism experience. Stating that people want to learn about the exhibits and this technology allows them to experience another layer on the world, which is more visually stimulating (Skidmore 2014). In contrast, Andy Caddy agreed that the novelty factor of renting could persuade some of the early or late majority groups to try wearables. However, he was not convinced it could highly impact the later adoption categories. Stating “I think that people that are technology adverse, would be even more polarized, to be even more technically adverse for Google Glass because the perception of it is so technical”(Caddy 2014). INFLUENCE OF COST AFTER A POSITIVE TOURISM TRIAL From the interviews, it was evident that a range of perspectives existed about the level of influence (medium or major) that a tourism trial would have upon future purchases, if prices were dropped. Some questioned the amount of purchase influence that change agents or trial ability could have. Echoing sentiments that the cost-benefit ratio is quite subjective, especially for different adopter groups (Caddy 2014). While some in the early or late majority adopter groups may perceive a high cost-benefit ratio, other groups such as laggards, may not consider wearables as valuable at any price (Fino 2013). Additionally some believed consumers were led by cost first and functionality second (Caddy 2014).
  • 51. In contrast, many participants believed consumers would pay a premium, if the cost-benefit outcome was favourable, as currently exhibited today with expensive smartphone sales (Romeo 2014, Skidmore 2014). Harmony between the literature and participants cited that adding more value through integration with (IoT) and improved applications, could help positively shift the wearable cost-benefit ratio (Accenture 2014, Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014, Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014). Many factors play into the purchase path, and while cost was the second strongest barrier, renting during tourism cannot have as significant an impact upon adoption, until other dependent variables are also lowered.
  • 52. Figure 31 Intensity of barrier that consumers feel wearables are currently cost prohibitive
  • 53. Figure 32 Intensity of likelihood consumers would try wearables during tourism, if the devices could be rented for a small fee
  • 54. Figure 33 Intensity of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if the current barrier of being high cost prohibitive were lowered
  • 55. BARRIER: PERCEIVED LIMITED FUNCTIONALITY STRENGTH OF BARRIER Limited functionality of both software and hardware was rated the highest barrier of all examined, equally for participants and previous studies. Many contend consumers consider wearables as having no major use case above smartphones (Shannon-Missal 2013, Guglielmo 3/3/2014). According to one respondent, the misconception about the capabilities of wearables, is due to poor marketing strategies (Romeo 2014). Whereas the literature attributed the misconception to the lack of availability of wearables that do not rely on smartphones to display data (Euromonitor International 2013). It’s been argued that, in order to adopt a new technology, consumers must perceive a greater value over that of a familiar technology (Buenaflor, Kim 2013). However, perceived technological limitations are not only due to poor marketing (although a factor) but in actuality are still a challenge for manufactures and application developers (Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014, Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014). Vandrico postulates the highest barriers for wearables are poor battery life and incompatibility between devices and operating systems (Solutions 2014). For example, one interviewee mentioned the need to make devices more convenient, by comparing the short three day battery life of an unstylish smart band, to that of a beautiful watch that only needs a new battery every few years (Caddy 2014). Beyond hardware limitations, the vast majority of interviewees cited the primary barrier to adoption was the lack of applications that were useful and added value, commonly referred to as a “killer apps”. Andrew Jenkinson, an early adopter, states despite purchasing a device like Google Glass and enjoying telling his friends about the features, there still are not enough “killer apps” to entice mainstream consumers. “…the one thing I would struggle telling them, because they would always ask me when a new device comes out, is should they buy it and why? And I could not give them a good reason to buy Glass right now” (Jenkinson 2014). Markus Meixner agrees that developers need to produce useful applications that support daily life beyond smartphone capabilities “If I’m repairing my car, I don’t want to do that with my phone, because it’s in my hands…a glasses application that would give you instructions of how to fill in oil to your car, that would be a justification or a push for the industry… if the applications got better and devices got better, it’s more likely that they buy such a device” (Meixner 2014). The importance of applications using data captured from multiple devices intelligently, to provide useful multifunctional feedback was particularly apparent in some of the interviews (Romeo 2014, Caddy 2014). The commonly held view was that the current lack of connectivity and integration between wearables and IoT is a barrier that will continue to expand, as more disparate objects come online (Reisinger 2014). Andy emphasizes the importance of integration and interoperability “So every one of these is a point solution, it does one thing (except maybe Glass) and does one thing well, but isn’t connected or doesn’t talk to other things. So I think its usefulness is always going to be very narrow” (Caddy 2014). Similarly, another interviewee explains there will always be a combination of form factors, due to multiple use cases, however these devices can’t be stand alone. In order to go mainstream, a more open approach is required to allow devices from multiple manufacturers to amalgamate numerous data sources. In order to analyse them together to intelligently infer insights about the user’s behaviour and then seamlessly and transparently offer targeted services and features to them (Skidmore 2014). Interview suggestions to overcome current limitations included the need to build useful applications, provide a larger field of view, greater functionally in uncontrolled environments and ensure devices are interconnected and compatible with the IoT (internet of things) (Romeo 2014, Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014, Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014).
  • 56. MAXIMIZING TECHNOLOGY THROUGH USE OF CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS TO DELIVER MORE CONTEXTUALLY AWARE POSITIVE FIRST EXPERIENCES Through the interviews, it was established that contextual awareness was an integral component to mainstream adoption (Jenkinson 2014, Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014, Caddy 2014). The vast majority felt that using a controlled environment where application developers could place sensors/beacons and perform rigorous testing, would be a high influence towards creating a positive first user experience. In agreeance with the literature, they concluded that to deliver an experience that is attractive to users, incorporation of a great deal of contextual awareness is required, as dealing with an uncontrolled environment is incredibly difficult (Euromonitor International 2013a, Skidmore 2014). A respondent cited that creating a high level of contextual awareness was partially dependent upon, having a finite level of location targeting to draw insights from and cross device connectivity with the IoT to interface with the environment (Caddy 2014). Additionally, another respondent cited that using testing within a controlled environment can support the development of more sophisticated applications, which can better cope with uncontrolled environments (Romeo 2014). Some had strong feelings that wearables would fail without this integration (Skidmore 2014) while others were more uncertain that the benefits were mutually exclusive to wearables, considering smartphones can also use sensors/beacons (Meixner 2014) and not all applications require the user/object’s location, to be valuable (Jenkinson 2014). INFLUENCE OF A CONTROLLED USER EXPERIENCE UPON FUTURE PURCHASE AFTER POSITIVE TOURISM TRIAL Opinions were polarised, as to the amount of influence a controlled environment tourism experience would have upon future adoption. Some felt it could aid in the diffusion attribute of “Compatibility” by allowing users to experience that wearables are consistent with their existing values and smartphone application experiences. Through allowing them to perform common tasks, such as using a smartphone restaurant review application, through a new medium like smart glasses. Those who identified it to be a major/high influence, positively believed that users would see their value over smartphones, by having a guide to help them translate, provide recommendations, navigation, etc. without having to stare down at a screen (Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014). Furthermore, many felt the use of a controlled environment to help mitigate some of the current technological obstacles, could create a positive first user experience. This positive experience could aid in the diffusion attribute of “Relative Advantage” by persuading consumers that wearables offer unique capabilities. Whereas, their capabilities may not be as strongly demonstrated in an uncontrolled environment, where the user experience could potentially be negative due to technological challenges (Romeo 2014, Meixner 2014, Skidmore 2014). Interviewees who were more doubtful that it would influence adoption, said the value of the device is still dependent upon on what the applications can deliver in the uncontrolled environment consumers live in (Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014). Others noted that many applications do not require precision location targeting and therefore would not be as impacted by the use of a controlled environment (Jenkinson 2014). However, all parties believed that if key technical issues were solved to provide real value, this factor could be more influential.
  • 57. Figure 34 Level of intensity of the barrier that consumers perceive wearables as having limited functionality beyond that of smartphones and still have some technological limitations
  • 58. Figure 35 Level of intensity of influence the ability to place sensors/beacons and perform extensive testing within a controlled environment would have on the ability of wearable applications, to deliver a better user experience over that of uncontrolled
  • 59. Figure 36 Level of intensity a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if the current barrier of the perceived limited functionality & technological limitations were lowered
  • 60. BARRIER: AESTHETIC AND SOCIAL FASHION STIGMAS STRENGTH OF BARRIER There was a range of perspectives on the strength of the barrier concerning aesthetic and social acceptance but overall interviewees and the literature agreed, they have a high influence upon mainstream adoption (Guglielmo 3/3/2014, Jenkinson 2014, Caddy 2014, Skidmore 2014). The respondents indicating a major barrier, felt current devices had a science fiction aesthetic, (Jenkinson 2014) and were too geeky to be a mainstream product (Caddy 2014). Both the literature and respondents cited that these form factors could be largely attributed to the design being informed by the technology limitations around battery life, compartmentalisation, lower power chip sets and specific operating system optimisations that restrict design freedom (Skidmore 2014, Solutions 201). In discussing the impact of designer versions of wearables, many felt that improved styling could increase adoption, if created by a multifunctional collaborative team. Some believed development teams should be formed from diverse skillsets, to incorporate different viewpoints of technology, aesthetics, marketing and retailing, in order to create a more holistic product (Romeo 2014, Caddy 2014). Unlike the current iteration of devices, designed by engineers and then later reworked by designers (Pallister 2014, Romeo 2014, Caddy 2014). Views were fragmented both from interviewees and the literature, on whether current wearables are stylish (Eddy 2013). A few interviewees stated they felt Google Glass and many smart watches were quite stylish and in some cases, they felt manufactures put more importance on the form, than the function (Meixner 2014). Others thought that if smart glasses were styled more like normal eyewear, the social acceptance would be higher (Caddy 2014). This divergence of opinions, is not unexpected considering the subjectivity of personal preferences. Another theme highlighted throughout the interviews, was that fashion represents the message one wants to convey about their statement of individuality (Romeo 2014). Similarly, another interviewee acknowledged that there’s no one size fits all approach. Thereby, creating a manufacturing challenge to produce a range of devices that identify with multiple target markets strongly enough for mass consumer adoption. While still managing supply and demand to maintain healthy margins and keep overstock down (Skidmore 2014). MITIGATION THROUGH COLLECTIVE GROUP BEHAVIOUR THEORY The majority of participants were in agreement with the literature, that collective behaviour theory could be a major influence upon making a consumer comfortable to wear the devices, if other tourists were also wearing them. One interviewee stated that people do not want to stand out of the crowd. Therefore, if everyone else was wearing devices, it would be similar to a fancy dress party where inhibitions are lowered as everyone is dressed up (Jenkinson 2014). Other respondents gave examples of wearing outfits in specific group contexts, that they would normally never wear but as everyone one else was also wearing them, it wasn’t a big issue (Caddy 2014, Meixner 2014). Furthermore, many also felt if tourists could observe others having a positive experience with wearables, they could be influenced by a “Fear of Missing Out” (FoMO) occurrence (Przybylski, Murayama et al. 2013, Dickinger, Arami et al. 2008, Skidmore 2014). One interviewee cited that it’s a human condition that we don’t want to feel we are not part of the group, so in a group environment, if the majority is wearing the devices, it’s a major influence (Skidmore 2014). Therefore, if everyone else is experiencing wearables and you’re not, you may have a fear of missing out, because you see other people having reactions to an experience that you’re not able to enjoy.
  • 61. Additionally, the experience could facilitate the diffusion attribute of “Observability” by allowing consumers to view others having a positive experience, both first-hand during tourism and from social media influences of other’s sharing their wearable experiences. INFLUENCE AFTER POSITIVE TOURISM TRIAL ON AESTHETIC AND SOCIAL STIGMA CONCERNS In describing the influence of aesthetic and social concerns after a positive experience, several interviewees spoke of how they felt designer brands could be a major influence. It was argued that most people already wear a watch, therefore migrating to a smart watch might be easier than smart glasses, as not all people wear glasses. In fact, Lasik surgery and contacts were invented so people who needed to wear glasses, would not have to. Therefore, beyond aesthetics, adding an additional accessory that one might not normally wear is an additional challenge, as Andrews explains “…it’s kind of like deciding that you’re going to start wearing hats from now on, when I never wore hats before. So there still is that barrier, do I even want to wear anything on my face at all?” (Jenkinson 2014). Consensus concluded that tourism trial cannot mitigate current aesthetic concerns for everyday purchase (Goldstone, Gureckis 2009). As fashion is subjective and a variety of form factors and styles would be required, to align with divergent target group’s needs (Eddy 2014, Jenkinson 2014). Especially for wearables which may be a new accessory that a consumer wouldn’t normally wear, given the strong influence of social acceptance on one’s self-image. Therefore, this barrier can be more challenging, both in terms of supply chain issues and the volatility of socially impactful fashion trends (Reisinger 2014, Buenaflor, Kim 2013, Jenkinson 2014). However, overcoming aesthetic concerns while in the tourism context can influence consumers through the diffusion attributes of “Observability” and “Trail Ability”. Thereby accelerating the adoption cycle to prime consumers for future purchase, when more stylish devices are available.
  • 62. Figure 37 The level of intensity of barrier that consumers believe the current wearable products are unfashionable or unstylish
  • 63. Figure 38 The level of influence being in a collective group where the majority were also wearing the devices would mitigate social or aesthetic stigmas of wearables whilst in this context
  • 64. Figure 39 The level of influence a positive experience while renting a wearable device during tourism, would positively influence consumers to purchase it, if in future the styling became more fashionable
  • 65. THE DANGER OF FAILED DIFFUSION Interviewees had mixed views on the danger of failed diffusion, if consumer’s had a negative tourism trial experience. Those advocating a negative impact upon future purchase decisions thought first impressions are lasting and if expectations of functionality are not met consumer’s will reject the product before it’s reached its mature iteration (Meixner 2014, Caddy 2014). Citing an example of failed diffusion where some consumers felt sick or got a headache while watching stereoscopic 3-D films will now only watch 2-D films, due to this initial bad experience, even though the technology has advanced (Jenkinson 2014). Conversely, some believed that a negative experience is subjective to the user’s level of comfort and forgiveness of new technology teething problems. Citing that consumer’s understand that technology evolves (like smartphones) and that incremental innovation will improve the performance of these devices. Therefore, a negative experience would not be a major barrier but just an experience that didn’t go well, as many of us have experienced in our lives but have still tried again (Romeo 2014, Jenkinson 2014). Additionally, another interviewee Paul Skidmore cites how strong social influences can be, “What’s more likely to drive my decision to take this, is if my social environment and my social connections start to use it. You can be swayed quite easily if everyone else is doing it, and in that case, that first negative impression can be unwound, if you like, social influencers are more important than this one time negative experience, now that these problems have been solved” (Skidmore 2014). NEW FINDINGS The author of this project found that the technical limitations barrier resulted in being rated higher, than others like privacy and social stigmas. Thereby insinuating that the influence of a positive trial experience during tourism, might not be as impactful in early market conditioning, until these challenges are mitigated. Seemingly, in order to accelerate adoption, one barrier cannot be perceived as mutually exclusive of others. However, as technology and society norms continue to rapidly evolve, other barriers may not be as impactful in future, as found during the time of this research. FUTURE APPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS As a new area to be explored, these findings could have potential application for future further research and practical application for:
  • 72. Figure 40 Chart of future applications of the findings for future research and industry development
  • 73. CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSION OF FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE KEY AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The conclusions below are presented according to the key aims and objectives and were formulated from the literature review and interviews of wearable industry experts, to gain their perspectives on the current barriers to adoption. As well as, their sentiments on a series of hypotheses formulated to explore if current barriers where lowered, to what extent could a positive tourism trial impact consumer's purchasing behaviour. Furthermore, perspectives were also analysed, as to what extent a negative tourism trial, could impact consumers to reject the product before it reached its mature iteration. CONCLUSION SUMMARY Wearable technologies offer a new disruptive marketing channel, which could have significant implications for advertising. However, the technology is still in its infancy and has multiple barriers to overcome to gain mainstream adoption. Currently, primarily only innovators or early adopters are using the devices and most other adoption categories are unaware of the technologies. While, the purpose of this research aimed to consider the possibility of tourism trial to mitigate some of the current adoption barriers, the author argues these barriers are interdependent. Therefore mitigation of one, will not necessarily equate to increased adoption, until others are also lowered. However, if current barriers were lowered in future, the experience (if positive) could premarket condition by having consumers evaluate their purchase decision from step four within the adoption cycle. Figure 41 Five stages of the adoption process with possible influence of tourism trial (Rogers 1976) Reasoning that consumers who tried wearables during tourism, would move more rapidly through the adoption cycle steps of one to four. As change agents can educate on features/benefits and ease apprehensions over the degree of difficulty by providing user’s training. High entry cost could be mitigated by a small rental fee, although it cannot overcome the current high price point. However, consumers have shown historically though high sales of expensive smartphones that they will pay a premium if the cost- benefit outcome is favourable. Therefore, allowing easier access to the diffusion attribute of “Trail Ability” through the low rental fee can help to prime the market, as current technology improves its value add through integration with (IoT), improved applications and enhanced styling. It was concluded that some consumers are more likely to try new experiences while in a holiday mind-set. Similarly, they might feel more comfortable wearing an unfashionable device while in a collective group of others wearing them. Furthermore, social influencers can ignite a fear of missing out, which could be propagated through social media, as they share their experiences. Thereby, also moving their social network to step two (Interest) through increasing awareness of the products. However outside of tourism, aesthetics and social acceptance may still take precedence, especially for an accessory that a consumer may not normally wear (Zajonc 1968). The subjectivity of fashion poses a large challenge for manufactures to create a variety of form factors and styles to meet divergent consumer needs. Until this barrier is lowered, consumers would not likely wear unstylish devices outside of the tourism context (Eddy 2014). The controlled setting of tourism activities can allow developers to maximize the current technological potential, by developing contextually aware positive user experiences. However, adoption for everyday use