Corso di Laurea magistrale (ordinamento ex D.M. 270/2004) in Marketing e Comunicazione
Tesi di Laurea
Hybrid Products: A New Concept Test Model Case Study: Woohoo The Ride
Relatore Ch. Prof. Francesca Checchinato Correlatore Ch. Prof. Boris Durisin
Laureando Edoardo Rossi Matricola 816000
Anno Accademico 2012/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... 5
RÉSUMÉ ...... 6
SINTESI ...... 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 8
TABLE OF EXHIBITS ...... 9
INTRODUCTION ...... 10
OBJECTIVE OF THE PAPER ...... 12
METHODOLOGY USED ...... 13
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND STUDIES ...... 16
1.1 HISTORY OF VIRTUAL REALITY ...... 16
1.2 AMUSEMENT PARKS AND ROLLER COASTERS ...... 19
1.3 VIRTUAL REALITY IN THE AMUSEMENT PARKS ...... 22
1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 25
ON HYBRID PRODUCTS ...... 25
ON CONCEPT TESTING ...... 26
ON SIMILARITY INTERPRETATION ...... 30
CHAPTER II: CONCEPT TEST PART 1 ...... 32
2.1 THE TWO ATTRACTIONS ...... 32
WOOHOO THE RIDE ...... 32
TRANSFORMERS THE RIDE ...... 33
2.2 PRE-TEST: MEASURING SIMILARITIES ...... 33
DESIGN ...... 33
MANIPULATIONS ...... 34
OBJECTIVES ...... 34
2 METHODOLOGY ...... 34
2.3: ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ...... 35
DISCUSSIONS ...... 36
2.4 TEST 1: INFERENCES EVALUATION OF THE HYBRID PRODUCT ...... 37
DESIGN ...... 37
OBJECTIVES ...... 38
METHODOLOGY ...... 38
2.5 ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ...... 40
INTEREST ...... 40
UNIQUENESS ...... 41
PURCHASE INTENTION ...... 42
OVERALL LIKING ...... 44
PRODUCT BELIEFS ...... 46
WILLINGNESS TO PAY ...... 48
DISCUSSIONS ...... 48
CHAPTER III: CONCEPT TEST PART 2 ...... 52
3.1 TEST 2: STUDY ON CONSUMERS PURCHASING CHOICES ...... 52
DESIGN ...... 52
OBJECTIVES ...... 53
METHODOLOGY ...... 53
3.2: ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ...... 54
DISCUSSIONS ...... 60
3.3 MOORE’S ANALYSIS ...... 60
THE FIRST GAP ...... 63
THE CHASM ...... 63
THE THIRD GAP ...... 65
CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSIONS ...... 66
3 4.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH ...... 66
4.2 KEY FINDINGS ...... 67
4.3 MANAGERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ...... 68
4.4 LIMITS OF THE RESEARCH ...... 69
4.5 FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 71
REFERENCES ...... 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 72
WEBOGRAPHY AND VIDEOGRAPHY ...... 75
APPENDIX A: SIMILARITY TEST ...... 77
APPENDIX B: TEST 1 ...... 78
APPENDIX C: TEST 2 ...... 80
4 ABSTRACT
Successful innovations are the ones that open completely new markets, fulfilling unserved needs. In the last years, the union of different products’ features created many innovative products. These are called hybrid products, as they can be classified in more than one category. The purpose of this research paper is to study a hybrid product innovation and to develop a reliable model of concept testing for these particular multiple categories goods. In the specific, this innovation concerns amusement parks and their most widespread attractions: the roller coasters. Virtual reality features are added to the roller coaster, in order to enhance users experience. The attraction will provide users with head-mounted displays, issuing virtual images and sound. Consumers’ evaluations will be analysed in a new method, which combines different studies and methodologies. This method will examine: if the tested idea is creating new value; if consumers will appreciate it; if it has the possibility to compete in the theme park market, planning strategies of segments’ invasion.
5 RÉSUMÉ
Innovations couronnées de succès sont celles qui ouvrent des marchés complètement nouveaux, répondant à des besoins non desservies. Dans les dernières années, de nombreux produits innovants ont été la création par la fusion des caractéristiques de différents produits. Ceux-ci s'appellent produits hybrides, car ils peuvent être classés dans plus d'une catégorie. Le mémoire de recherche a pour but d'étudier une innovation de produit hybride et de développer un modèle fiable des concepts tests de ces produits qui appartiennent à plusieurs catégories. En particulier, cette innovation concerne les parcs à thème et leurs attractions les plus répandues: les montagnes russes. Fonctionnalités de réalité virtuelle sont ajoutés à des montagnes russes, afin d'améliorer l'expérience des utilisateurs. L'attraction offrira aux utilisateurs visiocasques, qui permettent l'émission des images virtuelles et des sons. Les évaluations des consommateurs seront analysées dans une nouvelle méthode, qui combine différentes études et des méthodes variées. Cette méthode permet de dire : si l'idée testée apporte la création d'une nouvelle valeur ; si les consommateurs l’apprécieront ; et si elle a la possibilité de concourir dans le marché des parcs à thème, en planificant des stratégies d'invasion.
6 SINTESI
Le innovazioni di successo sono quelle che riescono ad aprire mercati completamente nuovi, approcciando bisogni non ancora serviti. Negli ultimi anni, sono stati creati molti prodotti innovativi nati dall’unione delle funzionalità di prodotti diversi. Questi sono chiamati prodotti ibridi, classificati dai consumatori in più di un'unica categoria. La ricerca della tesi ha l’obiettivo di studiare un prodotto ibrido innovativo e sviluppare un modello affidabile di concept test per questo tipo particolare di prodotto. Nello specifico, questa innovazione riguarda i parchi di divertimento e la loro più diffusa attrazione: le montagne russe. La realtà virtuale è stata aggiunta alle montagne russe, per aumentare l’esperienza degli utenti. Un casco con visore 3-D è fornito ai visitatori dell’attrazione, abilitando immagini virtuali e suoni. La tesi analizzerà le valutazioni dei consumatori riguardo l’attrazione usando una nuova metodologia, che combina diversi studi e tecniche. Questo metodo testerà: la creazione di nuovo valore; il grado di apprezzamento dei consumatori; la competizione all’interno dei parchi di divertimento, progettando possibili strategie per invadere il mercato.
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Writing a dissertation is a long process that is not possible without the support of people next to you. This paper is not an exception.
I am indebted to my supervisor, prof. Boris Durisin. He has been determinant for the outcome of this research. I would like to thank him for the motivation he was able to give me when I started to feel less convinced on the project. There was a moment when I wanted to replace the topic of this research with another one, more ordinary. With one sentence he was able to remind me how special is for me this project.
My special thanks are dedicated to the people who believed in my idea and supported me from the beginning. Dr. Chiminazzo, who advised me and gave me the possibility to pitch the idea, dr. Cangianelli and Mr. Piciucchi, for giving me their precious time to listen to my thoughts. I hope to pay back their kindness one day.
I would like to thank all the people who answered to my survey and didn’t get angry even if I lied on his length. Your responses made me happy and proud.
My friends deserve a big and lovely thank you. Thanks to the guys from Bassano del Grappa, in which I can always count even if they are 1000 km far away from where I am. Thanks to all the people I met here at ESCP, it was a great time in the library and then in the bar. Most of all, I strongly thank my friends of the double degree of Ca’ Foscari. We created an awesome team, supporting each other on this memoire and becoming a family. You are great guys and I really hope you can achieve your dreams.
I would like to express my biggest gratitude to my family. From my parents to my aunts and grandmothers, they are always supporting me from home. It is easy for me to feel their true love. The most special thanks goes to my parents Eddi and Grazia and to my brother Francesco. They are making enormous efforts to let me study in one of the best schools and realise my dreams. I will never forget what you are doing.
And finally, to Viviana, without whom, nothing for me is ever possible.
8 TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Advertising of the first “Transformers The Ride” in Singapore
Exhibit 2: Rogers’ diffusion of an innovation curves
Exhibit 3: Similarity ratings for the noun pair “roller coaster – virtual reality”
Exhibit 4: Results of overall liking ratings
Exhibit 5: Overall liking two boxes percentages and level of significance
Exhibit 6: Means and t-test levels for product beliefs concerning moving sensations
Exhibit 7: Willingness to pay to go in the attractions
Exhibit 8: Choices Diagram – Woohoo The Ride section
Exhibit 9: Overall liking ratings – “Woohoo Lovers” vs. “Woohoo Likers”
Exhibit 10: Choices Diagram – Transformers The Ride section
Exhibit 11: Visual description of “Woohoo The Ride”
Exhibit 12: Visual Description of “Transformers The Ride”
9 INTRODUCTION
Innovation is at present the key element for the success of companies. It is seen as a process that gives the possibility to open new markets, meet different customers and expand companies’ businesses. In the last 50 years, technologic innovation is grown as never before, from computers as big as an entire room to mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. This process is not stopping, but rather increasing his velocity. Patents applications are growing, reaching in 2011 the impressive number of 432 thousands just in the US. These patents are protecting the most advanced technologic innovations, which will become the source of new businesses and the entrance key for completely new unserved markets.
Innovation degree of new products coming out on the market is different for each of them. There are different typologies of possible product innovations. Gregan-Paxton and Roedder (1997) define really new products as innovations that are not included in any product category, but rather they form a separate one. The iPod is an example of really new product, which creates a new category never seen before on the market. On the other hand, new products are considered for instance new models or brands in existing categories. The new model of the iPhone can be included in this classification, as it is an innovation on the smartphone category. However, there is a third category, which stays in the middle: hybrid products.
Hybrid or ambiguous products are innovative products, which belong to more than one category. They are products, which combine feature of different products in one. For instance, the smartphone is an ambiguous product, as it combines features of a mobile phone, a camera and a personal organizer (PDA). Consumers are in general used to classify products in just one category, producing inferences depending on it. It is not easy for them to distinguish between the multiple categories a hybrid product belongs to. Therefore, when testing consumers’ evaluations on a new hybrid product, it is not possible to use standard concept testing. This paper will provide a reliable method to
10 test a hybrid concept, accustoming respondents to make inferences through multiple categories.
In the specific, a new hybrid roller coaster concept will be tested. This roller coaster, called “Woohoo The Ride”, is combining the amusement park attraction with a virtual reality device. This new attraction will increase users experience transporting them into a parallel world while being on the ride. The concept idea is compared with the most advanced virtual reality attraction in the world: “Transformers The Ride”. This attraction is similarly combining the two categories but with a different virtual reality device. While “Transformers The Ride” uses 3-D glasses and 3-D screens to simulate another environment, “Woohoo The Ride” uses head-mounted displays (HMD). HMD image quality is better than the usual 3-D glasses and screen method, as it cover all the point of view of the user.
Different measurements are composing the concept test. At first, a similarity test is made in order to understand how far the two categories are in consumers’ minds and to habituate them to property interpretation. This step is necessary for a concept test studying a hybrid product. Different studies on the interpretation of words combinations show that if two concepts are interpreted transferring properties from one to the other, then inferences on ambiguous products are made taking into account its multiple categories. On the contrary, if a hybrid product is judge using other types of interpretation, it will be classified in just one category. Hence, it was necessary to start the test accustoming respondents to property interpretation.
The test measures key performance indicators of “Woohoo The Ride” such as product interest, uniqueness, overall liking and purchase intention. The results are compared with the same measurements for “Transformers The Ride”, to see which features are considered better and which are considered worse. Then, respondents will be put in a real purchasing situation in which they are asked to choose between the two attractions depending on the waiting time in line. This method provides clear results of consumers’ preferences, as they are forced to choose, so to express their beliefs. In addition to this, 4 sub-groups of respondents are defined, depending on their behaviour inside this last test. Coherently with their choices, these groups are among them different in the performance indicators earlier mentioned. Then, from these insights it is possible to divide the market according to their different product perceptions. This
11 division allows defining a marketing strategy to conquer all the market, with the goal of making adopt the product even to the more diffident.
OBJECTIVE OF THE PAPER
In a marketing prospective, the research aimed to provide an effective method for a hybrid product concept test. When testing the validity of a hybrid innovation, it is common use to adopt existing techniques made for really new products concept testing. This is a mistake from marketers, as consumers use to make inferences just on a single category, not considering the other possible classifications of the tested hybrid product. The paper’s final goal is to develop a better model of concept testing, based on usual methods but with the implementation of other specific tools.
From an entrepreneurial point of view, this paper is aiming to collect evaluations and insights about “Woohoo The Ride”. The comparison with “Transformers The Ride” is providing consistent insights, taking as point of reference this existing attraction. The test measures key performance indicators and product beliefs, and compare the results with the ones of the other attraction. Assuming that “Transformers The Ride” is considered as one of the best attractions in the world, the comparison with it will provide consistent and truthful results.
Lastly, this paper is focused on the qualitative analysis of the potential market segments for “Woohoo The Ride”. The definition of different consumers groups allows the research to focus on the ways to overcome the gaps dividing them. In fact, after the study of these groups, it is possible to know the characteristics of their members and define the main differences among the groups. Therefore, this paper aims to understand the most smart and convenient way to diffuse the innovation among different consumers. In fact, having a new technology does not surely mean having a new business. The focus of marketing, when to study the possible ways to spread an innovation, is not to create a new product itself, but rather create new value for consumers. Hence, it is fundamental to know the uncovered needs of the different
12 consumers segments before developing an innovation, then find ways to overcome this lack of offer with the innovative product.
METHODOLOGY USED
The research begins with a general overview of virtual reality and amusement parks market. The approach is at first historical, in order to understand the technologic evolution in those sectors; then a benchmark study is made to overview the technologic level at present and in the near future.
The second part of the research consists in the review of the main literature contributions about concept testing, categorization and innovation diffusion. It is clear after this review that consumers generally encounter problems when to assign an ambiguous product into a specific category. Rajagopal (2004) proved that when respondents interpret a combination of two words or objects using property transfer interpretation, inferences on the hybrid product are more reliable than interpretations using relational transfer. Hence, designing the test, it was necessary to anticipate it with a similarity pre-test, to get respondents used to develop inferences transferring properties from a category to the other.
Test 1 is partially based on inferences evaluation test made by Rajagopal (2004) on hybrid product. Goal of the test is to measure key performance indicators such as product interest, uniqueness, overall liking and purchase intention, to be able to register an overall evaluation of the tested idea. In addition to this, product beliefs are analysed, to understand what consumers think about specific features of the product. To do this, the idea is compared to the most similar on the market in terms of its key features: virtual reality and simulated environment. Rajagopal didn’t use a comparative model, as the goal of his test was to define the ways consumers categorize hybrid products. The comparison is here useful to better understand the quality of the results. In fact, after the data analysis it is possible to define the main points of strengths and weaknesses of the concept idea. The rating averages are then confronted with top box and top 2 boxes responses percentages, as a second confirmation of the findings.
13 Two groups of respondents are selected from the sample and studied separately: early adopters and relationers. Early adopters are selected basing on their technologic level, information acquisition speed and theme park visit frequency. On the other hand, relationers are selected depending on their interpretation of the word combination “roller coaster – virtual reality”. Relationers, contrary to the rest of the sample, used relational interpretation to link the two words. Surprisingly, their interpretation of the combination was linking the two words in the same way the concept product does. For this reason, it is considered useful to analyse this group of respondents separately, to check if they were revealing some interesting insights.
Test 2 is based upon the research of Dahan and Srinivasal (2000). The two authors built a web-based game-like concept test, to forecast the possible market share of some product ideas. Respondents had to choose between different products with fixed price tag at 10$. When a product was chosen, its price tag was doubling till the maximum amount of 40$, then the product was declared sold out. The same methodology is applied to the two attractions under study, with two main differences. First, it was not possible to use price tags, as it is supposed that consumers pay for the entrance ticket of the park and not to access to the attraction. Therefore, consumers’ effort chosen for this test was the time to wait in line. In fact, good attractions are known to have a huge line outside, as all visitors want to go into it. The starting condition was 30 minutes line for both attractions. When one was chosen, its line was increasing by other 30 minutes, with a maximum of 90 minutes per attraction. The second difference is the study made on the results. In the case under study, it was not possible to measure market share. Dahan and Srinivasal were able to do it as they compared the ideas with the real price of other products of the same market. In this case, prices are absent and the line outside “Transformers The Ride” is not measurable as it varies every day. Therefore, the study made on Test 2 is different. It is measured the percentage of respondents’ choices for each attraction and tested if there were any significant differences between them, confirming or not the findings of Test 1. Furthermore, it is possible to define different groups of consumers, according to their behaviours inside the test. These groups of consumers are compared and analysed, to understand what made them do their choices. At the end, also early adopters and relationers choices were analysed.
14 After Test 2, the four groups are compared to the consumers segments defined by Moore in his book “Crossing The Chasm” (1991). The group that strongly preferred “Woohoo The Ride” is associated to Moore’s innovators, on the contrary the group that strongly preferred “Transformers The Ride” is associated to Moore’s late majority. After a detailed description of the groups, the study continues with the analysis of the possible scenarios that “Woohoo The Ride” will encounter, when to cross all the gaps between two adjacent categories. Possible solutions to cross these gaps are suggested, in order to be prepared at the time of the invasion of the following segment.
15 CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND STUDIES
1.1 HISTORY OF VIRTUAL REALITY
“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator.”
Francis Bacon, “Of Innovations”, Essays, 24 (1625)
Francis Bacon, English philosopher of the XVII century, states in his essays the importance of innovation. After 400 years, this concept is still fundamental and widely adopted in business environment. For instance, is widely known that the evolution of technology in the last 50 years has been much more radical than in all other centuries, due to the several progressing innovations developed. A good example is the evolution of computers. The first use of the word “computer” dates in 1613 in a book called “The yong mans gleanings”, written by the English poet Richard Braithwaite. With this word, he referred to a person who carries out calculations or computation. The modern concept of computer machine is associated to George Stibitz, worker at Bell, inventor of the first modern digital computer in 1937. From that moment, scientists and engineers came out with a series of innovations that never happened before.
This technological evolution leads to the creation of virtual reality. Virtual reality is the computer-generated simulation of a 3-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted within a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors. Virtual reality was first dreamed and prototyped by Morton L. Heilig, who invented Sensorama in 1962. This machine is a simulator that provides the illusion of reality
16 using a 3-D motion picture with sounds, vibrations of the seat and wind. This first prototype had quite a success. In fact the US Air Force introduced a similar visual flight simulator in 1966 for plane pilots and many engineers started to work on the topic. In 1968 Ivan Sutherland, American computer scientist, developed the first head-mounted display. It was very low quality in terms of interface and realism, and the dimensions didn’t allow the user to wear it without a support. Be that as it may, Sutherland helmet gave off to intense researches. The scientist in the 1970s, with his company “Evans and Sutherland” purchased General Electric’s flight simulator division and partnered with a UK-based flight simulator company, to produce digital flight simulators. The company developed a computer-based system, in which virtual reality was completely digitalized, replacing videos and models. At the end of the decade, military forces experimented simulators with head-mounted displays and it turned out as a success. In 1985, virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier founded the company VPL Research, which developed the first commercially available “Goggles-and-gloves virtual reality” device. Lanier was able to reduce the dimensions of the machine to just a viewer, adding also the possibility to interact with the virtual world using special gloves. From this first model, the modern concept of virtual reality device took inspiration.
At present, several new innovations came out and helped widespread virtual reality. Sony released in 2011 its ultimate product for virtual reality: Model HMZ-T1, also known as Sony 3-D Viewer. Two different units compose it: the visor and the external processor unit. The visor consists of two mini organic-LED displays providing videos and two earphones providing sound. The external processor unit enables images to be displayed on the viewer. This device drives users into another virtual world, with a very high quality image resolution (1280x720 per eye). US army for recovery reasons is using this device. The problem is that US veterans are facing enormous challenges in the reintegration process after the war. The rate of veterans affected by PTSD (Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder) was at its all-time high. Next to the variety of methods used by clinicians to solve this problem, Skip Rizzo, psychologist working for the US, developed an innovative method, which relies on virtual reality and the Sony 3-D viewer. PTSD sufferers are asked to wear the goggles and immerse themselves again into a war scenario, narrating and overcoming traumatic memories. This project turned out reliable and efficient, as the immersion on the virtual war is complete and close to reality.
17 It is easy to understand that the 3-D viewer is totally not difficult to use. For instance, YouTube member Chris Zaharia uploaded on March 2012 a video showing how he built a virtual reality system alone in his house. The video is called “Skyrim in Virtual Reality using HMZ-T1, TrackIR and Kinect” and counts today around 350.000 visitors. In the video, Zaharia plays with the videogame Skyrim with his personal Xbox, and connects it with 3 devices you can easily find in a technology store. First, he uses Microsoft Kinect and TrackIR to track and recognize movements of body and head, then he wears the Sony HMZ-T1, the 3-D viewers, to immerse in the videogame world. The results are impressive, as he himself becomes the videogame controller and hero, with a total budget of just 1500$. Videogames and entertainment companies are extremely interested in virtual reality development. For instance Electronic Arts, at the launch of his first-person shooting videogame “Battlefield 3”, built a new gaming simulator, with the goal of increasing user interaction in the game. The “Ultimate Battlefield 3 Simulator” has the same concept of the one discussed previously, with the difference of 3-D screens instead of 3-D viewer and the addition of 360-degrees treadmills around the user enabling movements. At present, virtual reality gaming experience is no more for pioneers. There are projects under development that will allow users to enter totally in the virtual game world. The most technologically advanced project is being developed from “Oculus VR”, a US company that is producing and about to launch their first head- mounted display, called Oculus Rift. This 3-D viewer is specially made for videogames experience, with the goal of revolutionize home-gaming business. This HMD is qualitatively very high; the outside world is nearly blocked out, in order to give a full immersion into the virtual world. 32 videogames developers already decided to adapt their next titles to this HMD and many others will follow.
Virtual reality is used now not just by the army or videogames developers, but also in many different fields. Education system has just begun to understand the potential of virtual reality devices. Training finds in virtual reality a good ally: astronauts, technical engineers and surgeons for instance can train themselves with virtual simulations, with the chance of making mistakes and learn from them. Also, designing a car or planning a new building construction has never been easier. Virtual reality allows producers to build several prototypes and test them at very low costs.
18 To conclude this historical brief, virtual reality is a technology that just started its development. It needs lots of other features and innovations to be widespread and used by everybody. Anyhow, it has the chances to radically change people’s lives forever. Virtual reality is the next step of hi-tech innovation process, and in it starts this research, as a hybrid world between reality and fantasy.
1.2 AMUSEMENT PARKS AND ROLLER COASTERS
1884 is remembered as the birth of roller coasters. In that year, some innovative and enterprising Americans built and developed this attraction, revolutionary for those times. The majority of experts in the field attribute the invention to LaMarcus Adna Thompson. Considered as the father of the roller coaster, he brought to Coney Island the first modern prototype in April 1884. His attraction, called Switchback Railway, was so impressing that the amusement park was able to earn till 600$ a day, with a 5 cents ticket, just for that attraction. In three weeks the investment was recovered, making everybody aware about the potential of this business. However, with a more careful analysis, it is possible to see that history of roller coaster creation is not exactly as many expert websites affirm. Earlier patents exist, as G. Taylor’s #128,674 of July 2nd, 1872 and R. Knudsen’s #198,888 of January 1st, 1878, but for unknown reasons they were never built. The only earlier patent, which was effectively built, is Alanson Wood’s #291,216 of January 1st, 1884. New York Times reported an article from the Augusta Chronicle, entitled “Sliding up hills”. The article, which is here reported entirely as it represents a piece of history, exclaimed: “A circular railway has been built at Ponce de Leon Springs. The new railway is a wooden structure forming a circle, being 4 feet wide, 500 feet long, inside of which is laid the track for the cars, and is so graded that the cars run themselves, the highest point above the ground being 22 feet 6 inches, and the lowest point touching the ground. Mr Wood, at one time a poor carpenter of Toledo Ohio, is the inventor of the circular railroad, having conceived the idea from witnessing children slide down the hills on their slide boards, he arguing that if they could slide down hill they could slide up hill, a demonstration of which is witnessed in the circular railway.” Despite the writing style, typical of the XIX century, this article is an evidence
19 of a primitive roller coaster, built in June 27th, 1884. Looking to patent’s issuing date, Thompson’s #310,966 of January 20th, 1885, is much later than the Wood one. As shown from these evidences, Wood submitted the patent more than one year before Thompson, but the latter actually built the attraction, the first known roller coaster, before the Ohio carpenter. If we believe to Wood words, we can conclude he was the real inventor of the roller coaster as we know it, but it is not possible to certainly attribute him this invention. Certainly, Thompson has been the first real entrepreneur on roller coaster industry and opened a new era in amusement parks.
The Switchback Railway is not Thompson’s most famous invention. After the huge success of Coney Island roller coaster, he started collaborating with another designer, James A. Griffiths, and hired as chief engineer John Miller, a fundamental figure for amusement parks later on. This team designed in 1887 the so-called “Scenic Railway”, a roller coaster surrounded by artificial scenery. The attraction had an incredible success and immediately became the most famous in the world. This represents the first trial of adding virtual reality sceneries into a moving attraction. As the technology at time was very limited, it was necessary to build a real scenography like in the movie sets. We can just imagine what this brilliant inventor could have done in the present, with 3-D and virtual reality technology. In any case, it is important to consider the fact that the connection between roller coasters and immersive scenography was already seen and successfully developed just three years after the roller coaster invention.
Thompson opened up a big value business and in the years after his company continued developing more creative and sophisticated attractions. He didn’t know actually that his chief engineer John Miller was about to become the most revolutionary roller coaster designer in history. His patent #1,319,888 of October 28th, 1919 protect the so-called “Miller under friction wheels”. This mechanism consists in a wheel that runs under the track to keep the coaster cars from flying off. This innovation pushed roller coaster limit much higher, as designers could develop railways with vertical and tight curves and increase the speed. This mechanism became essential for all the roller coaster industry, which saw its golden era during those years. In the 1920s, the industry was at its highest point and many different parks opened in the US. There are two reasons behind this huge success. First, it was a completely new experience for people,
20 with open space for innovations and variety. Second, at time it was the only entertainment product for consumers except for theatres and clubs. So, it caught the enormous market segment of families and children. Unfortunately, the Great Depression and the following World War II undermined the roller coaster market. Raw materials were used just for the army, surely not for the maintenance of amusement parks. Also, new other entertainment channels appeared as the television, and families went to the amusement parks less often.
The industry strongly rose again in 1955 thanks to the movie producer Walt Disney. He thought to combine amusement parks with his movies, effectively creating the first properly called theme park. The base of Disney’s strategy was to make people entirely go out from the real world for a day. In order to do this, he created in Anaheim, CA an imaginary world called “Disneyland”. The central point was no more the attraction itself, but rather the experience of consumers. From this on, almost every park surrounded its attractions with a theme, and for the industry it looked like going back on time to the golden age. Again we can see that amusement and theme parks are exactly made to make people immerse into another world. This can be considered as the second step of virtual reality into amusement parks system.
Concerning roller coasters, after the 1920s golden age their image on people decreased dramatically. It happened basically because of the deterioration state in which many coasters were. As said previously, resources were used for other things and not for the attractions’ maintenance. This lead to the decline of roller coaster status and many of them were abandoned or blew down. Fortunately, engineering innovations helped the industry recovery during the 1970s. In those years, roller coasters were made mainly by steel pipes, feature allowing designers to build more fast, complicated and scary attractions. At present, roller coasters are going faster than ever, composed by loops and other mazy manoeuvres. The same company, the Swiss-based Intamin AG, built all the 3 fastest roller coasters in the world. Formula Rossa, at the Ferrari World Abu Dhabi Theme Park is the world’s fastest, reaching the speed of 240km/h. The highest, almost 140m high, is the Kingda Ka at the Six Flags Park located in Jackson NJ, and it is again produced by Intamin AG. In the world now there are 3185 running roller coasters, 3013 of these made by steel. The continent that has more roller coaster is Asia
21 with 1402 attractions, followed by Europe (810) and North America (750), which has lost his historical leadership in this chart.
1.3 VIRTUAL REALITY IN THE AMUSEMENT PARKS
“What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.”
Morpheus, The Matrix, 1999
This quote from “The Matrix”, worldwide famous movie, gets directly to the point about virtual reality and human sensations. As the technology evolves, virtual reality is getting closer and closer to the real world. Sensations people feel are real, just the environment is simulated. In fact, electronic games and amusement parks are catching the wave and investing into virtual reality. Videogames, as it is discussed earlier, are trying to build an immersive environment in order to turn consumers from players into controllers. Amusement parks are, in the other hand, trying to add virtual reality in the attraction in order to provide different scenarios and the possibility of interaction with it.
The first example to take into consideration is the so-called “4-D cinema”. It consists in a regular cinema combining 3-D screens with physical effects such as moving chairs, water, smells, smoke and other sensorial features. Users in this way are immersing in the movie and reality effects are improved. Usually theme parks use to show roller coaster based movies in their 4-D cinemas. The most common is for instance the coalmine railway movie, with fixed point of view in the wagon. With this system, the railway is simulated and the seats are moving according to the video contents. Indeed, the simulation is quite limited as users are in a completely different scenario from the one displayed on the screen. This attraction represented an innovation for theme parks when it came out, but now the enthusiasm is waned. 4-D cinema is still an interesting matter for Hollywood movies, as it is a chance to attract more people to the theatres, but it is no more something exceptional for theme parks industry.
22 Dark rides are at present the attraction in which virtual reality is better suited. These railways surrounded by scenery have always been present in amusement parks. The first example of a dark ride is the previously mentioned “Scenic Railway”. Built in 1887 on the boardwalk of Atlantic City, NJ by the already mentioned pioneers of amusement parks L.A. Thompson and J.A. Griffiths, it was decorated inside with artificial scenery to simulate a new different environment. In fact, while many rides just focus on physical sensations, dark rides focus mostly on imagination and emotions. After few years, scenic railways were built all around the US. The most popular at the beginning of the XX century was the so-called “Old Mill” or “Tunnel of Love”. An Old Mill ride is an unaccompanied boat ride that goes through a dark tunnel decorated with romantic or historical landscapes. Due to the high costs of building an Old Mill ride, two entrepreneurs, Leon Cassidy and Marvin Rempfer, started in the 1920s to develop a cheaper ride, still maintaining the typical dark atmosphere. In 1928 their first dark ride premiered in Bridgeton, NJ. Cars following an electric truck inside a dark tunnel replaced boats. In the years after, this attraction became one of the most popular in theme parks. Dark rides were no more seen as a romantic attraction, but rather an entertaining and scaring experience. In fact, new features were added to impress customers, as scary figures, terrifying sounds effects and horror-based scenery.
Nowadays, these attractions are gaining the same success as decades ago. Obviously the concept of dark ride is completely renovated now, as new technologic features were added in during the last 20 years. Scenery is more complicated and realistic and railways are faster, winding and fearful. Recently, shooting dark rides were developed, providing passengers with guns to shoot targets during the ride. An example is the “Toy Story: Buzz Lightyear’s Space Ranger Spin” at Disney’s Magic Kingdom, in Florida. However, the most innovative revolution at present is the application of virtual reality in the ride. Universal Studios, in partnership with Oceaneering International, built the most advanced model of dark ride in 2011 at the Universal Studios Singapore. Now this attraction is present also at Universal Studios Hollywood and will open in summer 2013 at universal Studios Florida. This attraction is basically a dark ride, but instead of physical scenery, the tunnel is fulfilled with 3-D screens, making virtual scenery effects. The attraction, called “Transformers The Ride”, is based on the famous Transformers movie franchise. It consists of vehicle-mounted motion platforms, which follow a 610m long track (exhibit 1). 3-D screens along the tunnel project 3-D images of
23 various Transformers characters fighting between each other. This attraction, cost 100 million $ and it is considered one of the best in the world and the most advanced theme park attraction combining railways with virtual reality.
A different but highly innovative concept that is catching on nowadays is the virtual reality theme park. Futurscope, the France’s second most popular theme park, is based on 3-D and 4-D cinema-like attractions and it is becoming one of the biggest players in Europe. In 2010 in fact, Futurscope had the fastest visitor growth numbers of any major European theme park. In South Korea, “Live Park 4-D World Tour”, a Kinect- powered theme park, opened last year. All of its attractions are based on virtual reality and interaction is possible thanks to the Xbox movement-tracking device.
It is clear now that the mingling of virtual reality and theme park attractions represents the future of entertainment industry. Since the beginning of the theme park era, entrepreneurs were focused on pushing forward the limit of their attraction, by increasing their speed and loops. Nowadays, a new trend is coming out, made possible by the rapid innovation in the high tech industry. Virtual reality is a mechanism able to fool human eyes, redefining the limits of an entire industry. In the next future, more adaptation of virtual reality in the attractions will be present in theme parks, opening up a new huge business opportunity and attracting consumers never seen before in a theme park.
Exhibit 1: Advertising of the first “Transformers The Ride” in Singapore
24 1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW
This paragraph will go through the existing literature concerning hybrid products, concept testing and similarity interpretation. These researches are used later on to evaluate and compare the two products.
ON HYBRID PRODUCTS
Many new products nowadays are ambiguous in terms of categorization and characteristics. With categorization we intend the process of grouping and labelling objects together according to some basis. (Medin, Ross and Markman, 2011). These innovations present features from different products, combined together in order to create a new one. For instance, smartphones belong to this category, as they are the result generated from the task unification of mobile phones, cameras and PDAs. Marketing calls them hybrid products or ambiguous products.
Categorization is essential on predicting consumers’ inferences. People have to deal with a huge amount of different products every day. To be able to judge and choose it is necessary for them to classify the product into a specific category and make comparisons between a target (i.e. a new product) and a base (i.e. categorical knowledge) (Basu, 1993). That is, define the range of attributes to consider when to evaluate a product, then the product group to which make comparisons.
Consumers tend to categorize hybrid products into a single category. This choice is driven by marketing, which provides them category cues. Without it, consumers are likely to use their current knowledge to label an ambiguous product within an existing category. Doing this, consumers tend to make product inferences that are consistent with the category they labelled it. The reason why consumers do not make multiple category inferences is because they tend to not pay attention to category inconsistent attributes, but rather just to category consistent ones(Rajagopal, 2004).
The categorization process of hybrid products, comparing to non-hybrid products, is more complicated. The reason stays in the presence of multiple potential
25 target categories in which the hybrid product can be assigned, instead of just one in the case of non-hybrids. The most consumers are familiar with the product, the easiest will be for them to label it with a specific category. For instance, when evaluating a hybrid television/recorder, consumers were more able to categorize it as a television. The reason is that consumers are familiar with that product. On the other hand, with a hair dryer/iron, the effect of hybridness on categorization is not significant, as consumers are not familiar with the products they need to categorize (Kai, Morel, 2006)
On the evaluation of hybrid product, single-category inferences lead to a more favourable evaluation when the hybrid product focus is on the primary goal of the category. That means advertising should focus specially on the goal attribute of a category, in order to receive more reliable evaluations (Kim, Hyun, Park, 2011).
ON CONCEPT TESTING
Concept testing is defined from Page and Rosenbaum as “the marketing research- based approaches employed to assess the marketability of a product or service idea prior to its actual development” (Page, Rosenbaum, 1992). It is generally presented in a survey-based methodology. Crawford and Di Benedetto defined the objectives and guidelines on the design of a concept test. They set as concept test objectives the elimination of the weak concepts, the prediction of sales or trial rate, and the generation of further original ideas. The two economists also affirm that in order to design a test in a proper way, it is fundamental to define stimuli design, responses measurements and respondents selection.
Stimuli design represents the way in which the concept and relative contents are presented in the test. Concept is usually presented with a statement, which can be designed with a factual or persuasive tone (Lees, Wright, 2004). Researches on the differences between stripped and embellished statements confirm that there is just a minor difference on the early concept screening between the two ways of presentation. With stripped we define simple, descriptive and non-emotional statements, while embellished are advertising style statements. It is better, in the case of evaluating and comparing a few products, to use embellished version of the statement, as it is what customers are exposed to.
26 The use of visual design can improve the reliability of consumers’ evaluation. Dahan and Srinivasal (2000) tested the market share predictable power of different test designs. They compared written attribute levels (AF: attribute-only, full-profile), static colour rendering showing the product in different positions (WS: web static), animated colour rendering (WA: web animated), and physical customer-ready prototype (PP). The base idea is that every test design improves the representation of the concept and clarifies product characteristics. They found significant improvements on market share predictions from an only verbal design to a drawing or animated design, which lead to affirm that aesthetic elements are important on concept evaluation.
Concerning responses measurements, it is important to investigate on main performance indicators as overall liking, interest, uniqueness and purchase intention (Crawford, Di Benedetto, 2006). Questions on purchase intention are built in different price levels, in order to understand how much a respondent wants to buy the product. Indicators are evaluated on averages, top box and top two boxes.
An important part of concept testing is defining respondents. In order to have consistent insights, it is better to distinguish respondents according to the way the market will be divided. The market, as explained in Rogers’ Model of Diffusion of an Innovation (1962), is defined by 5 different groups of customers, depending on the speed of innovation adoption. The categories are: innovators, early adopters, early
Exhibit 2: Rogers’ diffusion of an innovation curves
27 majority, late majority and laggards (Exhibit 2).
Rogers affirm on his book that, in order to have a successful diffusion of an innovation, a company has to go through innovators and early adopters before going into the mass market. The economist also defines characteristics that influence an individual’s decision on the adoption or rejection of an innovation:
- Relative Advantage: the degree to which the idea is perceived to be better and different from existing products. - Compatibility: the degree to which an innovation force users to change their behaviours. - Complexity: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as simple or complicated to use. - Trialability: the degree to which an innovation can be experimented by consumers. - Observability: The degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others.
If an innovative product owns these 5 characteristics, the adoption process would be easier and faster.
Rogers’ theory gained a lot of success and it became the base approach for new products marketing strategies. However, as G.A. Moore says in his book “Crossing the Chasm” (1991), the model changes depending on the innovation degree of the product. There are two kinds of innovations: continuous innovations, which add or improve one or more features in the already existing product, and disruptive innovations, which break the rules and provide revolutionary and different products for the market, opening up new value trajectories. Disruptive innovations force customers to change their behaviour and make efforts to adopt it. That’s why these innovations are not easy and fast to adopt. If Rogers’ diffusion model is linear and goes automatically through the different consumers categories, Moore separates all consumers’ profiles. The author observed the presence of gaps between innovators, early adopters, early majority and late majority, underlining the importance of filling these gaps before approaching the following segment. The reason behind these gaps stays on different goals and attitudes each segment has. For instance, innovators tend to appreciate technology for its own
28 sake; they are enthusiasts to it try out and discover what it is. On the other hand, high tech early adopters, called also visionaries, are not technology savvy, but rather they look to match innovations with strategic opportunities to take value from it. As the two groups have different interests, it is necessary to find a way to bridge the gap, in order to bring to early adopters the innovation. The most important gap, which is also the most difficult to overcome, is called by Moore “The Chasm”. It is the gap between early adopters and early majority and it represents the last step before entering the mass market. Like innovators, early majority are very different from early adopters. Early adopters want to be the first to adopt a technology in order to get a jump on competition, while early majorities want to buy a productivity improvement for existing operations. For them, consumption is a social activity, as they need to see real benefits before adopting an innovation. In order to overcome the chasm, Moore provides a strategic method, which is considered as the milestone from entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. Briefly, this method consists in 4 steps:
- “Target the point of attack”: target a specific niche market and focus all resources on achieving the dominant leadership position in that segment. - “Assemble the invasion force”: build a strategy to go into this market. To be successful, it is fundamental to create a unique value proposition, going towards the compelling reasons to buy your product. Providing solutions for these segment’s unserved needs will lead the innovation to a monopoly, as it fulfils those reasons to buy. - “Define the battle”: understand who or what is the competition in all their characteristics, from their relationships with the market to ways to force them out of the target market. - “Launch the invasion”: defining distribution channels and price strategies in order to launch the offer in the targeted market.
This method is useful for companies to overcome the chasm and go to the mass market, where real money are. Following these steps, it will be possible to successfully spread a discontinuous innovation to each target segments and make it become a standard for the market.
29 ON SIMILARITY INTERPRETATION
The literature on conceptual interpretation of noun-noun combinations focuses on the understanding of why and how people make these interpretations. Noun – noun combinations are pair of words or concepts such as “beer – glass” or table – dinner”. An understanding of the different interpretation practices is important as it impacts on categorization, as well as on inferences. Different interpretation strategies of word combinations lead to different inferences.
The process of conceptual combination is the interpretation of two different concepts in order to determine how they fit together to form a new concept. The order of words is fundamental in the interpretation. The head category is the second word while the modifier category is the first. For instance, on the combination “movie – television”, television is the head category while movie is the modifier category. The combination can be interpreted as a television showing a movie. Costello and Keane (2001) defined three different kinds of possible interpretations:
- Property interpretations: people create a new combination by transferring a property of one concept to the other (e.g. “whale – boat” is a boat as big as a whale). - Relational interpretations: people create a relational link between the two concepts combined (e.g. “sofa – cat” is a cat sitting on the sofa) - Conjunctive interpretations: people create a new concept that is the combination between the two concepts (e.g. “pet – bird” is a bird which is also a pet).
Typically with property interpretations, properties are transferred from the modifier word to the headword. Property and relational interpretations are the most frequently used by respondents (Wisniewsky, Gentner, 1991). Interpretation strategies are important, as they influence inferences and beliefs on the combination.
When people are asked to make interpretations, they use to compare the head and modifier concepts. Interpretations differ depending on the similarity degree between the two concepts. For instance, when comparing the words “window – door”, respondents are able to give many different interpretations as the concepts are similar and it is easier to transfer attributes. On the other hand, when comparing the words “window – book”, respondents are not able to vary on interpretations, as the concepts
30 are distant and it is difficult to transfer properties from one to the other (Rajagopal, 2004). Therefore, if two concepts are similar it may be possible to prime similar combinations with different interpretations (Wisnievsky, 1998). Hence, it is possible to prime property interpretations among respondents such as inferences about a hybrid product might include inferences about alternative categories (Rajagopal, 2004). This will drive people to label a hybrid product within one single category, while providing inferences about both the categories of the product.
To summarize, people make inferences basing attributes of the category in which the concept is defined. Property interpretation has its focus on the properties possessed by the inconsistent category, while relational interpretation has its focus on the possible relations between the two categories. Property interpretations take more into consideration attributes belonging to the inconsistent category. Therefore, when looking for inferences on hybrid products, which belong into more than one category, it will lead on properties transfer between the consistent and inconsistent category.
31 CHAPTER II
CONCEPT TEST PART 1
TESTING CONSUMERS INFERENCES
This paper compares two hybrid products combining roller coaster rides with virtual reality devices. The two products are “Woohoo The Ride”, concept of an new attraction, studied in this paper and “Transformers The Ride”, the new and most technologically advanced amusement park attraction in the world, designed by Universal Studios.
2.1 THE TWO ATTRACTIONS
WOOHOO THE RIDE
“Woohoo The Ride” is a new hybrid product concept of a theme park attraction that combines roller coasters and 3-D virtual reality. The base structure is a generic roller coaster railway, in where users ride into wagons or other kinds of vehicles. The difference with already existing roller coasters is that users are provided with head- mounted displays (a sort of visor with small HD screens, enabling to see 3-D images in all the visual field). Users will experience the sensation of speed, as they are in a roller coaster, but they will see different and virtual track and environment around them. Simulated speed can be infinitely high and users’ sensations are extremely enhanced.
32 TRANSFORMERS THE RIDE
The new Universal studio attraction called "Transformers the Ride” is a new experience combining a railway structure with virtual reality. The concept used is the same as the well-known dark rides, with the difference in the scenery. In fact, while generic dark rides have physical scenery, “Transformers The Ride” is fulfilled with 3-D screens. Users are sitting in wagons and are provided with 3-D glasses. A Transformers short movie is displayed in the 3-D screens for the entire rail trip, allowing the audience to feel the sensation of being into a virtual Transformers world. With this technique, the simulated speed of the ride goes close to 100 km/h.
2.2 PRE-TEST: MEASURING SIMILARITIES
The objective of this study was to test consumers’ evaluation of an ambiguous product idea, and test the possibility to find differences on the comparison with another similar product. The study was designed as a multiple-choice questionnaire using an online-based software and 69 responses were collected.
DESIGN
A study was designed to test how consumers interpret the relationship between virtual reality and roller coasters. The goal of this test is to understand how distant are the two concepts in the mind of customers. Respondents had to rate the similarity of two pairs of concepts (from 1 to 7, 1 = very similar). After this, they were asked to express their interpretations on the relationship between the two nouns. This pre-test is based on Rajagopal’s research (2004), in which similarity test is provided before the evaluation test on a hybrid product. Rajagopal’s similarity test was designed as a single factor study. The types of primes were the test variables: property vs. relational combination. The economist with this test studied the differences on evaluation of hybrid products, depending on the kind of prime. He found out that the use of property interpretation on hybrid products leads respondent to take into consideration not just
33 the category in which the product is labelled, but rather a broad range of categories. This is made possible by property interpretation, as it induce consumers to transfer properties between the categories composing the ambiguous product. Hence, inferences on hybrid products under property interpretation are more consistent than with relational interpretation. Questions are reported in Appendix A
MANIPULATIONS
Priming manipulation was adapted from Rajagopal’s similarity test. There were 9 couples of concepts, 6 of them were property prime combinations and the other 3 were target combinations. The couple of words were taken from Rajagopal’s test, as they were already tested and correctly interpreted. Target combinations were ambiguous combinations, as they could have been interpreted in both property and relational way. They were useful to understand if respondents, after 6 property primes, were used to interpret the concepts transferring properties from one to another.
OBJECTIVES
The goal of this pre-test was to make people used to interpret concepts using property interpretation. In this way, they will make inferences on the hybrid product mainly transferring properties from the consistent category to the inconsistent one. Hence,
H1: There is a significant difference perceived between the two concepts “roller coaster – virtual reality”.
H2: Property primes will lead to a property interpretation of the target combinations.
METHODOLOGY
The mean of the similarity rating was calculated for each couple, to understand how different the two concepts are perceived in respondents’ minds. The data collected
34 are normally distributed and the sample was representative for the entire population. This allowed a Z-test of significance on means’ differences.
2.3: ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
The average similarity of “roller coaster – virtual reality” combination was 5.22 (SD=1.53), indicating that the two categories are perceived as being very dissimilar. Ratings varied between 1 and 7, but with a significant difference in the amount. Two respondents rated the two concepts as very similar, while 20 respondents, representing the 29% of the sample, rated them very dissimilar (Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 3: Similarity rating for the noun pair "roller coaster - virtual reality"
The average ratings for the other pairs ranged between 2.86 (SD=1.50) to 5.90 (SD=1.71) and value range was from 1 to 7, indicating that respondents used the entire range of rating. The most similar rated concept pair was “pencil – pen”, the most dissimilar was “chair – octopus”. In order to understand if there is a significant difference between the goal combination and the others, a p-value test is made, comparing ratings of the combinations “pencil – pen” and “roller coaster – virtual reality”. The result revealed a significant difference between the perceived similarities of the two pairs (Z=-9.22; p=.00), meaning that the goal combination is considered not as
35 similar as “pencil pen”. If the goal combination is compared with an average rated pair, results do not change. For instance, the pair “motorbike – bicycle” (M=4.25; SD=1.74) can be considered as rated in the average, so not similar neither dissimilar. Proceeding with a z-test between the two pairs, it is possible to confirm again a significant difference between the two means (Z=-3.51; p=.00). These results show that H1 is supported, and virtual reality and roller coaster are two concepts considered dissimilar.
Concerning interpretation, primes were adapted in order to induce respondents to analyse them according to property transfers. Responses were classified into three groups: property interpretations, relational and other. For instance, the couple “pencil – pen” was interpreted with property transfers, i.e. “both are used to write”, with relational interpretation, i.e. “an erasable pen” or with other or meaningless interpretations as “they are not similar”. Respondents’ property interpretations mean on the first 6 property primes is higher than 70%. Just in a single case, with the pair “chair octopus”, respondents were not able to express interpretations, as 80% of them were classified into “other” category. Without taking into consideration this single case, percentage mean of property interpretations for the first 6 primes was 80.9%. It is possible to conclude that property manipulation worked.
For the 3 target primes, the large majority of responses was done using property interpretation (67.6%), while relational interpretation registered 7.7% and other 24.6%. providing evidences for the support of H2. However, for the goal combination, data are different. 50.7% of responses was interpreted with a property approach, 11.6% with relational approach and 37.7% of respondents were not able to answer to the question.
DISCUSSIONS
The lower percentage of property responses concludes that it is not clear and easy to transfer properties between the goal combination concepts and that they are very dissimilar. This fact is confirmed by the number non-respondents for “chair – octopus” combination, which is very high and above the average (78.3%). Hence, if two words are considered dissimilar, property interpretation rate is lower than in the opposite case. In addition to this, the 11.6% relational interpretation responses are very
36 interesting. Interpretations made according to relations point out the integration of virtual reality into an existing roller coaster, like the products about to be tested. This insight is interesting, as it seems to go against Rajagopal’s theories. Rajagopal (2004) concludes his work stating that property primes are better predictors of consumers’ inferences on hybrid products, as they lead to an evaluation, which refers to more than one category. In this specific case, it is noticed that relational interpretations lead respondents to make the connection between the two categories of the hybrid product in the proper way, contradicting Rajagopal’s conclusions. Hence, there is the possibility that his conclusions are valid just in specific cases, while in other situations not. Rajagopal’s experimented his theory on a new technological device, the modern smartphone, which was unifying a PDA system with a camera. The difference between this product and the virtual roller coaster stays on consumers’ experience. While the smartphone is an object that merges the functions of two different devices, the virtual roller coaster blends together sensations and emotions. Hence, it is possible that for these kinds of hybrid products, relational interpretations are more reliable, as the connection between the hybrid product different categories are in a way concerning their relation. However, these findings cannot support clearly this supposition, and further studies are necessary.
2.4 TEST 1: INFERENCES EVALUATION OF THE HYBRID PRODUCT
DESIGN
The study is designed to collect and compare inferences about two hybrid products, one already existing and the other still a concept. The two products are the already mentioned “Woohoo The Ride” and “Transformers The Ride”. The study is a survey based multiple-choice questions, where respondents had to make inferences about the two products in terms of interest, overall liking, uniqueness and purchase intention (Crawford, Di Benedetto, 2006). The design of the survey can be catalogued as web static (WS), which differs from attribute-only full-profile (AF) in the presence of colour rendering showing the product from different perspectives (Dahan, Srinivasal, 2000). The questions are based on Rajagopal’s test (2004), except for product beliefs. In
37 fact, Rajagopal’s final goal was to see which category was prevailing when measuring products beliefs, making a comparison between inferences made on different category labels. In this test, the main goal is to understand differences on consumers’ beliefs regarding two competing products, in order to understand which features are the most appreciated and which are the less.
This survey was divided in two sections with the same questions, one for each product tested. Three parts composed every section. The first one was designed to test performance indicators like interest, overall liking, uniqueness and purchase intention, the second to test product beliefs, the third and last to measure willingness to pay. Evaluation’s means for each question regarding “Woohoo The Ride” is then compared with the corresponding question regarding “Transformers The Ride”. Every question was designed to have 7 different possible ratings, from 1 (good evaluation) to 7 (bad evaluation). Questions are reported in Appendix B
OBJECTIVES
The first objective of this study is to measure consumers’ evaluation of the two products, in order to see if there are significant differences between them. This procedure allows understanding which and where a product is better than the other one. Confirmation of the possible differences is the comparison between different measures, in the case the findings will correspond.
H3: The two products have significant differences on their evaluations
H4: Performance indicators measurements will confirm the findings of H3
METHODOLOGY
It is developed a one-tale t-test on the two mean’s differences to analyse the significance of the test findings. As the first product is the one studied on the concept test, and the goal is to see if inferences on it are better than of the alternative product, these are the hypothesis tested:
38 H0: MWi ≥ MTi
H1: MWi < MTi, where Mw is the mean of the i-th question regarding “Woohoo The Ride” and Mt is the mean of the i-th question regarding “Transformers The Ride”.
The acceptance of H0 will state that the i-th Mw measure is higher than the i-th Mt measure, meaning that for that question respondents evaluated better “Transformers The Ride” than “Woohoo The Ride”, while the refusal of H0 will state the contrary.
Performance indicators measure takes into consideration the responses’ highest rates. For instance, from a n=50 sample, if the question regarding consumer’s interest on the product is rated 1 by 10 people, 2 by 15 people and 3 by 8 people, the interest rate will be described in this way:
Top box: 10/50 = 20%
Top 2 boxes: 10/50 + 15/50 = 50%
Top 3 boxes: 25/50 + 8/50 = 66%.
With these data, it is possible to understand that 20% of the population is extremely interested in the product, 50% is highly interested and 66% just interested in it. The performance indicators are calculated with the goal of confirming the findings of the t-test previously made. They are useful also to explain the quality of consumers’ evaluations concerning a single product. In fact, even if the two means are significantly different, it does not mean that the product evaluation is actually good. Chi-Square Test is made to prove the level of significance.
After the analysis of the entire population, two groups of respondents will be selected from the sample, in order to analyse more in deep their evaluations. The same methodology of the first analysis will be used. Early adopters compose the first group, as they are considered as the first to see innovation opportunities (Moore, 2002). Responses from early adopters are more reliable than the other consumers’ categories, because they have an innovative mind, they are high-tech savvy and they understand easier the potential of a new product.
39 The second group is made by respondent who, during the pre-test, interpreted the combination “roller coaster – virtual reality” with relational transfers. In order to simplify, from now on this group will be called “Relationers”. This study is made to understand their behaviour, as the manipulation with them didn’t work.
Hence,
H5: Early adopters and relationers evaluation of the two products will be significantly different
H6: Early adopters and relationers performance indicators measurements will confirm H5
2.5 ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
After the embellished description of the product and the picture of the concepts, the 69 respondents were asked to respond to 19 multiple-choice questions. 12 respondents were selected as early adopters, according to specific criteria, i.e. the knowledge of the HMDs, theme park visit frequency, possession of expensive high-tech devices and personal behaviour towards innovation. Another sample of 8 respondents, the relationers, was extracted from the population, represented by who interpreted the combination “roller coaster – virtual reality” as a virtual roller coaster.
INTEREST
Respondents were generally interested in both products. For “Woohoo The Ride”, interest was on average rated 2.54 (DS=1.46), with ratings range from 1 to 6. For “Transformers The Ride”, average interest rate was 3.10 (SD=1.62), with ratings range from 1 to 7. The difference between the two means is significant (T=-3.11, p<.001), allowing to refuse H0 and stating that consumers perceive more interesting the tested idea instead of the existing product. To confirm this finding, top box respondent results are analysed. For “Woohoo The Ride”, top box responses were the 27.5% of the
40 population, while for “Transformers The Ride” 17.39%. Top two boxes respondents were the 60.9% of the sample for the first, the 40.6% for the second, precising that almost one fifth of the entire sample were more interested in the concept idea. This difference resulted to be significant (X2=5.68, p=.0171).
Early adopters findings are different. The mean for “Woohoo The Ride” is 2.83 (SD=1.70), for “Transformers The Ride” is 3.25 (SD=1.60). There are no evidences proving that the two means are significantly different (T=-1.04, p<.15) and H0 is accepted. This result is partially confirmed by performance indicator measurement, as top 2 boxes responses corresponded to the 50% and the 41.7% of the early adopters (F: p<.15). Major differences are found regarding the top box analysis, 25% for “Woohoo The Ride” and 8,33% for “Transformers The Ride”. However, these differences are not significant according to the Fisher exact test (F: p<.28). This result is in contrast with the total population findings. However, it is possible that the limit of this group population (12) lead to these results.
The same situation was registered with relationers: means were respectively 2.5 (SD=1.69) and 2.875 (SD=1.64), and a significance t test revealed no evidences about significant differences (T=-1.16, p<.14). Regarding performance indicators measures, the concept idea was rated in the top 2 boxes by 75% of the sample, while “Transformers The Ride” for 37.5%. However, no significant difference was tracked (p=.16).
UNIQUENESS
Respondents were asked to evaluate both products comparing them to other existing attractions, in order to measure the uniqueness of the two concepts. All possible rankings were used from the population. The average rate for “Woohoo The Ride” was 2.86 (SD=1.56), while for the other one was 3.35 (SD=1.67). These data confirm a significant difference between perceptions of uniqueness on the two products (T=-2.35, p<.01). 52.7% of the sample rated the concept idea on the top 2 boxes, while 34.8% gave the same evaluation for the second attraction. Chi-square test confirm there is significant difference between the two measurements (X2=4.25, p<.02. Top box responses for “Woohoo The Ride” are the 17.39%, while for “Transformers The Ride”
41 are the 7.25%. The difference between the two is significant (X2=3.29, p<.035). It is possible to state, after these evidences, that product uniqueness is perceived higher for the concept idea rather than for the existing attraction.
Concerning early adopters, the mean for the two attractions is respectively 2.58 for “Woohoo The Ride” (SD=1.38) and 3.58 for “Transformers The Ride” (SD= 2.23). However, no major evidences on the existence of significant difference were found (T=- 1.25, p<.117). 58% of early adopters for the first and 50% for the second rated product uniqueness on the first two boxes, attesting similarity in the ratings (F: p=0.5). Again, results disagree with the findings registered from the entire population. The motivation can be found in the fact that the standard deviation for “Transformers The Ride” was much higher than the other one, leading to a non-significance of the difference. Looking more deeply in the responses, it is possible to notice that 25% of early adopters ranked in the last box the uniqueness of “Transformers The Ride”, highlighting a belief on this attraction that is not found on the concept idea.
Relationers rated the uniqueness of the first product with an average of 3 (SD=1.51) and the second with an average of 2.75 (SD=0.71). No major findings evidenced a significant difference between the two means (T=0.39, p<.35). “Woohoo The Ride” collected 62.5% of ratings in the top 2 boxes, while his competitor collected 37.5%. However, no evidences of significant difference were found (F: p=0.31).
PURCHASE INTENTION
Two questions were made in order to analyse purchase intention. The first question was general and asked respondents to rate how likely they were to go in a theme park just because of the specific attraction. The second question asked how respondents were likely to prefer the attraction to the alternatives, while already inside the theme park. The whole range of rating was used (from 1 to 7), and statistical hypothesis testing was developed.
Respondents evaluated the two questions with an average of 3.36 (SD=1.75) and of 2.67 (SD=1.31) for “Woohoo The Ride”, while the evaluation for “Transformers The Ride” was of 3.93 (SD=1.78) and of 3.14 (SD=1.45). As expected, the second question has
42 lower averages, i.e. higher rates, as it is asked to compare the attraction with the ones present in a generic amusement park. For the general question, the difference of means was significantly different (T=-2.75, p<.004). The second question provides similar results of significance (T=-2.66, p<.005). Chi-square test is made in order to control if the percentage of the top 2 boxes responses provides the same results. For the first question, regarding general purchase intentions, 40.58% rated in the top two boxes “Woohoo The Ride”, while the other achieved the 26.09%. Chi-square test confirms the significance of the difference between the two percentages (X2=3.26, p<.036). The top box percentage difference is not significant (X2=0.76, p<.19). For the other question, results are quite similar. The two means (Mw=2.67, SD=1.31) (Mt=3.15, SD=1.45) are significantly different and also the top two boxes percentages (Pw=53.62%, Pt=33.33%) confirm the findings (X2=5.78, p<.008). Hence, according to the sample, perceived purchase intention is higher for the tested idea than for the existing virtual roller coaster. Top box percentage does not show any significant difference between the two (X2=1.40, p<.12).
Concerning early adopters, in both questions the rating mean of “Woohoo The Ride” is lower than “Transformers The Ride”. However, the significance level is not the same in the two questions. For the first, i.e. in a more general level, the mean of the concept idea (Mw=3.42, SD=1.93) does not significantly differ from the mean of “Transformers The Ride” (Mt=4.25, SD=1.77)(T=-1.45, p<.088). Also, top 2 boxes percentage does not present significant differences (F: p<.32). The second question provides different results. The two means (Mw=2.33, SD=1.07)(Mt=3.33, SD=1.37) are significantly different (T=-2.71, p<.01). Responses in the top 2 boxes are more in “Woohoo The Ride” (58.3%) than in “Transformers The Ride” (33.3%), but the difference is not significant (F: p<.20). In this case, thanks to the double check of the results, it is possible to conclude that the registered significant difference can be accidental. However, it is interesting to see how early adopters ratings are distributed. In fact, for both products, early adopters used just the first 4 boxes. This means that in general, purchase intention for early adopters is very high.
On the other hand, relationers’ data do not show any significant difference between means. On the general question, purchase intention of the first attraction is rated averagely 3.5 (SD=2.45) with 50% rates on the first two boxes (but also 37.5% on
43 the last two boxes). Regarding the second attraction, the mean is higher (Mt=4.125, SD=1.89) and the top two boxes percentage is lower (37.5%). The two means and percentages are not significantly different (T=1.26, p<.125)(F: p<.5). The same results are provided from the second question of purchase intention. Mean for both attractions coincides at a level of 2.375 (SDw=0.92)(SDt=1.19), and 62.5% of respondents rated both on the top 2 boxes. Again, the last 3 boxes for both products are not used by relationers, meaning that also for them the purchase intention is very high.
OVERALL LIKING
Overall liking was measured with 6 questions regarding product judgements and features. It was asked to evaluate the two attractions in terms of general liking (good/bad), attractiveness (attractive/unattractive), scare (scaring/not scaring), fun (entertaining/boring), quality (high quality/low quality) and innovation (innovative/traditional). In exhibit 4 are reported means, standard deviations and significance levels. Ratings are in general very high for both attractions, meaning that respondents liked the two ideas. It is possible to see that in 4 cases (general liking, attractiveness, fun and innovation) consumers express overall liking ratings significantly higher for “Woohoo The Ride” than for “Transformers The Ride. In the other 2 cases, no
General Liking Attractiveness Scare Woohoo Mean 2,36 2,17 4,10 SD 1,35 1,19 1,36
Transformers Mean 2,65 2,64 4,07 SD 1,50 1,52 1,76
T value -1,83 -2,73 0,13 p-value 0,035 0,004 0,45
Fun Quality Innovation Woohoo Mean 2,13 2,38 2 SD 1,37 1,25 1,38
Transformers Mean 2,58 2,41 2,64 SD 1,41 1,35 1,43
T value -3,19 -0,24 -3,52 p-value 0,001 0,41 0,0004 Exhibit 4: Results of overall liking ratings
44 significant differences are registered. This finding evidences that the concept idea is more appreciated in terms of overall liking than the existing product.
In order to confirm the findings, top boxes responses are analysed (Exhibit 5). The results of this analysis confirm and strengthen all the findings of the previous t-test. In fact, the high percentages on the 5 categories correspond to the high rates earlier discussed. Chi-square test also evidences significant differences in attractiveness, fun and innovation, the same categories which registered significant differences in the t-test except for the category general liking, which had in the t-test a not strong significance level (p<.035). In addition to this, top box ratings for the 2 categories “fun” and “innovation” are very high for “Woohoo The Ride” (42.03%) (49.28%). Chi-square test evidences significant differences between the two attractions (fun: X2=6.54, p<.005) (innovation: X2=14.23, p<.001). These findings add more information regarding the possible competitive advantages that the concept idea possesses.
General Liking Attractiveness Scare Woohoo Top box 28,99% 34,78% 8,70% Top 2 boxes 66,67% 71,01% 24,64% Last 3 boxes 7,25% 4,35% 43,48%
Transformers Top box 20,29% 23,19% 10,14% Top 2 boxes 56,52% 53,62% 20,29% Last 3 boxes 10,14% 11,59% 34,78%
Top 2 boxes X 2 1,5 4,44 0,37 p-value 0,11 0,02 0,27
Fun Quality Innovation Woohoo Top box 42,03% 21,74% 49,28% Top 2 boxes 73,91% 66,67% 73,91% Last 3 boxes 5,80% 5,80% 4,35%
Transformers Top box 21,74% 26,09% 18,84% Top 2 boxes 55,07% 57,97% 56,52% Last 3 boxes 7,25% 5,80% 10,14%
Top 2 boxes X 2 5,35 1,11 4,6 p-value 0,01 0,15 0,02 Exhibit 5: Overall liking two boxes percentages and level of significance
Concerning early adopters, means aver very low, i.e. the two attractions were rated very high on overall liking. In only one case, in the “scare” category, attractions are rated low. Except from the latter, average ratings for “Woohoo The Ride” are between 1.58 in “innovation” (SD=0.79) and 2.58 in “attractiveness” (SD=1.17), while for
45 “Transformers The Ride” they are between 2.17 in “quality” (SD=0.79) and 2.33 in “innovation” (SD=1.07). In this case, ratings are higher for “Transformers The Ride” in 4 cases out of 6, even if there are no evidences of significant differences between the two. The two categories in which the ratings are higher for “Woohoo The Ride” are the ones in which the level of top box respondents for the entire population was found significantly different: “fun” and “innovation”. Furthermore, in the latter category, it was possible to notice a barely significant difference between the two means (T=-1.83, p<.048).
Top 2 boxes responses percentage is very high for both products in all categories except for “scare”: between 50% and 83.3% for the first attraction, between 58.3% and 83.3% for the second. These data reveals a very high level of overall liking for both attractions. In this case, early adopters rated higher “Transformers The Ride”, but with any significant difference. In the unique case in which “Woohoo The Ride” is rated higher, i.e. “innovation” (Pw=58.3%, Pt=16.7%), it is possible to register a significant difference with the other attraction on the top box percentage (F: p<.045). This finding confirms that early adopters “Woohoo The Ride” considered more innovative than the alternative. It is interesting also to notice that innovation rates vary between the top 3 boxes for both the attractions, meaning that the two are considered as highly innovative unanimously.
Relationers’ analysis provides very high rates for each category except “scare”, between 1.825 and 2.125 for the concept idea, between 1.875 and 2.25 for the existing product. No significant differences are noticed. Top 2 boxes percentages are very high as well, between 62.5% and 87.5% for both products. Again, no significant differences are noticed.
PRODUCT BELIEFS
The second part of the test concerned product beliefs. 8 different questions were asked to respondents regarding 3 categories: “simulated speed”, “virtual reality” and “interaction”. T-test was made in order to find evidences of significance in the difference between the evaluations of the two attractions.
46 The first 4 questions were asking respondents to evaluate their beliefs on the simulation effects concerning movements and speed. In both 4 cases, the simulation of “Woohoo The Ride” was considered significantly different than “Transformers The Ride” (Exhibit 6). It is possible to see that consumers consider the simulation effect of the first attraction better and more efficient than the second one.
Moving Simulated Speed Effective Speed Increased Speed Mean Woohoo 2,30 2,43 3,10 2,65 SD Woohoo 1,47 1,44 1,66 1,66
Mean Transformers 2,71 2,94 3,64 3,20 SD Transformers 1,72 1,80 1,92 1,52
T value -1,82 -2,37 -2,18 -2,50 p-value 0,04 0,01 0,02 0,01 Exhibit 6: Means and t-test levels for product beliefs concerning moving sensations
Concerning beliefs in virtual reality, means of the two attractions were almost the same: 3.14 (SD=1.67) and 2.86 (SD=1.72) for “Woohoo The Ride” and 3.17 (SD=1.55) and 2.88 (SD=1.51) for “Transformers The Ride”. No major differences between the two means were found, meaning that for consumers, virtual reality is provided with almost the same quality.
Results are ambiguous when measuring interaction beliefs. Two questions were asked concerning this topic, one general and the other more precise. The general question registered the averages of 3.80 (SD=1.79) and 3.70 (SD=1.68) respectively for the two products, showing high rating, i.e. low evaluation, and no significant differences. On the other hand, the second question, which asked about the possibility of scenery changings, had a lower average, i.e. higher evaluation, for both attractions: 2.25 (SD=1.47) for the first, 2.68 (SD=1.49) for the second. In this case, evidences of significant difference are found (T=-2.55, p<.007).
No evidences of significant difference were found concerning early adopters and relationers in any category.
47 WILLINGNESS TO PAY
Respondents were asked to state how much they would be keen to pay, in order to go into the attraction. The range varied from 0$ to more than 15$. The Majority of responses vary between 5$ and 10$ for both attractions (see Exhibit 7).
Exhibit 7: Willingness to pay to go in the attractions There is a notable difference between the two curves: the highest point of “Transformers The Ride” curve is at 5$, while the other one is at 10$. In fact, 49% of respondents valued this attraction 5$, while 33% for the other one. Chi-square test confirm the significance of this difference (X2=3.62, p<.029).
No major differences were found concerning early adopters and relationers.
DISCUSSIONS
Study 1 demonstrates the existence of major differences between the two attractions. Also, in the majority of the cases, results provided from t-test analysis coincide with results of performance indicators measurements. Just in two cases out of ten, this coincidence was not proved.
Product interest is significantly higher for “Woohoo The Ride”. 60.9% of respondents rated their interest in the attraction as 1 or 2, very high values. For early adopters and relationers, minor differences are found, evidencing a small preference in
48 the concept idea. For this measure, H3 and H4 are supported, while concerning early adopters and relationers, just H6 is supported while H5 is rejected. However, results confirm that product interest for both attractions is very high.
Product uniqueness is again significantly higher for “Woohoo The Ride”, with top 2 boxes rates at 52.7%. This finding was highly expected, as the idea into consideration is a totally new concept, still not existing in the market. “Transformers The Ride” is considered as unique but not as much as the concept idea. The reason can be the fact that it uses 3-D glasses and 3-D screens. These are devices already belonging to people’s habits, as they are available in technology stores and frequently used in every cinema. However, “Transformers The Ride” actually is a unique attraction, as there are no other similar concepts in the world. For early adopters and relationers, minor preferences of the concept idea are found, but the evaluation difference between the two products is not significant. Hence, these findings again support H3 and H4 for the entire sample, while for early adopters and relationers just H6 is supported and H5 is rejected.
Purchase intention was studied in two different fields: concerning the general market, and concerning the available attractions when the consumer is already inside the theme park. As expected, rates were higher for the second measure, because of the less competitive context. In all three groups, rates were higher for the concept idea. Major differences were found on the entire sample ratings, confirming the veracity of H3 and H4. Early adopters and relationers didn’t show consistent differences, rejecting H5. Concerning just early adopters, in the second question it is possible to notice a major difference between the evaluations of the two attractions. However, looking to top 2 boxes percentage, just a minor difference is registered, not supported by the Fisher exact test. This is one of the only two cases in which H6 is rejected. In an overall review, the results of this test confirm a higher purchase intention for the concept idea.
Overall liking was measured on six categories: “general liking”, “attractiveness”, “scare”, “fun”, “quality” and “innovation”. The overall rating was very high, meaning that the two products benefit of a solid overall liking, except for the category “scare” which was rated on the average (around 4 out of 7). Respondents recognized the high quality of the two products, but no significant differences are found between the two attractions. The other four categories evidence significant differences between the ratings of the two attractions. The strongest difference is on “innovation”, which is
49 recognized much higher in “Woohoo The Ride”. Hence, H3 is supported for these 4 categories. Top 2 box responses confirm the findings of the t-test in 5 out of 6 cases. In fact, for the “general liking”, significance level is very thin (p<.035). Hence, H4 is not supported for this category. Furthermore, analysing the top box responses, significance levels of difference are not found in the categories “general liking” and “attractiveness”, while they are found in the other two. In this case, it is possible to understand the importance of the comparison between top 2 boxes respondents and significance levels of difference. Without a Chi-square test on this percentage, it was not possible to define categories in where the difference was strong or weak. In fact, now it is clear that respondents identify “fun” and “innovation” as the two main differences between the two products, while the differences in “attractiveness” and “general liking” are weaker, even if significant. This finding is confirmed also by the analysis of early adopters responses. This group rated higher “Transformers The Ride” in 4 out of 6 categories. The other two categories are exactly “fun” and “innovation”. Hence, it is confirmed that these two are the main value points of the concept idea. Furthermore, significant differences are found just in the category “innovation”. Relationers have very high ratings and top box responses percentages, however no significant differences are registered. Hence, H5 is not supported except for the category “innovation”, while H6 is supported for all the categories.
Product beliefs were measured in order to understand which features of “Woohoo The Ride” are seen as being better of “Transformers The Ride” features. From the results, it is possible to say that the concept idea is better on simulating the sensation of speed, with evidences of significant difference. On the other hand, virtual reality is seen as similar in both attractions. No major differences were found on this feature. There are two possible explanations about this result. The first is that this difference does not truly exist, agreeing with the responses. The second is that in general people are not familiar with head-mounted displays and do not know them as the normal 3-D glasses. In fact, 100% of respondents tried at least once the 3-D glasses, while just 35% of them tried the HMD. However, the test affirm that it is not seen any major difference on the virtual reality provided by the two attractions. Regarding the other category analysed, i.e. interaction, results are contrasting. In fact, people see major differences on the possibility to make scenery changings on “Woohoo The Ride” instead of the other attraction. On the other hand, it is not seen as significant the difference of
50 interaction within the two attractions. This result is both negative and positive for the product testing. It is negative as it is not evident the link between “Woohoo The Ride” and interaction possibility, on the other hand it is positive as it represents a new feature to add in after its development and commercialization. Further explanations will follow on chapter 3.
Consumers’ willing to pay is concentrated between 5 and 10 $ for both attractions. However, the highest percentage of respondents is different for the two products: in fact, significant differences were found evidencing that consumers are more willing to pay 10$ for “Woohoo The Ride” and 5$ for “Transformers The Ride”.
In general, the concept idea is better evaluated than the existing product in all the 4 performance indicators. This is a confirmation of the goodness of the idea. Secondly, the concept idea has his points of strength on innovation and entertainment provided to consumers. The reason behind these differences can be related to the better performances on simulating the speed of the attraction. The two selected groups of respondents, early adopters and relationers, did not express a significant preference between the two products, even if in general rating are higher for the concept idea. There is the possibility that the differences measured are not significant because of the low amount of members composing the two groups. Future studies with a bigger sample can confirm or deny these findings.
51 CHAPTER III
CONCEPT TEST PART 2
TESTING CONSUMERS PREFERENCES
3.1 TEST 2: STUDY ON CONSUMERS PURCHASING CHOICES
An online test was made in order to get insights about the consumer’s preferences between the two products under study. The test is based on Dahan and Srinivasal research (2000). The two economists analysed different ways to do concept testing, using written description, visual rendering, virtual and physical prototype. Their study proved a significant variance between the different test typologies. What is taken from their research is the method of testing products using visual renderings (WS). Dahan and Srinivasal used a web page in which respondents had to choose to virtually buy different products. After a product was chosen, its price was growing by double. Initially, respondents chose among all products, each priced 10$. After a product was chosen, its price tag was growing to 20$. Therefore, in the next section respondents had to choose between all the products at 10$ and the chosen one at 20$. After 40$, the product was declared sold out.
DESIGN
Test 2 is similar to the one just described. Respondents had to choose between the two products under study, with no possibility of going back and invalidate the answer. The difference stays on the effort made from respondents when choosing a product. Instead of payment efforts, respondents had to make a choice depending on the time to wait in line. This choice was made as the attractions are already inside the theme
52 park and consumers generally pay at its entrance and not to attend an attraction. Starting from a base time of 30 minutes for both, every choice was making the line of the selected attraction grow by 30 minutes, till the maximum of 90 minutes. For instance, if a respondent chooses “Woohoo The Ride” on the base condition of 30 minutes line, he will be redirected to another page where he will choose among 60 minutes for “Woohoo The Ride” and 30 minutes for “Transformers The Ride”. Questions are reported in Appendix C
OBJECTIVES
Goal of the study is to measure consumers’ preferences between the two products. In the test respondents are forced to choose, therefore to express their own preference. This procedure leads respondents to a direct comparison between the two attractions under study, allowing to understand if there is the prevalence of one’s choice on the other. The test analyses differences among the choices, to see if they are statistically significant. If “Woohoo The Ride” is significantly preferred to “Transformers The Ride”, it will mean that consumers are more willing to go into this attraction instead of the other, confirming the findings of the previous test. Hence:
H7: There will be significant differences among the choices between the two attractions.
In addition to this, 4 groups will be defined, depending on the route of their choices.
METHODOLOGY
In order to see if there are significant differences among the choices, a proportion hypothesis test is made. As the first product is the one tested, these are the hypothesis:
H0: p1i ≥ p2i
H1: p1i < p2i,
53 where p1 is the proportion of “Woohoo The Ride” choices for the i-th question and p2 the proportion of “Transformer The Ride” choices for the i-th question, under specific conditions.
Accepting H0 will state that the percentage of “Woohoo The Ride” choices is not significantly different from the other choice’s percentage, while refusing H0 will precise that the concept idea is preferred to the other product, confirm the findings of Test 1. Data from the previous test will be compared between the 4 identified groups, in order to see where are the differences and what made them choose one product instead of the other.
After the whole sample analysis, the distribution of choices among early adopters and relationers will be studied. The same proportion hypothesis test will be made, in order to measure the significance of the choices differences. Hence:
H8: The choices of early adopters and relationers will confirm the results of Test 1, not registering significant differences between the two products.
3.2: ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
Respondents were asked to choose between the two attractions, depending on the time to wait in line. 69 respondents came to a final choice, following the procedure of the online survey. 12 respondents were selected as early adopters and 8 as relationers.
The beginning of the test was representing the watershed between those who preferred one attraction instead of the other. It was asked to choose in which attraction they were more likely to go, knowing that the line for both of them was 30 minutes long. From the sample, 73.91% of respondents chose “Woohoo The Ride”, while the remaining 26.09% sided with “Transformers The Ride”. It is easy to recognize the big difference between the two proportions, that with no doubts states that the big majority of responses prefers the concept idea in a situation of equal line length. In fact, major evidences of significant difference were found between the two (Z=6.39, p=.00). The final choice percentages were found very close to the first question proportions. 71% of
54 respondents chose at the end “Woohoo The Ride”, while the remaining 29% chose the alternative. The difference between the two was found significant (Z=5.44, p=.00). It is interesting how it is possible to find minor differences on the results of Test 1, when comparing the data of this 71% to the entire population. All means from this selection of the sample are smaller, i.e. higher ratings, for every performance indicator analysed. The difference varies among 0.14 to 0.43, not giving strongly significant differences. For instance, regarding product interest, the mean for this 71% of respondents was 2.20 (SD=1.29) while the mean for the entire population was 2.54 (SD=1.46). However, this difference is not significant (T=1.405, p<.098). The only measure that is barely significant at 95% level is the category “innovation” of the overall liking section. In fact, the two means (M1=2, SD=1.38) (M2=1.65, SD=0.86) present small evidences of significant difference (T=1.706, p<.045). These results suggest that consumers, which find the product highly innovative, will choose for it when compared to other similar products.
In order to understand better the behaviour of respondents inside this game-like test, all the choices are analysed in deep and compared with the results from Test 1. From the 51 respondents who chose “Woohoo The Ride” at the first step, 49 of them kept the same choice at the end of the game, while two of them changed their minds to the other product (Exhibit 8). From these 49 respondents, it was possible to identify two main trends after the first sorting. One (57%) is represented by who is highly involved and convinced by the attraction, who kept selecting “Woohoo The Ride” even with a 30
Exhibit 8: Choices Diagram – “Woohoo The Ride” section
55 minutes waiting time more in the line; the other (43%) on the contrary is composed by who decided not to wait but rather change the attraction when the waiting time increased. The first group, the 57%, will be called for simplicity the “Woohoo Lovers”, while the second group will be called the “Woohoo Likers”.
In order to find the main differences between the two groups, it is made a t-test comparing the results of Test 1. Means’ values are very similar, and the big majority is not significantly different. Coherent with Test 2 results, the only difference that is found significant is regarding the purchase intention question “Considering this attraction already present in the theme park you are into, how likely you are to try it before other different attractions?”. Here, the mean for the “Woohoo Lovers” is 2.11 (SD=1.03), while for the “Woohoo Likers” is 2.86 (SD=1.39), evidencing a significant difference (T=2.081, p<.022). However, this result can be considered obvious as it compares purchase intention of two groups that actually purchased in different ways. Going deeper in the analysis it is possible to find the real reason of the different purchase behaviour. In fact, the two groups made completely different inferences regarding overall liking for “Transformers The Ride”. As shown in Exhibit 9, all evaluations regarding overall liking are significantly different between the two groups. This result means that “Woohoo Likers” chose “Woohoo The Ride” with the standard condition, but they were not keen to wait more time in order to go into it, as they were finding a big value also in the alternative. On the other hand, “Woohoo Lovers” found less value in the alternative attraction; hence they chose “Woohoo The Ride” even if they had to wait more time. Evidences on these findings are suggested by the comparison between evaluations of the two attractions inside the two groups (the same procedure as Test 1, but within the groups). In fact, “Woohoo Likers” made no significant different inferences on the two products, except for the performance indicator “uniqueness” (T=2.415, p<.001). On the other hand, all the “Woohoo Lovers” inferences about the concept idea significantly differ from the ones made for “Transformers The Ride”. Hence, it is possible to state that:
- “Woohoo Lovers” find the two attractions significantly different and attribute a significantly higher value to “Woohoo The Ride” features. Coherent to this, they choose this product even if it needs more effort to have it, or in other words, if they have to wait more time in line than with alternative attractions;
56 - “Woohoo Likers” find the two attractions quite similar, even if they prefer “Woohoo The Ride” as it is more innovative than the alternative. In fact, they will choose for this attraction if the effort to get it is the same, but they will choose “Transformers The Ride” if the effort differs. In fact, overall liking measures regarding the latter product significantly differ from the “Woohoo Lovers” measures.
General liking Attractiveness Scare Lovers Mean 3,00 2,96 4,29 SD 1,33 1,4 1,63
Likers Mean 1,90 2,14 3,33 SD 1,00 1,06 1,71
T 3,31 2,33 1,98 P 0,001 0,012 0,027
Fun Quality Innovation Lovers Mean 2,89 2,75 3,00 SD 1,29 1,29 1,41
Likers Mean 2,10 2,10 2,24 SD 1,04 0,83 0,89
T 2,37 2,14 2,31 P 0,012 0,019 0,013 Exhibit 9: Overall liking ratings - "Woohoo Lovers" vs "Woohoo Likers"
18 respondents, equal to the 26.09% of the sample, chose “Transformers The Ride” when the base condition was the same amount of time to wait in line. It is interesting to see that performance indicators means of this group are higher than the same indicators means of the entire population, when evaluating “Woohoo The Ride”. Also, the existing difference is significant. For instance, considering product interest, for the entire population the mean is 2.54 (SD=1.46), while for this selected group the mean is 3.50 (SD=1.58), evidencing a significant difference (T=-2.33, p<.015). We can observe the same results for product uniqueness (T=-6.19, p<.00), purchase intention (T=-2.05, p<.026) and for overall liking in the 4 categories in which “Woohoo The Ride” was rated significantly better than “Transformers The Ride”. No significantly different results were found between inferences on this latter product, even if this group evaluated it on average better than the entire population.
57 100% of respondents who chose “Transformers The Ride” at the first step, then kept the choice till the end. However, two different routes to the final decision were registered. It is possible to define two sub-groups from these 18 respondents: the first is formed by the so called “Transformers Lovers” (50%), who decided to purchase “Transformers The Ride” even if the time to wait in line was longer than the alternative; the second is composed by those called “Transformers Likers” (the other 50%), who switched to the alternative product when the time to wait in line increased (Exhibit 10). The analysis of these two groups will provide insights on the reasons why they made their choices.
Exhibit 10: Choices diagram: “Transformers The Ride” section
In order to find the main differences between the two groups, a t-test is made comparing the results of Test 1 for these respondents. The means of performance indicators measures for “Transformers The Ride” are very similar and no significant differences were found between the two sub-groups. However, the ratings of both groups are in general higher than the ones of the entire population. Concerning the evaluations on “Woohoo The Ride”, major differences are found in two measurements. Significant differences are found on purchase intention: for “Transformers Lovers” the mean is 2.78 (SD=1.09), while for “Transformers Likers” it is equal to 4 (SD=1.32), presenting evidences of a major difference (T=2.34, p<.023). This result was expected, as the sub-groups are divided depending on the purchase choice they made. The other measure in which it is shown a significant difference is found on overall liking. In fact, 2 out of the 6 categories composing this indicator are found significantly different between the two sub-groups. These two categories are “fun” and “innovation”. For the category “fun”, the mean for “Transformers Lovers” was 2.11 (SD=1.27), while it was 3.56 (SD=1.74) for “Transformers Likers”. T-test shows that the difference is significant
58 (T=2.02, p<.034). For the category innovation the difference is even more pronounced: for “Transformers Lovers” the mean was 1.78 (SD=1.30), while for “Transformers Likers” it was 4.11 (SD=2.09), showing evidences of significant difference (T=2.74, p<.007). Hence, it is possible to describe the two groups in this way:
- “Transformers Lovers” judge “Woohoo The Ride” features lower than the entire population, preferring the alternative ride. They are also the ones who consider the concept idea not innovative and not entertaining, differing from the judgement of the rest of the sample. They will choose “Transformers The Ride” even if the alternative has lower amount of time to wait in line; - “Transformers Likers” find the two attractions similar, even if they judge “Woohoo The Ride” not as good as the entire population. However, they believe more than the “Lovers” that this attraction is entertaining and innovating. In fact, they will switch to the alternative if the time to wait in line for “Transformers The Ride” increases.
Proportion hypothesis test is made with early adopters and relationers, in order to observe their behaviour when they are forced to choose between the two attractions. 75% of early adopters decided at the beginning and as the final choice to purchase “Woohoo The Ride”, while the remaining 25% chose the alternative. The difference between the two percentages is found significant (Z=2.83, p<.003). However, looking to the behaviour of this group inside the test, it is possible to notice that 50% of them went through the same route, choosing “Woohoo The Ride” at the first step and switching to the alternative as the time to wait in line increased. Hence, it is possible to conclude that early adopters have just a small preference for the concept idea.
75% of relationers chose at the first and last step of the test “Woohoo The Ride”, while the remaining 25% chose the alternative. Proportion Z-test evidenced significant differences (Z=2.31, p<.015). It is possible to conclude that relationers strongly prefer the concept idea.
59 DISCUSSIONS
Test 2 evidenced an important stance of respondents for “Woohoo The Ride”. In fact, 71% of the sample ended the test choosing this attraction instead of the alternative. The difference among the choices is significant; hence H7 is supported. In addition to this, 4 main groups of respondents were defined, depending on their behaviour inside the test. These groups differ on the inferences they made about the products. Looking to these differences, it is possible to understand the characteristics of the groups and the values they put on the products. For instance, “Woohoo The Ride” fans differ on the overall liking evaluation of “Transformers The Ride”. The first group strongly prefer the concept idea; the second on the other hand find a similar value proposition also in the alternative product. However, by them is recognized the uniqueness of “Woohoo The Ride”. This is the reason why their first choice was to purchase this attraction.
Respondent who chose “Transformers The Ride” are divided in the same way in two sub-groups, with the same methodology used for the other product. Generally, these two groups have worse inferences on the performance indicators of “Woohoo The Ride”, reason why they chose for the alternative when the effort needed to attend to the attractions was the same. However, “Transformers Likers” think that the concept idea is innovative and entertaining, while inferences of “Transformers Lovers” about these categories are significantly different. This insight is important to understand why the “Likers” will switch to another attraction if the amount of time to wait in line for “Transformers The Ride” increases.
Early adopters and relationers show evidences of significant differences among their choices. “Woohoo The Ride” is significantly preferred to “Transformers The Ride” by 75% of the two groups members.
3.3 MOORE’S ANALYSIS
G.A. Moore, in his book “Crossing The Chasm” (1991), defines different groups of consumers, depending on their technology speed of adoption. These 5 groups correspond to the 5 consumers categories defined by Rogers (1962). Moore underlines
60 the importance of knowing the gap between one category and the following in the adoption life cycle. The author found important gaps between innovators and early adopters, early majority and late majority, and the most important between early adopters and early majority. The latter is called the “Chasm”. For a high-tech innovation, it is fundamental to study ways to cross these gaps, to be prepared when it is the right time to invade the following market segment. The difference between the market segment stays in the different needs they have. Hence, before studying the ways to bridge the gap, it is advised to study the differences in terms of needs and beliefs between categories. The analysis will use insights from Test 2 in order to define strategies to cross these gaps.
From Test 2, four different groups are defined. These groups differ in the choices the members made, when it was asked them to decide which product to buy, or in the case of this specific test, which attraction to attend. The approach of the analysis is similar to the one made from Moore: in this study, the 4 groups of consumer earlier identified correspond to the market segments defined from the author. Each of these groups is described and the differences between the other groups are highlighted. When the situation is properly defined, suggestions to cross the gap are made. It is well known that Rogers and Moore, in their models, define groups according to precise percentages. For instance, innovators are considered to be the 2.5% of the market, early adopters the 13.5%, and both early and late majority the 34%. In this case, these percentages are not respected. The reason stays in the fact that respondents were primarily university students, most of them familiar with technology. Also, the number of respondents was a limitation for the test. Hence, categorization of these consumers in the 4 groups is made not according to fixed percentages or by usual methods, but rather it is made by different behaviours registered on the test. The findings of significant and coherent differences among the groups support the choice of this method.
The four groups are:
- “Woohoo Lovers”: corresponding to innovators of the adoption curve. They are the respondents who find a significantly different value proposition in “Woohoo The Ride”, and would purchase it even if the effort needed is higher than for the alternative. The reason behind this behaviour is that their interest and overall likening ratings are above the average. These consumers truly love the attraction
61 and will not care about the time to wait in line. From this group starts the diffusion of the innovation, which will be designed according to their needs; - “Woohoo Likers”: corresponding to early adopters of the adoption curve. These consumers marginally prefer “Woohoo The Ride” to the alternative, however they are not willing to put more effort in order to purchase it. In fact, when the amount of time to wait in line for the concept attraction increased, they choose to switch to the alternative. The main difference with “Woohoo Lovers” stays in the evaluation of overall liking for the other attraction. In fact, the “Likers” judge “Transformers The Ride” significantly better than the “Lovers”. Hence, they do not find a higher value proposition in “Woohoo The Ride”. However, they consider it as highly innovative and unique, even more than its alternative. This is the reason why they marginally prefer the concept idea, but it is not sufficient to make them strongly prefer it to “Transformer The Ride”; - “Transformers Likers”: corresponding to early majority of the adoption curve. This group of consumers, as the one that will follow, does not significantly prefer one attraction to the other. On the contrary, inferences about “Transformers The Ride” are generally better than the concept idea, even if the difference is not found significant. In Moore’s book, they are defined as pragmatists: prudent and careful, but at the same time interested in new trends and technologic innovations, in order to improve their technology base. From Test 2, these consumers judge “Woohoo The Ride” as innovative, but at the same time they preferred “Transformers The Ride”; - “Transformers Lovers”: corresponding to late majority of the adoption curve. Moore defines them as conservative and they will adopt a new technology just when it is necessary to do it. The results of Test 1 for this group confirm this description. In fact, they do not find on “Woohoo The Ride” any feature better than the alternative. On the contrary, they strongly prefer “Transformers The Ride” and they will purchase it even if the effort needed is higher. The innovation on the concept idea is not seen as important, hence at the moment the value proposition of “Transformers the Ride” is significantly higher.
62 THE FIRST GAP
Moore describes the gap between innovators and early adopters as the difficulty occurring when a new technology product cannot be readily translated into a major new benefit. Innovators will be enthusiast, but nobody else will be able to use it. The key to overcome this gap is to show that the new technology enables something never before possible, which gives adding value to the product and opens new business possibilities. Confirming that group definition was coherent with Moore’s theory, “Woohoo Likers” have high and significant values on product uniqueness. Hence, they care about things enabling to do something revolutionary and completely new. In the case of “Woohoo The Ride”, the attraction itself is surely innovative, but it does not give that new feature able to change the minds of “Woohoo Likers”. In fact, they didn’t express strong preferences among the two attractions, as for them the value offered is quite similar. A new feature is needed in order to attract them, and this can be interaction.
Generally, amusement parks are composed by passive attractions, in which the coaster or the railway transports users. Objective of these attractions is not to enable interaction, but rather to scare people and make them feel strong emotions with high speed and complicated evolutions. High tech innovations made now possible users’ interaction. For instance Oculus VR, the virtual reality US company, is producing head- mounted displays completely dedicated to video gaming. Xbox Kinect is on the market from 2010. This tool detects body movements and let the video game player to become the controller itself. With these products, interaction on a roller coaster becomes possible. Hence, if “Woohoo The Ride” wants to attract the entire early adopters segment, turning “Woohoo Likers” into “Lovers”, interaction is needed. In this way, all young video game players will be highly interested on it, significantly more than “Transformers The Ride”. Adding video gaming features to the innovation will automatically open a completely new and unserved market, as it is difficult for them to find what they are looking for in theme parks nowadays.
THE CHASM
According to Moore, the deeper and most dangerous gap called “The Chasm” is between early adopters and early majority, i.e. “Woohoo Likers” and “Transformers
63 Likers”. It is the most important step on product diffusion, as it is the main bridge to cross before going to the mass market. The difficulty of bridging this gap stays again on the differences in needs and values of the two groups. In fact, while early adopters look for technologic revolution, early majority looks for technologic evolution. The two concepts are completely different, as the revolution asked from the first group is disruptive and changes the game’s rules, while the second group wants to adopt a non- radical evolution, but rather a productivity improvement. Also, by the time they adopt it, they want it perfectly working and integrated with their existing technology base.
The introduction of interaction in theme parks is a revolutionary technology, reason why is directly pointing to the early adopters market. On the contrary, early majority looks for product improvements. To enter into this market, it is necessary to be able to fulfill this need. Surely their interest towards “Woohoo The Ride” will increase after the introduction of interactive features, but it will be not enough to move them from “Transformers Likers” to “Woohoo Lovers”. A possibility to do this is the implementation of head-mounted display system on existing attractions. Many amusement parks have in their offer new and modern attractions, but the biggest part of it is made by medium quality attractions. The reason behind this is that new and innovative attractions are very expensive and not all theme parks owners can afford many of them. For this reason, the implementation of virtual reality can increase the value of existing attractions and give to early majority what they look for.
In addition to this, it is necessary to dress the product as a non-radical innovation. The reason is again that early majority are looking of product improvements and not of product revolution. The adaptation of virtual reality into already existing roller coasters will facilitate this camouflage, and early majority will be more likely to see virtual reality as an incremental innovation of roller coasters and not as a radically new attraction. An example, analysed by prof. Boris Durisin during the “Italian Augmented Reality Conference” in 2011, explains better this strategy. Apple in 2007 launched its first model of iPhone. Their marketing strategy was exactly the same of the one just described. In fact, at the moment of the launch, the iPhone was not presented as the revolutionary technology it really is, but rather as a normal mobile phone that also can make other things. In this way, Apple did not scare consumers with its high technologic level, but rather it lead consumers to purchase it and then find out all the
64 possible things they can do with an iPhone. Concerning “Woohoo The Ride”, the methodology to use in order to cross the chasm is the same. After the first prototype models in the most innovative and futuristic parks, virtual reality has to be added in roller coasters as a new feature, not as a radical innovation. Following this strategy, “Woohoo The Ride” will have more possibilities to cross Moore’s chasm and enter in the mass market.
THE THIRD GAP
The third and last major gap is between early majority and late majority, i.e. “Woohoo Likers” and “Woohoo Lovers”. By this point, the market should be already well developed and the market has already absorbed the new technology. Moore finds the difference between these two groups on the predisposition of adopting a new technology. Late majority, described as conservative in terms of innovation, is reluctant to put effort on changing habits to adopt a new technology. This represents a big issue, as consumers have to be educated to use the new technology. As they do not want to be educated, it is difficult to make them use the attraction.
In order to serve also this market, it is necessary to implement a very simple way to enable the virtual reality technology. This will not be a problem if all the steps earlier mentioned are properly made. In fact, at this moment, the attraction should be broadly widespread in theme parks all over the world. This wide diffusion will help technicians and engineers to find ways to simplify the attraction’s process. However, this renewal process is part of the lifecycle of a product, which becomes more efficient and perfect as new versions come out. Something that can have a huge impact on consumers’ technologic education is information points inside the theme park. For instance, a park can host info points in where visitors can learn how to use this technology and then be more confident with it. This feature can highly increase the simplicity of the technology under study and make it accessible also to late majority. However, it is important to note that this method can be used just when the technology is widespread, hence just when the Chasm between early adopters and early majority is crossed.
65 CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter will go through a review of the objectives, findings, contributions and limitations of this paper. Then, managerial implications and avenues for future research will be presented.
4.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH
This paper aimed at building a consistent concept test for hybrid products. Ambiguous products are defined as products possessing features of more than one category, making consumers choose the category in which to place these products (Rajagopal, 2004). The number of these product launched every year is significantly increasing; however marketers hold little understanding on how to define concept testing for hybrid innovations. Hence, the objective of this paper is to provide a consistent model of concept testing, to be used when to study hybrid innovations. This concept test model provides insights on the 4 main performance indicators: product interest, uniqueness, overall liking and purchase intention. These indicators are compared with the most similar product already existing on the market, in order to find significant differences and define strengths and weaknesses of the tested product. Furthermore, purchase intention and overall preference will be analysed in a limited choice scenario, where respondents are forced to decide which product to buy, depending on environmental condition (i.e. price, time to wait, etc.). This test is focused to confirm and support findings of the performance indicators test, and to define groups of consumers according to their choices. These different groups are compared and studied, in order to register the main differences and understand their areas of interest.
66 Then, Moore’s analysis of innovation adoption is developed for these 4 groups, to define a strategy that aims to enter in all these market segments.
4.2 KEY FINDINGS
1. With the similarity test, it is possible to understand the distance between two objects in respondents’ minds. In particular, when testing an hybrid product, it is fundamental to test the similarity between the product categories in which the product can be defined. In fact, results of pre- test 1 showed a strong difference between the two concepts “roller coaster – virtual reality”, supporting H1. 2. The use of property primes leads to property interpretations. H2 was supported from the 67.6% of respondents, who interpreted the 3 target primes using property transfers. 3. Rajagopal’s findings on property primes effects on product evaluation are confirmed. In fact, the selected group called relationers didn’t show any significant difference on Test 1, while it provided opposite results on Test 2. However, there is the possibility that insights of this group were influenced by the small amount of members forming it. 4. Concerning the product tested, the 4 performance indicators measured are significantly better evaluated than the compared existing product, supporting H3. 5. Top 2 boxes responses percentages in the big majority of the cases confirm the findings of the significance level test, supporting H4. In fact, in the only 2 cases in which this rule is not confirmed, the significance level is close to 5%. Hence, the double check of the results with this method allows rejecting those differences that are not strongly supported. 6. Measuring product beliefs, it was possible to define areas in where the tested product was considered better than the alternative. For instance, in the case under study, respondents clearly defined innovation and
67 speed simulation as the two features, which determined the preference of “Woohoo The Ride”. 7. Test 2 represents the strongest confirmation of the findings of Test 1. In fact, like Test 1, a very strong preference for “Woohoo The Ride” prevailed (71%). 8. With Test 2, it was possible to define 4 groups of consumers, depending on their behaviour inside the test. Inside the groups, consumers’ evaluations were consistent and coherent with the purchase choices they made.
In general, “Woohoo The Ride” is better evaluated than “Transformers The Ride”. In all the 4 performance indicators measured, there are evidences of significant difference between the two attractions, all of them favourable to the concept idea. This result is surprising as much as impressive, considering that “Transformers The Ride” is the most technologically advanced attraction in the world. On the contrary, respondents think that “Woohoo The Ride” is more innovative, entertaining and has a better virtual simulation than “Transformers The Ride”.
4.3 MANAGERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
The findings present some very useful insights for marketers on how they can structure a concept test for hybrid products. When testing the hybrid products, it is necessary to anticipate the test with property primes similarity test, in order to accustom respondents to associate multiple categories of the product transferring properties from one to the other. In this way, a hybrid product can be evaluated taking into consideration the values and features on both categories composing it. These findings were at first presented by Rajagopal (2000), however this paper tests his findings in a concrete concept test, confirming with facts his theory.
Usually, when an idea is tested, it is not compared with other alternatives. However, it is fundamentally important to understand which new values the new idea is providing to consumers or, in other words, which features are better than the
68 alternatives. Furthermore, comparison between different testing methods for the same measurements provides more reliable insights. For instance, comparing t-test significance level and top boxes responses percentages was useful to confirm the findings and to discard the weakest differences.
Test 2, then, it is useful for three main reasons. First, it represents a final strong confirmation of the research findings. Second, it forces respondents to choose among two (or more) alternatives with different effort levels, providing concrete insights on consumers preferences. Last, it divides the sample in sub-groups, externally heterogeneous and internally homogeneous. It is possible to register these differences studying the results of Test 1 separately for each group, making significance test comparison.
Lastly, marketers can consider these sub-groups as different consumers categories, separated by gaps. In order to serve all the market, it is necessary to go through each of these groups, starting from the closest to the concept idea and ending to the farthest. After the two tests, it is possible to make assumptions of the strategy to use at the moment of crossing these gaps. In this way, the company will be prepared to the invasion of a new market, with different needs and beliefs.
4.4 LIMITS OF THE RESEARCH
This paper encountered some limits, which are possible to overcome with a more thorough analysis.
The sample analysed counted 69 respondents. To be completely accurate, this test needed more responses and more data to analyse. In fact, when to study early adopters and relationers, numbers were too low to make concrete inference analysis. For instance, Test 2 just measured product preferences for these 2 categories, and didn’t divide them in groups, as done for the original sample. Also, Test 1 found concrete differences among the inferences of these two categories, but in the majority of the cases these differences were not significantly supported, also because of the small amount of these groups members.
69 Another limit encountered was the low variety of respondents’ characteristics. The majority of respondents were students of ESCP Europe and Ca’ Foscari University. 60% of them were enrolled in a master program, 30% achieved a bachelor degree and the remaining 10% was distributed between middle and high school. Also, 82.6% of respondents were between 19 and 24 years old, while the remaining 17.4% between 25 and 30 years old. In order to avoid this issue, the survey was published in theme parks blogs and Facebook fan pages. However, this strategy didn’t lead to the desired results.
The absence of a virtual or physical prototype was another big limit. In the literature, there are not decisive studies demonstrating the higher power of prototype testing instead of statement or picture testing. However, the paper written by Dahan and Srinivasal (2000) and later another research made by Soderman (2005) evidenced significant differences between the use of virtual/physical prototype and the use of statements with pictures. It is common sense also to know that when a respondent can look to the physical object or to its virtual projection instead of reading a written description, he can give better inferences on the product.
An important limit of the test is that “Woohoo The Ride” is compared just with one attraction. Generally in theme parks there is a lot of variety in the offer and consumers can decide between many different attractions. Especially for Test 2, the presence of other alternatives would have made findings more reliable. However, it was impossible for this paper to do it, as the survey’s software used was not so powerful.
Another limit of this test is the absence of important statistical measurements. For instance, in a more depth and accurate analysis with a bigger sample and a more powerful software, it would have been possible to measure market share, market potential, revenues, return on investments and other important indicators. However, this paper aimed to provide a methodology to test the validity of an idea and find possible ways to improve it. Hence, with this objective, performance indicator measured, product beliefs, consumers’ preferences and Moore’s analysis were adequate measures.
Lastly, it would have been interesting to interview experts and lead users on the theme. Talking with them would have provided useful insights and different perspectives. Hence, it is suggested to talk with these people after the concept test is made, showing findings and sharing ideas.
70 4.5 FUTURE RESEARCH
The research is restricted to consumers’ inferences about the perceived value of an idea. It is a reliable model to measure inferences, as the results require three confirmations to be considered valid. However, more technical and detailed analysis can be done in a concept test. Future researches can improve the power of this test by inserting measurements of other indicators as market share and potential market dimensions.
Sentences and pictures composed the stimuli design. To be able to provide better results, future research needs to use a virtual or physical prototype of the idea. As it is a completely new product, it might be difficult to be explained just by sentences and words. On the other hand, if a respondent can see with his eyes the application of this product, he can give more qualitative inferences about it.
The selected respondents were not experts in the category under study. Given past research on the effect of expertise (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Sujan, 1985), it would be interesting to register experts responses and see if there are any changes in the findings. This research tried to contact theme park experts and fanatics, using blogs and Facebook fan pages, not achieving the desired results.
Finally, it would be interesting to develop a test about the possibility of adding new features to the product. For instance, this paper assumes that the development of virtual interaction will facilitate the adoption of early adopters. However, it remains just an assumption, as it is not tested with consumers. Future research can develop Test 2 automating the sub-groups definition and then register their inferences about the ways to cross the existing gaps. In this way, the concluding Moore’s analysis assumptions can be confirmed.
71 REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Bacon, F. (1625), “Of Innovation”, Essays - Braithwaite, R. (1614), The Young Man’s Geleanings - Heilig, M. (1962), US Patent #3050870 www.mortonheilig.com/SensoramaPatent.pdf - Mazuryk, T & Gervautz, M. (1996), Virtual Reality: History, Applications, Technology And Future, Vienna University of Technology www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/research/publications/1996/mazuryk-1996-VRH/TR-186- 2-96-06Paper.pdf - Rizzo, S. (2013), “How Virtual Reality Can Combat Veterans’ PTSD”, La Progressive www.laprogressive.com/virtual-reality-ptsd - Ebersole, S. (1997), A Brief History Of Virtual Reality And Its Social Applications, University of Southern Colorado faculty.colostate-pueblo.edu/samuel.ebersole/336/eim/papers/vrhist.html - Taylor, G. (1872), US Patent #298710 www.google.com/patents?id=1mtpAAAAEBAJ - Knudsen, E. (1878), US Patent #198888 www.google.com/patents?id=qv5yAAAAEBAJ - Wood, A. (1884), US Patent #291261 www.google.com/patents?id=yu5bAAAAEBAJ - Stevens, M. (1884), US Patent #298710 www.google.com/patents?id=1mtpAAAAEBAJ - Thompson, L.A. (1885), US Patent #310966 www.google.com/patents?id=TjFMAAAAEBAJ - Miller, J. (1919), US Patent #1319888 www.google.com/patents/US1319888
72 - Unknown Author, (1884), “Sliding Up Hill”, The New York Times query.nytimes.com/mem/archive- free/pdf?res=F60615FA395910738DDDAE0A94DE405B8484F0D3 - Voight, J. (2012), “Virtual Reality Technology Comes Of Age”, cnbc.com cnbc.com/id/46222531 - Luca, B. & LaCross, G. (2007), “Early Dark Ride History In A Nutshell”, ridemad.com www.ridemad.com/early-dark-ride-history-in-a-nutshell - Verrier, R. (2012), “Are 4-D Movies The Next Big Thing?”, The Sidney Morning Herald www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/are-4d-movies-the-next-big-thing- 20120712-21xjs.html - Flood, K. (2012), “Live Park Is ‘The World’s First’ Physical And Virtual Amusement Park”, vice.com www.parksmania.it/articoli-tecnici/dark-ride-lanima-del-parco-a-tema - Herzenstein, M et al. (2005), “Adoption of New and Really New Products: The Effects of Self-Regulation Systems and Risk Salience”, Journal Of Marketing Research - Medin, D. (2001), Cognitive Psychology, Harcourt Press - Basu, K. (1993), “Consumers’ Categorization Process: An Examination With Two Alternatives Methodological Paradigms”, Journal of Consumer Psychology - Rajagopal, P (2004), Consumer Categorization And Evaluation Of Ambiguous Products, Ohio State University - Gregan-Paxton, J. & Roedder John, D (1997), “Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer,” Journal of Consumer Research - Morel, K. (2006), Some Consequences of Category Ambiguity: A Comparison of Hybrid and Non-Hybrid Products, Delft University of Technology www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/eacr/vol7/EuropeanVolume7_31.pdf - Sääksjärvi, M. (2004), Consumers Evaluation of hybrid innovations, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10227/94/122-951-555-810- 7.pdf?sequence=2
73 - Kim, M., Hyun, Y. & Park, S. (2011), “The effect of goal activation on the evaluation of hybrid products”, Japanese Psychological Research - Page, A.L. & Rosenbaum, H.F. (1992), “Developing an Effective Concept-Testing Program for Consumer Durables”, Journal of Product innovation Management - Crawford, M. & Di Benedetto, A. (2006), New Products Management, McGraw-Hill - Lees, G. & Wright, M. (2004), “The effect of concept formulation on concept test scores”, Journal of Product Innovation Management - Dahan, E. & Srinivasal, V. (2000), “The predictive power of internet-based product concept testing using visual depiction and animation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management - Weinberg, B.A. (2004), Experience And Technology Adoption, Ohio State University - Rogers, E. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press - Peng, L. & Finn, A. (2010), “How Cloudy A Crystal Ball: A Psychometric Assessmment Of Concept Testing, Journal of Product Innovagion Management - Moore, G.A. (1991), Crossing The Chasm: Marketing And Selling Disruptive Products To Mainstream Customers, Harper Business Essentials - Wisniewski, E.J. & Gentner, D. (1991), “On the combinatorial Semantic of Noun Pairs: Minor and Major Adjustments to Meaning”, in Understanding Word and Sentences, North-Holland - Costello, F.J. & Keane, M.T. (2001), “Testing two theories of conceptual combination: alignment vs diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition - Wisnievsky, E.J. (1998), “Relations versus properties in conceptual combination’, Journal of memory and Language
74 WEBOGRAPHY AND VIDEOGRAPHY
- patfh.uspto.gov - www.sony.com - www.oxforddictionaries.com - vrs.org.uk - www.es.com - Chris Zaharia (2012), “Skyrim In Virtual Reality Using HMZ-T1, TrackIR & Kinect” www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vcGqha6xJ0 - thegadgetshow (2011), “Ultimate Battlefield 3 Simulator – Teaser Trailer – The Gadget Show” www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQR49JGySTM - www.oculusvr.com - “A Brief History Of Roller Coasters” www.aceonline.org/CoasterHistory - “The History Of Theme Park Inventions” inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/ss/theme_park.htm - “The History Of Roller Coasters” library.thinkquest.org/C005075F/English_Version/history%20coasters.htm - www.rcdb.com - “Disneyland’s History” www.justdisney.com/disneyland/history.html - “History Of Amusement And Theme Parks” www.weitzlux.com/themeamusementparksattorney/history_4650.html - The Wachowskis Brothers (1999), The Matrix (Movie), produced by Silver J., Warner Bros. Pictures - “Laughter in the dark: a history of dark rides”, (2011) entertainmentdesigner.com/history-of-theme-parks/laughter-in-the-dark-a- history-of-dark-rides - www.rwsentosa.com/language/en- US/Homepage/ThingsToDo/UniversalStudiosSingapore/SciFiCity/TRANSFORM ERSTheRideTheUltimate3DBattle
75 - www.thelivepark.com/blog/en - www.futuroscope.com - JoinPadFarm (2011), “JoinPad/IAR2011 –Italian Augmented Reality: Boris Durisin Speech Part. 1” www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9lMDhqWVM0
76 APPENDIX A
SIMILARITY TEST
PROPERTY PRIMES Smartphone – Camera Motorbike – Bicycle Pencil – Pen Broom – Vacuum Cleaner Chair – Octopus Bus – Truck
TARGET COMBINATIONS Roller Coaster – Virtual Reality Biscuit – Croissant Whale – Boat
77 APPENDIX B
TEST 1
Exhibit 11: Visual description of "Woohoo The Ride"
Exhibit 12: Visual description of "Transformers The Ride"
QUESTIONS
1. After reading the description above, how interested are you in this product? 2. How would you evaluate the attraction? a. Good/Bad
78 b. Attractive/Unattractive c. Scaring/Not Scaring d. Entertaining/Boring e. High Quality/Low Quality f. Innovative/Traditional 3. How likely you are to evaluate this product better than the existing ones? 4. How likely you are to consider going in a theme park specifically to try this attraction? 5. Considering this attraction already present in the theme park you are into, how likely you are to try it before other different attractions? 6. Please indicate how much you agree with these statements.
a. This ride makes you feel the sensation of moving b. This ride makes you feel the sensation of speed c. This ride is really going at high speed d. The ride realistically simulates an increased speed e. This ride makes you feel the sensation of reality f. This ride drives you into a new world g. This is a passive ride, users cannot interact with it h. It is possible to experience different scenarios 7. Considering the case you would have to pay to go into this attraction, which is the maximum amount you would be keen to pay?
79
APPENDIX C
TEST 2
QUESTIONS
- Please now indicate the attraction you would prefer comparing the 2 previously descripted and considering the waiting line outside of the attractions to be 30 minutes. a) Woohoo The Ride b) Transformers The Ride
Woohoo The Ride
- What would you choose now if the waiting time for Woohoo is 60 minutes and for Transformers 30 minutes?
Transformers The Ride
- What would you choose now if the waiting time for Woohoo is 30 minutes and for Transformers 60 minutes?
80
Déclaration sur l’honneur
Je, soussigné, Rossi Edoardo, certifie sur l’honneur que je n’ai rien plagié dans le travail ci- joint, ce qui signifie que je suis le seul auteur de toutes les phrases dont le texte est composé. Toute phrase ayant un autre auteur que moi a été mise entre guillemets, avec indication explicite de sa source. Je suis conscient qu’en contrevenant à la présente règle je transgresse les principes académiques reconnus et m’expose aux sanctions qui seront prononcées par le conseil de discipline. J’atteste également que ce travail n’a jamais été présenté dans le cadre d’études antérieures à ESCP Europe. S’il s’agit d’un travail réalisé dans le cadre d’études effectuées en parallèle, je dois le préciser.
Les propos tenus dans ce mémoire n’engagent que moi-même.
Fait à Paris le 13 Mai, 2013
81
Affidavit
I the undersigned, Edoardo Rossi certify on the honor that I have not plagiarized the paper enclosed, which means that I am the only author of all the sentences this text is composed of. Any sentence from a different author than me was written in quotation marks, with explicit indication of its source. I am aware that by contravening to the present rule, I break the recognised academic principles and I expose myself to the sanctions the disciplinary committee will decide on. I also confirm this work has never been submitted during studies prior to ESCP Europe. If this work has been written during studies conducted in parallel, I must precise it.
The remarks written in those pages only commit me.
Paris, May 13th, 2013
82