The Cognitive Determinants Influencing Consumer Purchase-Intention Towards Subscription Video on Demand (SVoD): Case of Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, there has been a significant change, as smartphones and digital devices paved the way for developing new e-business models to articulate and cultivate further magnitudes such as “shared economy”. Video on demand has become one of the most vital shared-economy play-actors. This study aims to provide valuable information to SVoD industry players, marketers, and producers about the Egyptian consumers’ motivations, preferences, and willingness to subscribe to video-on-demand services. In this regard, the proposed research model has been developed based on its nature on an existing conceptual framework named UTAUT2 and only one independent variable called Content Piracy tackling the research’s problem definition. The present study aims to examine and comprehend such factors; thus, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) model was applied to better test and explain the factors impacting the Purchase Intention (PI) to subscribe to video-on-demand services. Subsequently, the factors of Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Social Influence (SI), Facilitating Conditions (FC), Hedonic Motivation (HM), Price Value (PV), Habit (HB), in addition to Content Piracy (CP) were tested by surveying 133 respondents using SurveyMonkey across multiple online channels. It is noteworthy that this study highlighted a comprehensive comparative analysis of industrial practices originating from multiple subscription video-on-demand platforms and the introduction of “Watchit” shortly after Netflix was promoted as the driving force service provider in the Middle East (Hall & Partners, 2018). According to the findings, All the UTAUT2 constructs mentioned above positively influenced consumers’ intention to subscribe to video-on-demand services in Egypt. However, the added variable of content piracy negatively influenced the intention to SVoD platforms in Egypt. As a result of the examination of the obtained data and revealed findings, the market needs and consumer base of video on demand industry could be dramatically increased if industry players consider the factors impacting users’ purchase intention, particularly with the most significant impact, namely; Habit, Hedonic Motivation, and Social Influence, which are discussed methodically in this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".