Research Article

Vision
25(1) 36–46, 2021
Consumption of OTT Media Streaming © 2021 MDI

in COVID-19 Lockdown: Insights Reprints and permissions:

from PLS Analysis in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india

DOI: 10.1177/0972262921989118
journals.sagepub.com/home/vis

Garima Gupta1 and Komal Singharia1

Abstract
In light of the current ecosystem of technological advancements in telecommunication and enhanced capability of devices, the present
work brings to the fore the changes in consumers’ media consumption. The shift from conventional media to over-the-top (OTT)
media, particularly in the lockdown period due to the COVID-19, has resulted in a war between streaming service providers to attract
and retain customers. In the light of this change, the present study conducts partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM) analysis to examine the impact of two key antecedents, namely, customer engagement (CE) and quality of service experience
(QoSE) for their impact on users’ willingness to continue and subscribe (WCS) streaming services in future. The paper also delves
into the indirect role of satisfaction and habit in affecting the aforesaid linkages. With the world facing the impact of the pandemic, the
implications emerging from the study present an opportunity to the providers of OTT platforms to capitalize on the perceived change
to the best of their advantage.

Key Words
Customer Engagement, Habit, OTT Media Streaming, Quality of Service Experience, Satisfaction, Willingness to Continue and Subscribe

Introduction capitalize on the digital media as a strong communication

Digitalization across the globe has changed the way media
is consumed. Increase in number of internet connections,
better networks, technological innovations and availability
of smart devices have resulted in the rise of new OTT
media that offers services to viewers directly via the
internet. With the 45% estimated growth, India is likely to
emerge as the second-biggest OTT market (after US) to
reach a value of `138 billion by the end of fiscal 2023.
Taking into account the Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce & Industry (FICCI, 2019) report that projects
30–35 million OTT subscribers in India by 2021, there
seems a high probability that OTT services will soon
circumvent the traditional media distribution channels.
As a result, popular OTT service providers such as
YouTube, Netflix and Spotify have seen an instrumental
role in the growth of data streaming, recording a staggering
140% rise in video streaming apps in Australia, India,
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand (App Annie, The
state of the mobile 2019).These statistics show that there
exists a strong opportunity for OTT service providers to
channel.
COVID-19 Lockdown and Change
in Media Consumption
The crippling effect of COVID-19 pandemic is being
reflected in the form of behavioural and lifestyle changes
in people, including a change in their media consumption.
As reported by Nielson, there has been an 18% increase in
television use of all sorts in America in the week ending
March, especially for teenagers who could no longer go to
school. With respect to India, the Broadcast Audience
Research Council (BARC) reported a growth of 38% in TV
consumption over the pre-COVID period that is entertaining
people by airing fiction tales, historical pieces, mythological
stories and supernatural thrills (Livemint, April 19, 2020).
Social distancing norms and isolation of people have
increased at-home digital consumption, thus creating a
surge in the demand for subscription-based streaming
services.

1 Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, India.

Corresponding author:
Garima Gupta, Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India.
E-mail: garimagupta@fms.edu
Gupta and Singharia 37
It is in the backdrop of this changed consumption
behaviour that the present study examines the select
relevant factors in influencing consumers’ willingness to
continue and subscribe (WCS) for streaming services in
future. The study makes a novel contribution by assessing
the possibility of ‘habit’ consumption of these services
during the period of lockdown and its likely impact on
affecting the relationship between consumers’ satisfaction
and their future behaviour with respect to these services/
service providers.
An Overview of Study Constructs:
Review of Literature
From the aforesaid discussion, it can be inferred that the
digital era has undeniably opened up avenues for streaming
services to connect and engage with customers in real time.
In order to remain competitive, it becomes imperative for
the service providers to focus on key drivers that impact
the customer’s decision to stay connected to the firm
and provide it steady flow of sales in future (Viswanathan
et al., 2017).
Though past studies conducted in the digital and online
context (e.g., Chang & Chen, 2008; Delafrooz et al., 2011)
have provided an exhaustive list of such factors that include
the quality and usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude
of customers, trust, perceived risk, security, engagement
and service experience to mention a few, the present study
includes only two primary antecedents, namely, customer
engagement (CE) and quality of service experience (QoSE)
due to their relevance for streaming services in the current
situation of pandemic lockdown. With a number of OTT
services to choose from, the way the service provider
engages the customers becomes really important for them
to attract attention (Gardner, 2020). Further, due to a surge
in internet consumption during the lockdown (Madhukalya,
2020), it has become necessary for service providers to
search for ways to deal with the problem of increased
demand for data without hampering the QoSE, else
customers will easily switch to another service providing
better quality (Van Daele, 2020). Taking support from
these recent studies, the current work devotes attention to
the influence of these two factors on customers’ WCS
streaming services as well as examines the role of
satisfaction and habit in affecting the aforesaid impact. A
description of these constructs is provided below.
Engagement
Research in the area of CE seem to have picked up pace in
the past decade with researchers defining the concept in
numerous ways. While majority of these definitions are
based on consumer psychology, a few have captured the
impact of CE behaviours from a company’s perspective
(e.g., Doorn et al., 2010). An early understanding of the
construct by Appelbaum (2001) explained CE as rational
loyalty formulations based on three key factors, that is,
overall satisfaction, repurchase intention and intent to be
an advocate for the brand. Later on, the construct has been
posited as the level of a customer’s investment in a brand
with cognitive, emotional and behavioural dimensions
(Hollebeek, 2011, pp. 555–573); behavioural manifesta-
tions of a customer towards a brand beyond purchase
(Doorn et al., 2010); customer’s intention to participate in
an organization’s activities (Vivek et al., 2012); creation of
co-creative customer experiences resulting into a sustaina-
ble relationship of the company with its customers (Brodie
et al., 2011); and, the physical, emotional and cognitive
involvement of a customer with a brand (Patterson et al.,
2006).
The above-mentioned varied views incorporating multi-
ple dimensions of the construct led Kuvykaitė and Tarutė
(2015) to conclude that the dimensionality of CE depends
on the perspective of the construct and the definition for
these dimensions would depend on the object of engage-
ment (e.g., brand, website or advertisement). Extending this
notion in the online environment, the work by Mollen and
Wilson (2010) provides an understanding of online CE and
explains it as the way in which a person is engaged with a
brand via its website or any other entities that are computer
mediated. Following the work of Toor et al. (2017), the
present study has conceptualized engagement as ‘custom-
ers’ physical, cognitive and emotional presence in their
relationship with the service provider’. This active relation-
ship of customers with the organization distinguishes the
construct of engagement from customers’ involvement.
Considering sales as one of the ultimate purposes for
firms to keep their customers engaged, studies in both
offline (e.g., Brodie et al., 2011; Toor et al., 2017; Vivek
et al., 2012) and online context (e.g., Chan et al., 2014;
Tiruwa et al., 2016) have posited a positive linkage between
CE and purchase intentions. The similar linkage is tested
for streaming services through the following hypothesis:
H1: CE has a positive and significant impact on users’
WCS to streaming services.
Quality of Service Experience
If firms want their customers to keep coming back to them,
they need to provide them with an experience that compels
them to keep returning. This quality of experience (QoE)
has largely been understood by researchers as user’s delight
or annoyance with the service. This experience, posited as
the result of the fulfilment of customer’s expectations and
is, in turn, driven by the personality and current state of the
user (Qualinet White Paper, 2013). Even though it is an
extension of the notion of service quality that deals with
the performance of a service, the concept of QoSE tends to
be more holistic in nature as it focuses on the assessment of
the service performance by the user (Varela et al., 2014).
38
With respect to media consumption, the study by Reiter
et al. (2014) identified and examined three broad factors,
namely, human influence factors (that include user
characteristics), system influence factors (attributes that
determine the technically produced service quality like
content type, reliability and data transmission) and context
influence factors (that describe the user’s environment by
embracing any situation characteristics such as time of the
day, cost of service and other people involved in the
service) that affect users’ service experience. However, due
to lack of consensus, there still remains a need to identify
and quantify specific aspects that contribute to an
individual’s service experience (Möller & Raake, 2014)
and as such can be linked with his/her behavioural
intentions. While Sackl et al. (2012) demonstrated that
users with higher QoE will have greater willingness to pay,
the broader linkages of service quality with behavioural
intentions have been well established by numerous
previous studies (e.g., Beng, 1999; Jain & Gupta, 2015;
Spreng & Mackoy, 1996), thus lending support to the
formulation of following hypothesis:
H2: QoSE has a positive and significant impact on
users’ WCS to streaming services.
Satisfaction
A well-researched concept in the area of marketing, satis-
faction has been defined by Oliver (1980) as ‘a summary
psychological state when the emotions surrounding dis-
confirmed expectations are coupled with the consumer’s
prior feelings about consumption experience’. In a further
work, Oliver (1997) posited that satisfaction is derived
from a comparison of customer’s direct experience with a
product/service with their expectations from the same.
There also exists the consensus that both cognitive judg-
ments as well as affective experiences are crucial in pro-
ducing satisfaction.
Though past studies have well established the associa-
tion between satisfaction and CE, some have reported the
impact of satisfaction on CE (e.g., Doorn et al., 2010;
Pansari & Kumar, 2017), while others have found satisfac-
tion to be an outcome of CE (e.g., Abror et al., 2019; Brodie
et al., 2013). There, however, has been an agreement on the
linkages between QoE and satisfaction, with studies con-
sidering QoE as a measure of user satisfaction (e.g.,
Nourikhah & Akbari, 2016, pp. 112–122). The work by
Reichl et al., (2015) further reports that changes in several
factors such as price can have an impact on QoE, thus, in
turn, exerting an impact on user satisfaction.
Putting forth the view that satisfaction from the trial/
previous purchase is must for purchase to continue in
future (e.g., Seiders et al., 2005; Shankar et al., 2003;
Szymanski & Henard, 2001), several studies have also
tested the mediating impact of satisfaction in affecting the
relationship between different constructs including quality,
Vision 25(1)
engagement, trust, value loyalty, purchase intentions (e.g.,
Cronin et al., 2000; Kant et al., 2017; Srivastava & Sharma,
2013; Vesel & Zabkar, 2009), thereby lending support to
the following hypotheses:
H3a: Satisfaction mediates the relationship between
CE and WCS to streaming services.
H3b: Satisfaction mediates the relationship between
QoSE and WCS to streaming services.
Willingness to Continue and Subscribe
Most of the OTT services run on a business model, which
involves a free trial period, after which, the customers are
given a choice whether they wish to continue to use the
service and subscribe by paying a fixed monthly fee which
will give them uninterrupted access to unlimited content
provided by that streaming platform. The customers are
also at a liberty to cancel the subscription anytime. Also, as
satisfaction itself would not ensure repeat purchase
(Appelbaum, 2001), it becomes imperative for the provid-
ers of OTT platforms to continuously improve technology,
quality of services and the content offered on their plat-
forms as means to retain existing customers as well as
attract new ones.
Ever since the streaming services took over the enter-
tainment industry, researchers started focusing on under-
standing the factors that drive people to pay/subscribe for
these services (e.g., Chen et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2018).
Defined by Wertenbroch and Skiera (2002) as ‘the
maximum price a customer is willing to pay for a product’
(Kalish & Nelson, 1991; Wertenbroch & Skiera, 2002),
studies have opined that an assessment of customers’ will-
ingness to pay/subscribe helps in estimating demand and
designing pricing schedules based on the value of product/
service as perceived by the customers. In another study, Ye
et al. (2004) pointed out that the customers will be willing
to pay for online fee-based services only when such ser-
vices have a quantitative advantage over the free services.
Extending this view, Kim et al. (2017) studied the product
attributes that have a considerable influence on customers’
willingness to pay for OTT service and found that resolu-
tion, recommendation systems and viewing options (in that
order) were the most influential attributes.
Habit
A simple conceptualization of habit defines it as ‘a
behavioural tendency to repeat responses given a stable
supporting context’ (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). It is also
posited that the ease and speed with which these responses
can be performed motivates repetition of well-practiced
behaviours. A later work by De Guinea and Markus (2009)
defined the construct in terms of the ‘extent to which
people tend to perform behaviours automatically because
of learning’. The frequency with which a particular
Gupta and Singharia 39
behaviour occurs is taken as the measure for habit strength
(e.g., Triandis, 1979).
Previous studies have considered habit as a key
interpreter of future behaviour (e.g., Ji & Wood, 2007;
Ouellette & Wood, 1998). The view presented by Aarts
et al. (1998) that habit alone cannot accurately predict
future behaviour and must be supported by intentions, was
maintained by Ouellette and Wood (1998) who too reported
intentions to mediate the relationship between habit and
future behaviour; with conscious intentions becoming less
predictive of behaviour as habit strength increases. Later
research by Khalifa and Liu (2007) stated that it is necessary
to develop habit of using an online channel for satisfaction
to have a considerable impact on repurchase intention.
Similar results were reported by Hsu et al. (2015) who
found that satisfaction exerts a greater influence on repeat
purchase intention when habit strength is low. In a study
related to B2C website, Liao et al. (2006) also found habit
to be one of the significant drivers of customers’ intention
to continue.
In addition to the above, the moderating impact of habit
has also been examined by a number of researchers. For
instance, Limayem and Hirt (2003) revealed the interactive
effect of habit in influencing the linkage between intention
and usage behaviour. This has been supported by Jolley
et al. (2006) who too found habit as a significant moderator
that affected the impact of satisfaction on customer reten-
tion. However, negative moderating impact was reported
in a study by Chiu et al. (2012) who found higher level of
habit to reduce the effect of trust on repeat purchase inten-
tion. The aforesaid discussion lends to support the follow-
ing hypothesis:
H4: Habit moderates the relationship between satis-
faction and WCS to streaming services.
Figure 1.  The Research Framework
Source: The authors.
Research Objectives and
Framework
The present study is undertaken with a threefold research
agenda. First, with intensifying competition in the
streaming services, the paper delves into the role of the two
exogenous drivers in impacting consumers’ willingness to
continue with a particular service provider. Second, the
paper seeks to investigate the mediating role of satisfaction
in affecting the aforesaid linkage. Third, the research aims
to explore the possible moderating impact of consumers’
increased usage and consumption of streaming services
(conceptualized as ‘habit’) during the period of coronavirus
lockdown in affecting the association between consumers’
satisfaction and their future behaviour. The hypothesized
linkages tested in the present work are presented in the
research framework (Figure 1).
Methodology
Sample
An online questionnaire was floated on WhatsApp and
Facebook group to collect primary responses for the study.
As there is no sample framework or list of such customers,
convenience sampling method was used. Further, though
the subscription-led streaming services now have a wider
audience base, with those in the older age groups (35–44
years, and 45–54 years) showing a higher propensity to pay
for content (Brand Equity, 2019), the latest Global Web
Index report dated 30 March 2020 reports 89% of Indian
users in the age group of 16–35 years (Gen Z and
Millennials). Since the highest number of Facebook users
in the country also belong to these age groups: 97.2 million
users between 18 and 24 years and 81.1 million users
between 25 and 34 years of age (Statista, 2019), it was
40 Vision 25(1)

considered appropriate to use digital/social media platforms Findings and Discussion

to connect with possible users of streaming services.
People availing streaming services at present constituted
sampling unit for the study. Due to the possibility that they
could be using services of more than one OTT platform,
respondents were asked to provide their responses with
respect to the provider that they use the most. To improve
the response rate and encourage greater participation,
reminder mails were sent with an assurance of anonymity
of responses. A total of 182 responses received during one-
week period (24 June–30 June 2020) served as the final
data set. Majority of sample respondents were young
(87.4%), male (60.1%), unmarried (86.6%) and students
(66.8%) with the monthly family income more than one
lakh (50.8%). While the data found 85% of users to be paid
subscribers; Netflix, Amazon and Hotstar emerged as the
top three OTT platforms with, respectively, 59.2%, 29% and
6.3% respondents preferring and using their services over
others.
Measures
The questionnaire for the study, prepared on Google Docs,
was divided into three broad sections. The first section
sought information related to users’ chosen service provider
and frequency of digital media consumption in addition to
their demographic characteristics. The second section
included statements related to the two primary antecedents,
namely, CE and QoSE. The third section included statements
for two outcome variables, that is, satisfaction and WCS
as well as statements that tapped consumers’ habit of
consuming streaming services during the current period of
coronavirus lockdown. For all the measures, the scales
used/developed by previous researchers provided necessary
validity and were adopted with suitable modification in the
present work. A few statements were negatively phrased to
avoid response bias that could occur due to the use of five-
point Likert format (strongly disagree 1 to strongly agree
5). The details of the description of various measures along
with the source are provided in Table 1.
The study used PLS-SEM in Smart PLS 2.0 to analyse the
data. In addition to the merits related to relaxed conditions
of data distribution and applicability on relatively small
sample size, this technique is less sensitive to potential
omission of variables (Chin, 2010, pp. 655–690) and
primarily serves the objective of prediction and explanation
of target constructs (Hair et al., 2013). Further, this
methodology has been defended and endorsed by recent
marketing studies to examine the reflective models (e.g.,
Ali & Omar, 2014, pp. 175–193), thus justifying its
application in the current study. The findings with respect
to reliability, validity and testing of hypotheses are
discussed below.
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Each of the reflective constructs under investigation was
subjected to reliability and validity analysis. To begin with,
all item loadings (see Figure 2) were examined to ensure
that they fulfil the cut-off limit of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017).
Cronbach alpha values above 0.8, composite reliability
more than 0.7 and average variance extracted (AVE) scores
higher than 0.5 for all the constructs (see Table 2a) satisfy
the threshold acceptance level, thus lending support to
internal consistency and convergent validity of the model.
In the next step, discriminant validity was examined
using Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion as well as the
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. The values presented
in Table 2b show that the square root of AVEs (diagonal
values) exceed its corresponding correlation with other
latent constructs (below the diagonal), thereby fulfilling
the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion of discriminant
validity. To strengthen the evidence of discriminant
validity, HTMT ratio of correlations (ratio of inter-construct
correlation and square root of the product of correlation)
was computed. The HTMT values below the recommended
cut-off of 0.90 (Henseler et al., 2015) in Table 2b exhibit
the presence of discriminant validity between all constructs.

Table 1.  Measures

Construct No. of Items Description Source

Customer engagement 4 Follow news, talk about it to others, visit pages of Sarkar and Sreejesh (2014);
provider’s website, read posts about these services, seek Toor et al. (2017)
reviews from others.
Quality of service 5 Services accessible on different devices, availability of Ström and Martínez (2013)
experience (QoSE) playlist, uninterrupted flow of content, good quality of
media, good quality of content, easy to use.
Satisfaction 3 Feel good to use this service, good idea to use services of Caruana et al. (2000);
this provider, overall satisfaction. Grace and O’Cass (2005)
Habit 5 Hard to not use this service, habitual user, feel weird to Chiu et al. (2012)
not use it, would require an effort not to use, is a routine.
Willingness to continue and 3 Likelihood of continuing, willing to subscribe in future, Chu and Lu (2007); Tsai
subscribe (WCS) would recommend to others. et al. (2015)
Source: The authors’ compilation.
Gupta and Singharia 41

Figure 2.  The Complete Structural Model

Source: Data analysis.

Table 2a.  Reliability and Convergent Validity

Construct Cronbach Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
CE 0.836 1.070 0.880 0.648
Habit 0.904 0.920 0.929 0.723
QoSE 0.924 0.924 0.843 0.767
Satisfaction 0.872 0.888 0.921 0.795
WCS 0.918 0.918 0.848 0.860
Source: Data analysis.
Note: Boldface figures show the square root of AVEs of the constructs.

Table 2b.  Analysis of Discriminant Validity

Fornell and Larcker Test Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio

CE Habit QoSE Sat WCS CE Habit QoSE Sat WCS
CE 0.805    
Habit 0.424 0.850   0.474
QoSE 0.104  0.176 0.876     0.121 0.178
Sat 0.275  0.463  0.690 0.892   0.261 0.524 0.754
WCS 0.323 0.487 0.696 0.862 0.927 0.304 0.522 0.755 0.855
Source: Data analysis.

Model Fit
The PLS algorithm was used to evaluate the reflective
structural model presented in Figure 2. The R2 of the
endogenous construct (i.e., WCS) is found to be 0.786,
reflecting a substantial model fit (Chin, 2010). The value of
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < 0.08
and NFI > 0.8 are acceptable and support the overall fitness
of the structural model. In addition, the goodness of fit
(GoF) value = 0.822, calculated as the geometric mean of
the AVE and R2 (Tenenhaus et al., 2005) of WCS, well
exceeds the cut-off value = 0.36, thus indicating a good
model fit (Hoffmann & Birnbrich, 2012, pp. 390–407).
Next, the predictive relevance of the model was
examined using the blindfolding procedure. The value of
Q2 (representing the cross-validity of the endogenous
construct) was generated as per Stone–Geisser cross-
validation methodology (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). In
the current study, the Q2 value of 0.665 (i.e., value > 0) for
the endogenous construct (i.e., WCS) at the omission
42 Vision 25(1)

Table 3.  Values of Q-square Predict
PLS Model LM Model Difference
W22 0.489 0.369 0.120
W21 0.526 0.454 0.072
W20 0.505 0.449 0.056
Source: Data analysis.
distance = 8 establishes strong predictive power of the
model (Hair et al., 2017).
Getting support from the results, the study used PLS
predict to predict the item values of the endogenous
variable, that is, WCS which are then compared with the
predictions from a benchmark linear model (Shmueli et al.,
2016). The higher values of Q2 predict of the study model
over the benchmark LM model in Table 3 confirms higher
predictive ability and usefulness of the former model over
the latter.
Hypotheses Testing
Using the bootstrapping procedure, the hypothesized
linkages among the constructs were tested. The beta value
in Table 4 for the direct path linkage between CE"WCS (β
= 0.077, p < 0.05) and QoSE"WCS (β = 0.239, p < 0.01)
show the positive and significant impact of both the
exogenous constructs on WCS, lending support to the
acceptance of H1 and H2.
The mediation effect of satisfaction in affecting the
aforesaid direct linkages is examined using the systematic
mediation analysis suggested by Hair et al. (2017). In
addition to a significant direct effect, the introduction of
satisfaction generates a significant indirect effect of CE on
WCS via satisfaction (β = 0.124, p < 0.01). The results,
thus, establish complementary partial mediation of
satisfaction in affecting the relationship between CE and
WCS (H3a). The findings similarly show a significant
indirect effect (β = 0.402, p < 0.01) of QoSE on WCS via
satisfaction as well as a significant direct effect of QoSE on
WCS, thereby supporting the presence of complementary
partial mediation of satisfaction in affecting the linkage
between QoE and WCS (H3b).
After testing the mediating impact of satisfaction, the
study proceeds to investigate the presence of the moderating
impact of habit in transforming customers’ satisfaction into
willingness behaviour. An interaction or moderator
variable, as the product of satisfaction and habit was
introduced in the structural model. While the direct linkage
between habit and WCS turns out to be significant (β =
0.141, p < 0.01), the interactive effect is found to be
insignificant (β = −0.040, p > 0.05). The results, thus, fail
to establish the moderation effect of habit, providing
ground for the rejection of H4. However, the negative
coefficient of the interaction term (β = −0.04) implies that
the association of satisfaction with WCS becomes weaker
with habit strength.
Conclusion and Implications
In the context of the disruption caused by COVID-19 that
has escalated the at-home digital media consumption, the
present study examines the interplay of key factors that
affect users’ WCS to these services. From the theoretical
perspective, the study adds to the understanding of the
constructs investigated and lends explanation to the
linkages between them, as established in the marketing
literature. By examining consumers’ media consumption
behaviour in light of the change induced by the pandemic,
the work provides a starting point to context-based theory
adaptation in accordance with the changed scenario. The
study establishes its theoretical usefulness by pointing
towards the relevance of addressing the specific factors
(CE and QoSE) that exert an influence on consumers’
consumption behaviour in the current situation. Further, an
exploration into the possible moderating role of ‘habit’
consumption, induced due to the pandemic, adds value to
the existing body of research.
On the practical front, the results establish a strong
impact of both CE and QoSE in influencing customers’
WCS in future. To leverage this linkage, service provides

Table 4.  Path Coefficients and Hypotheses Testing

Hyp Path b t-stat p-value Result

H1 CE àWCS 0.077 2.016 0.044a Accepted
H2 QoSE à WCS 0.239 4.968 0.000b Accepted
H3a Indirect effect: 0.124 4.064 0.000b Complementary Partial mediation
CEàSatisfactionàWCS 0.077 2.016 0.000b
Direct effect: CE à WCS
H3b Indirect effect: 0.402 9.877 0.000b Complementary Partial mediation
QoSEàSatisfactionàWCS 0.239 12.236 0.000b
Direct effect: QoSE à WCS
H4 Habit à WCS 0.140 2.693 0.007b Rejected
Moderating effect à WCS −0.040 0.879 0.380
Source: Data sources.
Note: ap < .05, bp < .001.
Gupta and Singharia 43
need to provide continuous attention to aspects that
enhance engagement and user experience. Some useful
implications emerging from the study findings are
discussed below.
First, it is suggested that providers devote attention on
developing a ‘fan-base’ of customers who are emotionally
engaged with the firm and its offerings. To achieve this,
greater focus should be laid by providers to post regular
information related to new content on their website that
would motivate people to look forward to the new uploads.
It is also advised that providers make use of social
networking sites and apps to engage users and encourage
them to develop a user community where they can discuss
the content with each other. While doing so, firms should
acknowledge individual differences existing among
members of their online community and accordingly
provide tailored services on their website. A blended mix
of these efforts may help the firms in not only keeping their
users engaged in terms of the time they spend using the
service but would also provide advocacy and continued
visibility to streaming services post pandemic.
Second, to provide customers’ with a differential and
improved service experience, it is suggested that providers
reaggregate or re-bundle their content libraries to include a
wide range of offerings, including video, music and gaming
services. Though the leading service providers have made
progress in this direction, there still remains a scope for
delivering customized packages of content to their custom-
ers. By providing offers in accordance with customers’
interests and buying behaviour, the providers can further
create a distinction and eventually reap additional benefits
of target advertising.
Third, consumers can be given an option to accept ad-
supported content, that is, advertising in exchange for
‘free’ (non-subscription) content. Although ad-free sub-
scription model like Netflix is preferred by consumers, yet,
with more firms joining their own subscription services in
future, it may become difficult to sustain a subscription-
only model. Collecting data on users’ perception of service
quality at regular intervals can help providers in taking
future decisions in this regard.
Fourth, the presence of the mediating impact of satisfac-
tion, even though partial, implies that users’ satisfaction
with the service cannot be ignored. Lack of variation in con-
sumers’ satisfaction experience across service providers
would gradually result in the negligent impact of satisfac-
tion in influencing WCS. To ensure that users not only
remain satisfied with the service they receive, but also view
it distinct in comparison to that provided by the competing
firms, it is suggested that providers deliver personalized
content to each user based on the user’s preference record.
Steps should also be taken to update data on users’ satisfac-
tion to improve the chances of service recommendation.
Finally, while the present work posits satisfaction to
result from a blend of CE and QoSE; it considers the
situation stimulus provided by the lockdown as the trigger
for habit formation. The difference in the operating
mechanism of the two constructs not only supports the
assessment of their interactive impact, but also brings to
the fore a different perspective of this relationship. The
findings reveal habit (of consuming streaming services
during the pandemic period) as a possible predictor of
users’ decision to continue and subscribe but fail to
establish its interactive effect as a moderator. However,
though the moderating impact turns out to be insignificant,
its negative beta value imply that the focus on users’
satisfaction can be suppressed as the OTT users grow more
habitual of using these services. On the other hand, when
the users have not developed a habit of using these services,
satisfaction would stimulate consumers’ WCS. In the light
of this important inference, service providers need to
continue with their efforts to deliver services to the
satisfaction of their users. It would be worthwhile for them
to further analyse the level at which the influence of
satisfaction on WCS will decrease or get nullified by the
effect of habit. Once the satisfaction reaches a sufficient
level, efforts should be made to develop a habit in customers
to consume streaming services automatically every time
they feel the need to consume media and entertainment
services.
In sum, the study provides effective direction to service
providers in understanding the changes in consumers’
media consumption habits and suggest practical ways in
which streaming service offerings can be modified in
accordance with the changed behaviours.
Limitations and Future Research
Directions
The limitations of the present research can be addressed by
scholars in future. The first constraint pertains to the
sample that largely constitutes young respondents. A more
diversified sample including people from higher age
groups may present a different perspective to the consump-
tion of streaming services and yield a significant popula-
tion effect. Another aspect that needs attention is the
composition of primary constructs, namely, CE and QoSE,
both considered unidimensional in the present work. By
including the dimensions of CE and adopting a broadened
gamut of the concept of experience that incorporates other
relevant aspects of service quality such as website quality
and perceived usefulness, future researchers would be able
to provide a more detailed and holistic assessment of these
constructs in furthering user satisfaction with services.
Research delving into various antecedents of habit forma-
tion would also be useful for providers. Last, there always
remains a scope to further improve the psychometric and
diagnostic properties of the measures as well as make
future studies more comprehensive by including other rel-
evant constructs in the research framework.
44
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors no financial support for the research, authorship and/
or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Garima Gupta https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4563-3656
Komal Singharia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4041-9888
References
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1998).
Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated deci-
sion making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28(15), 1355–1374.
Abror, A., Wardi, Y., Trinanda, O., & Patrisia, D. (2019). The
impact of Halal tourism, customer engagement on satisfac-
tion: Moderating effect of religiosity. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 24(7), 633–643.
Ali, F., & Omar, R. (2014). Determinants of customer experi-
ence and resulting satisfaction and revisit intentions: PLS-
SEM approach towards Malaysian resort hotels. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 3(2),
175–193.
Appelbaum, A. (2001, June 17). The constant customer. Gallup
Group.  https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/745/
constant-customer.aspx
Beng, S. O. (1999). Determinants of purchase intentions and
stock-piling tendency of bonus packs. American Business
Review, 17(1), 57–64.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011).
Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamen-
tal propositions, and implications for research. Journal of
Service Research, 14(3), 252–271.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer
engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory
analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114.
Caruana, A., Money, A., & Berthon, P. (2000). Service quality
and satisfaction: The moderating role of value. European
Journal of Marketing, 34(11/12), 1338–1352.
Chan, T. K., Zheng, X., Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Lee, Z. W.
(2014). Antecedents and consequences of customer engage-
ment in online brand communities. Journal of Marketing
Analytics, 2(2), 81–97.
Chang, H. H., & Chen, W. S. (2008). The impact of online store
environment cues on purchase intention: Trust and per-
ceived risk as a mediator. Online Information Review, 32(6),
818–841.
Chen, C. C., Leon, S., & Nakayama, M. (2018). Are you hooked
on paid music streaming? An investigation into the millennial
generation. International Journal of E-Business Research
(IJEBR), 14(1), 1–20.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In
Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655–690). Springer.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., Lai, H., & Chang, C.-M. (2012).
Re-examining the influence of trust on online repeat purchase
intention: The moderating role of habit and its antecedents.
Decision Support Systems, 53, 835–845.
Vision 25(1)
Chu, C., & Lu, H. (2007). Factors influencing online music pur-
chase intention in Taiwan. Internet Research, 17(2), 139–155.
Cronin Jr, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing
the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on con-
sumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal
of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
De Guinea, A. O., & Markus, M. L. (2009). Why break the
habit of a lifetime? Rethinking the roles of intention, habit,
and emotion in continuing information technology use. MIS
Quarterly, 33(3), 433–444.
Delafrooz, N., Paim, L. H., & Khatibi, A. (2011). Understanding
consumer’s internet purchase intention in Malaysia. African
Journal of Business Management, 5(7), 2837–2846.
Doorn, J. V., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner,
P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior:
Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of
Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation mod-
els with unobservable variables and measurement error:
Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3),
382–388.
Gardner, M. (2020, April 16). Are you still watching?
How streaming media brands keep consumer’s atten-
tion. Braze. https://www.braze.com/perspectives/article/
how-streaming-media-brands-keep-consumers-attention
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect
model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107.
Grace, D., & O’Cass, A. (2005). An examination of the ante-
cedents of repatronage intentions across different retail store
formats. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12,
227–243.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A
primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least
squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications,
better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning,
46(1-2), 1–12.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new cri-
terion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Hoffmann, A. O., & Birnbrich, C. (2012). The impact of fraud
prevention on bank-customer relationships. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(5), 390–407.
Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement:
Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7),
555–573.
Hsu, M. H., Chang, C. M., & Chuang, L. W. (2015). Understanding
the determinants of online repeat purchase intention and
moderating role of habit: The case of online group-buying in
Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management,
35(1), 45–56.
Jain, S. K., & Gupta, G. (2015). Antecedents of store footfall
and loyalty: An investigation from an integrated perspective.
Journal of Commerce & Business Studies, 2(2), 1–18.
Ji, M. F., & Wood, W. (2007). Purchase and consumption hab-
its: Not necessarily what you intend. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 17(4), 261–276.
Jolley, B., Mizerski, R., & Olaru, D. (2006). How habit and satis-
faction affects player retention for online gambling. Journal
of Business Research, 59(6), 770–777.
Gupta and Singharia 45
Kalish, S., & Nelson, P. (1991). A comparison of ranking, rat-
ing and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis.
Marketing Letters, 2(4), 327–335.
Kant, R., Jaiswal, D., & Mishra, S. (2017). The investigation of
service quality dimensions, customer satisfaction and corpo-
rate image in Indian public sector banks: An application of
Structural Equation Model (SEM). Vision, 21(1), 76–85.
Khalifa, M., & Liu, V. (2007). Online consumer retention:
Contingent effects of online shopping habit and online shop-
ping experience. European Journal of Information Systems,
16(6), 780–792.
Kim, M. S., Kim, E., Hwang, S., Kim, J., & Kim, S. (2017).
Willingness to pay for over-the-top services in China and
Korea. Telecommunications Policy, 41(3), 197–207.
Kuvykaitė, R., & Tarutė, A. (2015). A critical analysis of con-
sumer engagement dimensionality. Procedia—Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 213, 654–658.
Lee, C. C., Nagpal, P., Ruane, S. G., & Lim, H. S. (2018). Factors
affecting online streaming subscriptions. Communications of
the IIMA, 16(1), 2.
Liao, C., Palvia, P., & Lin, H. N. (2006). The roles of habit and
web site quality in e-commerce. International Journal of
Information Management, 26(6), 469–483.
Limayem, M., & Hirt, S. G. (2003). Force of habit and informa-
tion systems usage: Theory and initial validation. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 3.
Madhukalya, A. (2020, April 21). India’s internet consumption
up during Covid-19 lockdown, shows data. Hindustan
Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-s-
internet-consumption-up-during-covid-19-lockdown-shows-
data/story-ALcov1bP8uWYO9N2TbpPlK.html
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and
interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling
scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business
Research, 63(9-10), 919–925.
Möller, S., & Raake, A. (Eds.). (2014). Quality of experience:
Advanced concepts, applications and methods. Springer.
Nourikhah, H., & Akbari, M. K. (2016). Impact of service quality
on user satisfaction: Modeling and estimating distribution of
quality of experience using Bayesian data analysis. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 17, 112–122.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on
the consumer. McGraw-Hill Company.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing
Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in
everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behav-
ior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1),
54–74.
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The
construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294–311.
Patterson, P. G., Yu, T., & Ruyter, K. d. (2006). Understanding
customer engagement in services. Proceedings of Australia-
New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Brisbane.
Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience.
(2013). European network on quality of experience in mul-
timedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003),
Patrick Le Callet, Sebastian Möller & Andrew Perkis (Eds.).
Lausanne, Switzerland, Version 1.2.
Reichl, P., Egger, S., Möller, S., Kilkki, K., Fiedler, M., Hossfeld,
T., Tsiaras, C. & Asrese, A. (2015). Towards a comprehen-
sive framework for QoE and user behavior modelling. Seventh
International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience
(QoMEX) (pp. 1–6). Pylos-Nestoras: IEEE.
Reiter, U., Brunnström, K., De Moor, K., Larabi, M. C., Pereira,
M., Pinheiro, A., You, J., & Zgank, A. (2014). Factors influ-
encing quality of experience. In S. Möller & A. Raake (Eds.),
Quality of experience (pp. 55–72). Springer.
Sackl, A., Egger, S., Zwickl, P., & Reichl, P. (2012). The QoE
alchemy: Turning quality into money: Experiences with a
refined methodology for the evaluation of willingness-to-pay
for service quality. Fourth International Workshop on Quality
of Multimedia Experience (pp. 170–175). Yarra Valley, VIC,
Australia: IEEE.
Sarkar, A., & Sreejesh, S. (2014). Examination of the roles played
by brand love and jealousy in shaping customer engagement.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 23(1), 24–32.
Seiders, K., Voss, G. B., Grewal, D., & Godfrey, A. L. (2005).
Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining moderating
influences in a retailing context. Journal of Marketing, 69(4),
26–43.
Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer
satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(2),
153–175.
Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016).
The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS
models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552–4564.
Spreng, R. A., & Mackoy, R. D. (1996). An empirical examina-
tion of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction.
Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 201–214.
Srivastava, K., & Sharma, N. K. (2013). Service quality, corpo-
rate brand image, and switching behavior: The mediating role
of customer satisfaction and repurchase intention. Services
Marketing Quarterly, 34(4), 274–291.
Statista. (2019). https://www.statista.com/statistics/376128/face
book-global-user-age-distribution/
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of sta-
tistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society:
Series B (Methodological), 36(2), 111–133.
Ström, J., & Martínez, K. B. (2013). The determinants of cus-
tomer satisfaction, loyalty and willingness to pay in subscrip-
tion based streaming services. Bachelor Thesis, Department
of Marketing and Strategy Stockholm School of Economics.
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfac-
tion: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 16.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C.
(2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data
Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.
Tiruwa, A., Yadav, R., & Suri, P. K. (2016). An exploration of
online brand community (OBC) engagement and customer’s
intention to purchase. Journal of Indian Business Research,
8(4), 295–314.
Toor, A., Husnain, M., & Hussain, T. (2017). The impact of
social network marketing on consumer purchase intention in
Pakistan: Consumer engagement as a mediator. Asian Journal
of Business and Accounting, 10(1), 168–199.
Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal
behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 195–259.
Tsai, Y. H., Joe, S.-W., Lin, C.-P., Chiu, C.-K., & Shen, K.-T.
(2015). Exploring corporate citizenship and purchase
46
intention: Mediating effects of brand trust and corporate
identification. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(4),
361–377.
Van Daele, B. (2020, August 26). The ABCs of the ‘new normal’
for streaming services. Streaming Media. https://www.stream-
ingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=142536
Varela, M., Skorin-Kapov, L., & Ebrahimi, T. (2014). Quality
of service versus quality of experience. In S. Möller & A.
Raake (Eds.), Quality of experience (pp. 85–96). Springer.
Vesel, P., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Managing customer loyalty
through the mediating role of satisfaction in the DIY retail
loyalty program. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
16(5), 396–406.
Viswanathan, V., Hollebeek, L. D., Malthouse, E. C., Maslowska,
E., Jung Kim, S., & Xie, W. (2017). The dynamics of con-
sumer engagement with mobile technologies. Service
Science, 9(1), 36–49.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer
engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond pur-
chase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2),
122–146.
Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consum-
ers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of
Marketing Research, 39(2), 228–241.
Ye, L. R., Zhang, Y., Nguyen, D. D., & Chiu, J. (2004). Fee-
based online services: Exploring consumers’ willingness to
Vision 25(1)
pay. Journal of International Technology and Information
Management, 13(1), 12.
About the Authors
Garima Gupta (garimagupta@fms.edu) is presently an
Associate Professor in the Faculty of Management Studies,
University of Delhi. She has contributed articles to journals
of repute including Vikalpa, Journal of Asian Business
Studies, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vision—The Journal of Business Perspective, Global
Business Review, Indore Management Journal, International
Journal of Business Excellence, NMIMS Management
Review and FIIB Business Review and has presented papers
in national/international conferences. She has also authored
a book titled Marketing of Services: Quality Dimensions.
Komal Singharia (komal.phd@fms.edu) is currently
pursuing her doctoral work at Faculty of Management
Studies (FMS), University of Delhi. She received her
BCom degree from SRCC and MCom degree from
Department of Commerce, Delhi School of Economics,
University of Delhi. She has presented papers in national/
international conferences on diverse areas of marketing.