Behaviour & Information Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

The way you listen to music: effect of swiping

direction and album arts on adoption of music
streaming application

Md Rifayat Islam Rushan

To cite this article: Md Rifayat Islam Rushan (2020): The way you listen to music: effect of swiping
direction and album arts on adoption of music streaming application, Behaviour & Information
Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1787515

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1787515

Published online: 07 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 120

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1787515

The way you listen to music: effect of swiping direction and album arts on
adoption of music streaming application
Md Rifayat Islam Rushan
Massey Business School, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Digital music is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and online streaming is the significant contributor to Received 12 November 2019
this revenue pie. Major streaming service providers, e.g. Spotify, Apple music, Deezer etc. are Accepted 19 June 2020
operating with the almost same number of songs and price propositions. With all these options
KEYWORDS
available, which one is better to choose when there is no price differentiation? This study Music streaming; user
investigates how to bring differentiation that will increase the likelihood of adoption of music experience; product design;
streaming applications through delivering user-centric experiential design to consumers with application usability;
two features, swiping direction and album arts. Specifically, this research examines whether adoption
swiping direction affects adoption and also investigates the combination of album arts and
swiping direction that is fluent to process and increase the likelihood of adoption. We built our
hypotheses upon the theory of processing fluency and formulated the proposition that atypical
design is fluent comparing to typical design for adoption. Two online experimental studies and a
field study were adopted. Across all the three studies, the results revealed support for atypical
design that increases the likelihood of adoption of music streaming applications. Our findings
have implications for streaming providers to differentiate their products through atypical
experiential design elements that increase both usability and adoption.

1. Introduction
The music industry is consisted of different streams (e.g.
recorded, live etc.) and sales-revenue coming out from
these streams have made it a multibillion-dollar industry.
With the evolution of technology, there is a significant
change the way customers consume music (Papies and
van Heerde 2017) and music discovery options are con-
veniently corroborated through intelligent user inter-
faces across web platforms and streaming services
(Knees, Schedl, and Goto 2019). Now, customers have
access to millions of songs in online and through mobile
applications such as Spotify, which provides 35 million
songs catalogue in their streaming application (What is
Spotify 2017). Music streaming (free as well paid)
appeals to new customers more, who then convert to a
streaming user and contribute towards digital revenue
(Wlömert and Papies 2016). Digital Music revenue
reported a 19.1% increase to the U.S.$ 9.4 billion, driven
significantly (60.4%) by streaming revenue (IFPI 2018).
According to Mclntyre (2018), streaming music has elev-
ated U.S. music market to reach a double-digit overall
growth of 16.5% (U.S.$ 8.72 billion) in two consecutive
years in a row, which has not happened for last 15
years and is expected to get another 20% hike by 2018.
Music streaming revenue is projected to be double by
2020 from now and is expected to be a U.S.$100 billion
industry by 2030 (Nicolua 2017). Globally 176 million
customers are using paid streaming services, of which
76% are streaming music through mobile phones (IFPI
2018). Consumers listen to music through different med-
iums not limited to mobile, computer, sound system,
MP3 player, iPod etc. Our preference to listen to music
has changed with the evolving of the internet hence tech-
nology, and now we can engage in experiencing seamless
music anywhere. According to a report by Nielsen
(2017), music listeners use averagely 3.4 devices weekly
to engage with music. Increasing rate of smartphone
penetration drives the adoption of digital mobile music
streaming and service providers have insights of consu-
mer behaviour to deliver a personalised experience
(Chung, Rust, and Wedel 2009). Consumers experience
a synchronised recommendation generated from the
past listening habits followed by considering situational
factors such as mood and emotion (Irrgang, Steffens,
and Egermann 2020). So, consumers get a complete sol-
ution for listening to music through mobile devices with

CONTACT Md Rifayat Islam Rushan rifayat@outlook.co.nz Massey Business School, Massey University, Private Bag 102904, North Shore, Auckland 0745,
New Zealand
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. R. I. RUSHAN
internet connectivity and the music industry has adopted
these new formats (e.g. streaming, online radio stream-
ing etc.) to deliver music experiences.
Spotify, Gaana, Beats, Slacker radio, Soundcloud,
Apple music, Pandora, Amazon music, Tidal, Deezer,
Google play music etc. are some of the prominent
music streaming applications in all across the globe.
All the applications can be accessible in most of the
countries along with some local applications developed
for local markets by telecom operators. Interestingly,
most of the applications advertise almost the same
music library of songs. For example, Spotify has more
than 30 million songs, Google play music has over 40
million songs, and Apple music has around 45 million
songs (Pendlebury and Blanco 2018). So, out of many
options, which one to choose and which one is better?
The music industry is an extremely competitive market,
differentiation is the biggest challenge and customers will
choose the streaming application provider that can
differentiate their product from the others since the
scope for only price differentiation tends to zero (Chan-
dran 2015). In today’s marketplace, product design is an
established and accepted point of product differentiation
(Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015). Customers
will not adopt a music streaming application, which
fails to provide the seamless user experience. But very lit-
tle is known about how to design the music streaming
application to deliver enhanced user experience. Thus,
practitioners and researchers are left with the question
that how to provide a better user experience for a
music streaming app.
User-oriented design brings a collaborative approach
in product development process, which ultimately
shapes a better user experience (Veryzer and Borja de
Mozota 2005). Music streaming applications commonly
have different styles of presentations or designs, which
include different background colours, layouts (e.g. one
/several album arts), swiping option from top to bottom
or left to right, features like personal playlists, social
media sharing etc. Previous research examined the var-
ious perspective of product designs and its relative
importance on product development. For example,
Bloch (1995) articulated that the form of a product deter-
mines customers psychological and behavioural
responses. Product design often acts as a source of com-
petitive edge (Kotler 2003). Visual design is an integral
part of product design, and visual aesthetics influence
the evaluation of a product (Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold
2003). Despite the importance of product design associ-
ated with the user experience for a multibillion music
industry such as streaming, no other single academic
research has addressed the issue regarding customers
perceived design experience for music streaming
application. Although the user design experience aspect
under customer experience management is a widely
researched topic, a specific study of user design experi-
ence for streaming applications is highly overlooked.
In music streaming application, the user experience
can only be enhanced through available features for con-
sumers, which are essential, easy to use and generate aes-
thetic feelings indeed. This study will explore two specific
user experiential aspects (swiping direction and album
arts) for the adoption of music streaming application
while not minimising the importance of other user
experience dimensions (e.g. colour, personal playlist,
navigation pane, social medic etc.). Swiping is a common
experiential feature for any mobile application or website
while browsing. We use our fingers while swiping
throughout the touch screen of the mobile devices. Swip-
ing feature can be used for various input purposes in
music streaming applications such as writing the text,
scrolling the screen from top to bottom direction and
also from left to right direction, controlling the volume
function, brightness or colour management of the screen,
skip songs and so on. In this study, we refer to the swip-
ing direction action that enables users to scroll the screen
from top to bottom direction and from bottom to top
direction along with swiping from left to right direction
and from right to left direction. We also define scrolling
the screen from top to bottom direction as the funda-
mental feature of swiping and conversely, scrolling
from bottom to top direction as the ‘vice versa’ direction
while swiping throughout the screen. Similarly, swiping
from left to right direction as the fundamental feature
of swiping and scrolling from left to right as the ‘vice
versa’ direction. Furthermore, scrolling, swiping and
browsing the touch screen of the mobile devices portrays
analogous meaning. Generally, swiping can be done in
top-down and vice versa direction. Swiping from left to
right direction is a new experience dimension incorpor-
ated in very few music streaming applications (e.g.
Gaana, Deezer etc.). Album art is the visual art present-
ing on the mobile screen. Most of the applications have
adopted a single album presenting at a time to users
(e.g. Spotify), and few applications present multiple
album arts (e.g. Gaana) at a time to users. The present
study aims to examine the effect of swiping direction fea-
ture on adoption of music streaming application and the
moderating role of album arts in this relationship.
Prior research demonstrates the significance of pro-
duct design (Bloch 1995) to create differentiation and
drive business performance. Consumers have various
options to choose from a wide range of music streaming
applications provided service independently and also
delivered through local telecom providers. Due to the
intense competition, customers will select and continue

to use the best application that provides exceptional user
experience. So the sole aim of this research study is to
investigate:
How can product differentiation be done for music
streaming application through product design features
(Swiping Direction vs. Album Arts)?
The specific research questions are the following:
RQ1: Is there an effect of swiping direction on customers
adoption of music streaming applications?
RQ2: Is there an effect of album arts on customers adop-
tion of music streaming applications?
RQ3: Which combination of swiping direction vs. album
arts is preferred to adopt the music streaming
application?
In addressing these questions, we develop a conceptual
framework and hypotheses. To empirically test the frame-
work and hypotheses, we conduct two experimental
studies and one field study. In study 1, we first test whether
swiping direction has an effect on consumers adoption of
music streaming application. Then we examine preferred
combination of swiping direction and albums arts present-
ing to consumers in the mobile screen by examining the
interaction between swiping direction and album arts. In
study 2, we replicate the study settings of study 1 for a
different sample. In study 3, we conduct a field study
with real-life data to assess the change impact of experien-
tial design elements for a music streaming application.
This research study makes important theoretical and
managerial contributions. First, we provide insights
into product design of mobile applications. Product
design focused on various design elements and aesthetics
feelings (e.g. Bloch 1995; Cox and Cox 2002; Homburg,
Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015). We contribute to this lit-
erature by highlighting the experiential impact of swip-
ing direction and visual aesthetic feelings of album arts
on consumers adoption of mobile streaming appli-
cations. Second, we contribute to the literature of mobile
application usability (e.g. Hoehle and Venkatesh 2015;
Lee and Price 2016; Newman, Wachter, and White
2018). Usability research focuses on how user-friendly
an object is from the users perspective. We contribute
here by showing the preferred experience and design
combination that increases the usability for music
streaming applications through swiping direction and
album arts. Third, we contribute to the music marketing
literature (e.g. Papies, Eggers, and Wlömert 2011; Papies
and van Heerde 2017; Datta, Knox, and Bronnenberg
2017). Music marketing literature has exhibited more
on macro music phenomenon like piracy, unbundling,
recorded music vs. concert etc. Our contribution is
more from micro perspective to examine the preferred
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 3
way by the customers to listen to music in a streaming
application while taking into consideration swiping
direction and album arts presenting in the screen of
mobile applications. Fourth, we also contribute on
extending the literature of processing fluency (e.g. Land-
wehr, Labroo, and Herrmann 2011; Landwehr, Wentzel,
and Herrmann 2013) by demonstrating the typical
design and atypical design effect on consumers adoption
of music streaming applications, therefore, addressing
the questions of music streaming industry. Apart from
the key theoretical contributions, our research also pro-
vides managerial relevance by demonstrating the impor-
tance of design for mobile streaming applications along
with the experience consumers preferred to adopt the
applications. Specifically, marketers can differentiate
their product by incorporating significant findings
from this study not only to deliver unique experience
but also to increase the number of consumers who will
continue to use the music application thereby increase
the long-term profitability for the companies.
2. Literature review
2.1. Product design
Product design builds the differentiation for the business
firms and helps to position distinctively in the mind of
the customers. Marketing literature highlights product
design as a source of competitive advantage (Landwehr,
Wentzel, and Herrmann 2013; Homburg, Schwemmle,
and Kuehnl 2015) and product design is considered as
a crucial marketing variable (Creusen, Veryzer, and
Schoormans 2010). Particularly, product design plays a
pivotal role respective to new product development
(NPD). Perceived newness in a product design acts as
a selling point for product differentiation (Talke, Müller,
and Wieringa 2017). The success of new products in a
greater extent determined by the quality of the product
design (Mowen, Fang, and Scott 2010) and newness of
the product design drives sales growth (Talke, Müller,
and Wieringa 2017) over the whole product lifecycle
(Rubera 2014). In the stream of product design research,
aesthetic design, design crowdsourcing and product
innovation are relevant for our research study.
Marketing scholars have emphasised on products aes-
thetic appeal dimension under product design in particu-
lar and which also received attention from the
practitioners. In marketing research, when and why cus-
tomers get induced by the aesthetic design is a rich arena
with significant contributions (Cox and Cox 2002; Land-
wehr, Wentzel, and Herrmann 2013). Consumers evalu-
ate not only the functional value of a product but also
4 M. R. I. RUSHAN
take into consideration the experiential value such as
product aesthetics (Creusen, Gemser, and Candi 2018).
The appearance of a product along with perceived beauty
is referred to as the aesthetic dimension of product
design (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015).
Firms always seek for the ideal aesthetic design for
their product lines (Orth and Malkewitz 2008; Liu et
al. 2017). Acceptance of customers for new design highly
depends on the exposure level. Consumers preference for
complex visual designs increases with the level of
repeated exposures (Cox and Cox 2002). Landwehr,
Wentzel, and Herrmann (2013) examined car design
with typical and atypical settings and found that consu-
mers like atypical design when the exposure level is high.
Designing products with the participation of custo-
mers increasingly receives priority and this process has
adopted by many firms, which is also defined as design
crowdsourcing. To source innovative designs, firms
seek for various external sources in the ideation phase
of new product development (Allen, Chandrasekaran,
and Basuroy 2018). Chang and Taylor (2016) articulated
that in ideation and launching phase, the participation of
customers for new product development increases the
performance of the product inclusion of financial per-
formance. For instance, a Japanese consumer brand
name Muji reported that sales of a product built by
designers are five times lower than the same product
designed by the customer’s idea (Chang and Taylor
2016). The common design proposed by the consumers
ultimately increase the perception that the company is
capable of building innovative designs (Schreier, Fuchs,
and Dahl 2012). Firms involve customers to take their
feedbacks through co-developing or building the product
from the scratch with customers own idea (Cui and Wu
2016).
Innovation and human-centred approach are the core
value for product design. Satisfying customer needs and
wants is the utmost priority in the design thinking pro-
cess. A comprehensive understanding accelerates inno-
vation process to meet what people wants along with
their liking and disliking about making, marketing and
packaging of a particular product (Brown 2008). When
a company builds innovative solutions, then it is necess-
ary to understand the factors that can affect the adoption
of the innovative solution (Hauser, Tellis, and Griffin
2006). So, innovation is indispensable element for pro-
duct design to get succeeded. Design innovation starts
with need finding followed by brainstorming and proto-
typing. Consideration of wide-ranging insights derived
from the customers who will actually use the product
and experiments with users by presenting prototypes to
select the best output – the entire process or cycle is per-
formed by the developers tagging users in phases (Seidel
and Fixson 2013; Liedtka 2015). A problem-solving
approach for users through delivering innovative sol-
utions is the ultimate key to achieve competitive advan-
tages and build a strong position by delivering distinctive
products and services.
Produce design literature streams suggest that aes-
thetic design and innovation of the product have a sig-
nificant association with success and differentiation of
the product. Moreover, participation of customers in
idea generation and pre-experiencing the protytype of
actual product enhance the acceptance of the product.
These articulations apply in our research context of
music streaming application as well since we investigate
with consumers participation that what combination of
album arts and swiping direction experientially and visu-
ally are fluent to process to increase the likelihood of
adoption.
2.2. Website interactivity and functionality
Research on websites is another stream of literature close
to our area of investigation, focuses on interactivity and
functionality dimensions that affect consumers behav-
iour in digital world. Effects of interfaces (computer,
mobile etc.) on human responses is a recent stream of
research, so there is a lack of research findings. With
the advancement of data analytics, marketers can track
the consumers browsing and navigation patterns to
examine the site performance and utilise these insights
on re-engineering the site design and customisation
(Bucklin and Sismeiro 2003) that analogously enhance
websites interactivity and functionality. Under the
stream of website research, site interactivity and func-
tionality is proximately pertinent to the interest of our
research study.
Interactivity is a key feature and unique compared to
other mediums. Websites are considered as an interac-
tive communication channel, a tool for shopping and
customer relationship management hence both technol-
ogy experts and marketing practitioners focus on build-
ing interactive websites (Song and Zinkhan 2008). This
interactive aspect is analogous for mobile applications
like music streaming as marketers also put priority to
provide interactive experience while navigating through-
out the applications. The interactive consumption
experience in websites generates cognitive and pleasure
arousal emotion, which induces customer’s visit duration
on the website (Steenkamp and Geyskens 2006).
Increased visit duration drive adoption through repeated
visit and consumption in the website. Additionally, web-
site design portrays signal about the firm’s abilities by
delivering quality product experience that enhances
credibility in the eyes of customers (Schlosser, White,

and Lloyd 2006). In recent times, consumers have
touchscreen experiences (example: iPad, smartphone
etc.) to browse the same website. Consumers touching
experience towards an object increase the psychological
ownership and proximity of eyes distance from an object
in mobile screen induces consumers effective response
(Shen, Zhang, and Krishna 2016). Similar design and
interactive experience dimension of websites also apply
in our research context of mobile music streaming
application.
Functionality is a common characteristic that in the
same way indispensable for website and mobiles. Web
functionality refers to easy to use interface, navigation,
artistic design and presentation of information (Liao
and Shi 2017). Layout and navigation of websites, the
most used criteria considered by the consumers to assess
websites service quality (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and
Malhotra 2002). Interface design affects the consumer’s
choice they make in a website while browsing. Consu-
mers behaviours are dynamic as they response towards
different web pages presented to them and flawless func-
tionality of the sites have made this dynamic behaviour
(Bucklin and Sismeiro 2003). Functionality also affects
consumers website visit duration, purchase conversion
rates and indeed drive long-term sales (Danaher, Mullar-
key, and Essegaier 2006). Screen colour choice by the
designers for interfaces has a substantial impact on con-
sumers perceptions. Colours that provide the experience
of relaxed feelings induce consumers perception about
greater perceived quickness in websites browsing,
which consequently influence site evaluation and inten-
tion of recommending to others (Gorn et al. 2004).
So, website literature is associated with a great extent
with mobile applications since our key constructs: swip-
ing direction provides an interactive experience and aes-
thetic album arts presentation in the screen enhances the
functionality. However, prior research mostly examined
the interactivity and functionality from websites perspec-
tive. Herein, this study examines interactive experience
(touchscreen swiping direction) and functionally (aes-
thetic album arts presentation in the screen) from the
music streaming application perspective.
2.3. Application usability
The term usability is used for any human-made objects
and how easily people can use that object to fulfil their
needs. Research on usability has received particular
attention in the field of information systems (IS) and
human–computer interaction (HCI). The concept and
application of usability is identified as a critical success
factor for mobile marketing and this usability aspect
studied mainly from the technical perspective (e.g.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5
performance, response time etc.) (Hoehle and Venkatesh
2015). Usability is conceptualised by scholars from var-
ious perspectives. Baek and Yoo (2018) defined usability
as perceived ease of use for an object that portrays
efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction from a user
point of view to achieve goals in a particular context. Per-
ceived ease of use refers to user-friendliness to use a tech-
nological product (e.g. mobile applications) without any
extra effort from the user’s end (Newman, Wachter, and
White 2018). Additionally, usability induces consumers
engagement towards a particular product because users
feel connected while interacting with the product. For
example, if a mobile application is user-friendly then
naturally consumers will get engaged and interacted
throughout the application. Consumers review lack of
friendliness as a negative app experience (Hoehle and
Venkatesh 2015). The app should be more user-friendly
than other technological mediums as consumers expect a
better vivid response in comparison to websites (New-
man, Wachter, and White 2018). A wide range of litera-
ture has examined Mobile app usability from a holistic
perspective. Hoehle and Venkatesh (2015) articulated
mobile app usability as a quality attribute, which is
based on users, objectives and context. Criteria or meth-
odology for usability evaluation is the specific relevant
stream under usability for our research context.
Field of human–computer interaction (HCI) has ela-
borated various methods for evaluating user experience
and usability. The most common method is the Nielsen’s
heuristics to assess the usability of an interface against
ten baseline criteria of usability: feedback, metaphor,
navigation, consistency, prevention, memory, efficiency,
design, recovery and help (Lee and Price 2016). Another
broad framework consider not only interaction and use
experience with the system but also takes into consider-
ation situational characteristics (e.g. privacy, trust etc.)
developed (Knijnenburg et al. 2012) to judge the usability
of interface design. Developing an interface to satisfy
consumers sensory and functional needs is considered
as a prerequisite to manage customer experience and
know the customers better than the competitors (Mas-
sey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007). Aesthetic designs
of the interface and usability of the interface are associ-
ated with complexly and interchangeably compensate
each other depending on the context (Goyal et al.
2018). Consumers not only consider design and func-
tionality but also judge how enjoyable the overall experi-
ence is while navigating throughout the site or app. Van
der Heijden (2003) showed that enjoyment hence felt
involvement of consumers has a significant impact on
evaluation and attitude towards the site in addition to
design appeals and utilities. Entertainment context like
websites or mobile applications increases consumers
6 M. R. I. RUSHAN
hedonic experience that reflects in their pleasure-
oriented consumption (Hsu and Lin 2016). So the inter-
face that evokes a pleasurable experience indeed a pivotal
consideration for the marketers to fulfil customer needs
along with differentiating from other players in the
marketplace.
Application usability stream suggests navigation and
design as key dimensions evaluate to what extent the
app is user-friendly for consumers. In the light of app
usability findings, this research study will examine how
these dimensions apply in real life context to derive the
preferred interface for music streaming applications.
2.4. Research on music
Marketing scholars explored various streams of music
and its application in consumers psychological and
actual behaviour context. Sensory marketing (Krishna
2012) reveals how our five senses (smell, taste, hearing,
sight and touch) are used by the marketers to attract cus-
tomers towards their product through delivering a sen-
sory experience. This arena extends the horizon about
how consumers engage with the world can be induced
by the marketers. Consumers cognition and behaviours
are represented by sensory information (Hagtvedt and
Brasel 2016). Many scholars contributed through differ-
ent dimensions (e.g. pitch, intensity etc.) study under
music stream. Zhu and Meyers-Levy (2005) showed
that how different meaning of sound within the music
evoke hedonic value or pleasurable feelings. Acoustic
pitch affects significantly consumers believe about a pro-
duct physical appearance and size (Lowe and Haws
2017). Consumers perception and decision making are
also affected by the frequency of music (Sunaga 2018).
In retail settings, several studies are conducted about
how music can be set with the ambience to deliver a plea-
sant customer experience. Consumers do impulse buy-
ing, express positivity and feel satisfied in a retail
context when scent and music are congruent in their
combined arousal in the environment (Mattila and
Wirtz 2001). Consumers food selection also varies with
the volume of music in restaurants. In a recent study,
Biswas, Lund, and Szocs (2019) examined that consu-
mers go for healthy food choice when the volume of
music is low and unhealthy food choice is driven by
the high volume of music. Music discovery was a chal-
lenge at the earlier stage of the introduction of digital
technology and in a recent study, Knees, Schedl, and
Goto (2019) pinpointed three distinct phases of music
listening culture and evolution of corresponding intelli-
gent interfaces followed by how current structures
accumulating data to recommend users the right music
at the right time.
A great deal of previous research into music has
focused on music information retrieval (i.e. Lamere
2008; Sturm 2014; Byrd and Simonsen 2015) which
portrayed how algorithms are used to produce rec-
ommendation for listeners after accumulating laborious
data compilations along with an aim to extract music
characteristics from audio (Lange and Frieler 2018).
Music Information Retrieval (MIR) is a rapidly growing
interdisciplinary research area that encompasses com-
puter science and information retrieval, musicology
and music theory, audio and digital signal processing,
cognitive science, library science, publishing, and law
(Futrelle and Downie 2003). MIR has prioritised several
research areas such as representation: the way of pre-
senting music materials in digital form (Naveda and
Leman 2010; Rossetti and Manzolli 2019), indexing:
database association with music materials to ease the
process of retrieving (Kelly 2010; Shen et al. 2019),
compression: efficient audio encoding with com-
pression technologies (Cilibrasi, Vitányi, and Wolf
2004; Louboutin and Meredith 2016), user interface
design: easy interface to search and find musical
materials from a collection (Wilkie, Holland, and Mul-
holland 2010; Xambó et al. 2017), metadata: descriptive
and contextual information managed through a MIR
system (Mandel and Ellis 2008; Long, Bonjack, and Kal-
wara 2019), intellectual property rights: ownership and
distribution of music materials through content provi-
ders (Thibeault 2012; Zhang 2018), musical analysis:
organisation of various musical compositions and
need fulfilments of musicologists through MIR
(Brown and Smaragdis 2004; Bhalke, Rao, and Bormane
2016). Our current research is analogous with the user
interface design but extensive since we combine both
design (album arts presentation in the interface) and
touching (swiping direction) experience for music
streaming applications.
This research context is more pertinent with the
music research associated with the product (e.g. bund-
ling, streaming etc.) and industry phenomenon (e.g. for-
mats of listening music, piracy impact etc.). Despite the
industry that generates substantial revenue margin and
engages a significant number of customers in daily
music consumption, research in this stream is scant.
An overview of the literature from the product and
industry perspective is exhibited in Table 1.
Music literature stream reveals that no prior study
focused on product differentiation in particular for
music streaming applications with design elements.
This study addresses how product differentiation can
be brought with the combination of swiping direction
and album arts presenting to customers in their music
streaming applications.
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 7

Table 1. Literature review on music research (product and industry perspective).

Author(s) Journal Research focus Findings
Moe and Fader (2001) JMR Sales pattern of hedonic products (music discs) A recommend model to analyse the sales pattern for hedonic
products
Bhattacharjee et al. MSa P2P (peer to peer) digital music sharing impact on Albums of superstars and female artists survive in the music top
(2007) albums survival in the music top chart chart, and P2P sharing hurt much low-ranked albums in
compare to top-ranked albums
Sinha and Mandel JM Factors that drive consumers’ willingness to pirate Positive incentives reduce the tendency to pirate. Negative
(2008) digital music track incentives increase piracy tendency, and for some consumers,
negativity acts as an obstacle
Elberse (2010) JM Effect of unbundling on music sales and bundle Revenue for mixed bundles decreases when music is consumed
characteristics that drive this effect digitally, and this is opposite for bundles with the similar appeal
in digital channels
Sinha, Machado, and JM DRM (Digital Rights Management) protected songs vs. DRM-free environment increases consumers’ willingness to pay
Sellman (2010) DRM-free songs hence both consumers and producers get benefitted
Kubacki and Croft EJM Artist’s understanding, engagement and response Musicians can engage with markets through various methods
(2011) towards music marketing which are influenced by their desired and artistic identities
Papies, Eggers, and JAMS Developing business models for providers to offer free Advertising based model can attract customers who never used to
Wlömert (2011) download for digital contents by earning from with commercial downloading platforms by delivering free, ad-
advertising based services
Danaher et al. (2014) MSa Cross price elasticities between digital song and album Tiered pricing along with reduced album pricing increases
sales revenue and subscription
Papies and van Heerde JM Role of piracy, unbundling and artists characteristics on Cross-format effect between recorded music and live concerts
(2017) cross-format elasticities between recorded music and persist and moderated by the advancement of technologies and
live concerts characteristics of artists
Datta, Knox, and MS Effects of consumers adoption of music streaming in Adoption of streaming increases new music discovery
Bronnenberg (2017) their listening behaviour
JM = Journal of Marketing, JMR = Journal of Marketing Research, JAMS = Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, MS = Marketing Science, EJM = European
Journal of Marketing, MSa=Management Science. This list contains only A* journals publications according to ABDC ranking (Australian Business Deans Council
2019).

3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses
development
3.1. Definition of the key constructs
3.1.1. Adoption
Adoption is a process by which customers are famil-
iarised with a product and consequently become a regu-
lar user of that product. Marketers always have the
priority to understand consumers adoption process of
new products, specifically digital products and for
which markets have spent considerable time and effort.
Marketers focus not only on developing usable and use-
ful products but also building a long-term product that
customers will use. Analysing the factors that influence
consumers adoption is crucial understanding for
business firms and various product characteristics such
as features, the newness of the product, compatibility
etc. are important factors that affect adoption (Meyer,
Zhao, and Han 2008; Ma, Gill, and Jiang 2015).
Product innovation has an emerged effect on consu-
mers adoption. The extent to which a consumer adopts
an innovation comparing to others in the same consu-
mer class defined as new product adoption behaviour
(Im, Bayus, and Mason 2003). Product innovation posi-
tively affects the adoption of new products and increase
the competitive advantage (Herzenstein, Posavac, and
Brakus 2007). Product design is an integral part of pro-
duct innovation. While adding a new design for a pro-
duct, managers can build the innovation based upon
the core design and delivering an innovation has a sub-
stantial impact not only on product design but also on
consumers adoption (Ma, Gill, and Jiang 2015). The
way that firms present information to consumers is con-
vergence with the success of the product in the market-
place (Müller-Stewens et al. 2017).
In this research context, swiping in the top-down
direction along with presenting once album arts is the
core design and upon which marketers build top-down
with the left-right swiping direction along with present-
ing multiple album arts in the mobile screen. We exam-
ine these different experiential designs effect on
consumers adoption of music streaming applications.
3.1.2. Swiping direction
Swiping direction is also marked as scrolling and navi-
gating direction while we use touchscreen mobiles and
regular websites on our computer. The exact analogous
definition for swiping direction is not elaborated in mar-
keting literature; instead, we find applicability of naviga-
tion direction in designing smartphones applications
within the literature of human–computer interaction
(HCI). According to Neil (2014), swiping is a gesture
that assists in navigating quickly within the mobile
screen, swiping horizontally reveal another page or
email as designed in Android and iOS operating systems
of smartphones. Swiping vertically hence top-down (vice
versa) is by default and primary navigation pattern,
8 M. R. I. RUSHAN
swiping horizontally hence left-right (vice versa) is the
secondary navigation pattern (Neil 2014).
Consumer perceives psychological ownership of a pro-
duct while touching and experiencing the product which
shape the consumer’s evaluation and decision towards
the product (Brasel and Gips 2014). Prior research exhib-
ited that touching an object positively influences consu-
mer’s perceived ownership that induces the feeling of
having something without owning thereby perceived
ownership is referred to as psychological ownership
which is distinct from legal ownership (Peck and Shu
2009). Even while consumers imagine of touching an
object increases the perceived ownership which is analo-
gous to actually touching an object (Peck, Barger, and
Webb 2013). Consumers feel more controlled while
touching a device which has association with consumer’s
extended self this enhance the feeling of perceived owner-
ship (Hein, O’Donohoe, and Ryan 2011). Perceived own-
ership derived from touching an object positively induces
consumer’s valuation of the product or service and sub-
sequent behavioural outcomes such as purchase intention,
adoption and loyalty (Peck and Shu 2009). Moreover, in
an online context, touching the device such as tablets or
smartphones generate more positive evaluations in com-
pare to traditional laptops or computers (Brasel and
Gips 2014). Therefore, we argue that touching experience
while browsing top-down direction (vice versa) and left-
right (vice versa) is crucial while designing the experience
for the consumers which subsequently drives consumer’s
adoption of music streaming services.
3.1.3. Album arts
Albums arts are the visual arts presenting to customers in
the mobile screens of music streaming or any other
entertainment-based applications. Album arts are the
album covers that publish through CD/DVD. With the
advancement of technology and change in music con-
sumption, digital albums arts are exhibited in the web-
sites (e.g. YouTube generates album arts while
uploading a video along with customisation options)
and mobile applications. Upon clicking on the album
arts hence over the visual arts, consumers go for experi-
encing (e.g. listening, watching etc.) the content. Visual
arts have the power to influence consumer perceptions
and evaluation of the products (Hagtvedt and Brasel
2016). Visual arts presentation is the stimulation process
for portraying creativity, imagination, luxury and pres-
tige (Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008). Visual arts are exten-
sively used in advertising to aware customers about the
products and brands. Visual art is a part of aesthetic pro-
duct design that conveys product information and
impressions (Dahl, Chattopadhyay, and Gorn 1999).
Consumers choice during the decision-making pro-
cess irrespective of the environment (retail or online)
primarily depends on visual impressions (Jia, Shiv,
and Rao 2014). In our research context, we examine
how many album arts are preferred by the consumers
to visually present in the music streaming application.
More visuals facilitate information processing and
observing more pictures from a consumer point of
view to induce positive decision making (Lurie and
Mason 2007). Jia, Shiv, and Rao (2014) exhibited in
an experimental study that presenting more visuals
increase detailed focus and decrease holistic perceptual
focus in visual information processing. Conversely,
prior research also articulates that presenting more
visuals can backfire and counterproductive since
more information processing fosters ambiguation fol-
lowed by perceived as less creative and attractive to
consumers (Patrick and Hagtvedt 2011). So our
research investigates to solve this dilemma whether to
present single album art or multiple albums arts to
consumers while they experience and intend to adopt
music streaming applications. Furthermore, many
entertainment applications (e.g. Netflix, Hoichoi etc.)
adopt culture tailored visual strategy in various
countries to portray local culture and design the app
accordingly. In the present study, we consider a global
context of the music applications (e.g. Spotify, Deezer,
Wimp etc.) who follow a global standard to design their
applications therefore consumers experience the same
app (single album art or multiple album arts) irrespec-
tive of the geographical boundaries.
3.2. Conceptual framework
Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework for our study,
which connects the swiping direction to the likelihood of
adoption of music streaming application. We also con-
sider that the number of album arts has a moderating
effect on the relationship between the swiping direction
and the likelihood of adoption of music streaming
application.
3.3. Hypotheses development
Most frequent and useful gestures used in mobile appli-
cation interfaces are top to down swipe, down to top
swipe, left to right swipe and right to left swipe (Feng
et al. 2012). Different interfaces generate perceptual
experiences and influence consumer behaviours-
decisions (Shen, Zhang, and Krishna 2016). In psychol-
ogy, especially the embodied cognition (Barsalou 2008)
addresses that our mind and body are intimately inter-
related. According to Barsalou (2008), the theory of

Number of Album Arts
(Single vs. Multiple)
H2 (+)
Swiping Direction
(Top-down Only vs. Top-
Down with Left-Right)
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
grounded cognition states that to produce cognitive
activities, our bodily states, mental simulations and
actions are used. Embodied cognition aspect helps pro-
duct developers to communicate perceptual features
through making subtle element changes in product
design that influence consumer behaviours (Kreuzbauer
and Malter 2005). We argue that only top-down swiping
induces customers perceptual cognition towards an
object more positively than top-down with left-right
swiping. Tom et al. (1991) examined head movements
and illustrated nodding up–down head movements
arouse positive thoughts with increased preference for
a neutral object, whereas shaking side to side (left-right
and vice versa) head movements stimulate negative
thoughts with a declined preference for a neutral object.
Our proposition is also aligned with these findings.
While swiping top-down direction only in mobile, our
head and eyes both even move towards the top-down
and vice versa direction. On the other hand, our head
and eyes both move left-right direction while swiping
left-right. According to the theory of fluency, consumers
respond positively towards stimuli that is easy to process
and perceived more fluent by the consumers (Reber,
Schwarz, and Winkielman 2004). Flunecy is defined as
ease or difficulty with with users process new and exter-
nal information (Schwarz 2004). Fluency is dependent
on the subject experiences such as browsing throughout
the screen in this study context, which exhibits how
fluently consumers can scroll in various directions and
not dependent on objective experiences such as proces-
sing time (Kostyk, Leonhardt, and Niculescu 2019).
Inspiring by this theory of fluency assumption, we
argue that swiping top-down and vice versa direction is
more fluent to process by the consumers comparing to
swiping top-down with left-right direction and vice
versa.
H1: Swiping top-down direction has a stronger positive
effect on the likelihood of adoption of music streaming
applications than swiping top-down with left-right
direction
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 9
Likelihood of Adoption of
Music Streaming Application
H1 (+)
Album arts (visual arts) enable listeners to look into
the albums and songs information before playing a
song to experience. In a mobile screen, some streaming
applications are designed with one album art (e.g. Spot-
ify), and others (e.g. Deezer, Apple Music) are designed
with multiple arts (two/three/four/six/nine). So, through
swiping top-down or left-right direction users can select
album arts to listen to songs and these are the parts of
product design of streaming applications. Processing
fluency influences customers judgements for preferences
concerning the information processed with ease or
difficulty (Cho and Schwarz 2006). Brakus, Schmitt,
and Zhang (2014) state that customers response spon-
taneously and with minimum effort while attending an
experiential attribute such as car’s colours-shapes. Var-
ious types of product images hence album arts in our
study context can play a pivotal role to affect consumer’s
fluency therefore product’s evaluation (Maier and Dost
2018). Number of images presented to consumers is a
crucial phenomenon, which can increase complexity
and lowering fluency. Landwehr, Labroo, and Herrmann
(2011) examined car designs with processing fluency
aspect and found an interesting insight that complex
car designs are more fluent to process and evoke positive
reactions associated with car sales. In another study,
Landwehr, Wentzel, and Herrmann (2013) articulate
that when exposure level is high then customers better
like atypical car designs than the typical design with
low exposure. Following these insights in this study con-
text, we argue that presenting one album art in the top-
down direction (vice versa) is a typical product design
and presenting multiple album arts in top-down with
the left-right direction (vice versa) is an atypical design
for music streaming applications. We also argue that
an atypical design, presenting multiple album arts in
top-down with left-right direction will process more
fluently by the consumers. Exposure will be high as
well since consumers will have to process more infor-
mation while looking into multiple albums information
along with processing from both top to down and left
to right direction.
10 M. R. I. RUSHAN
H2: Presenting multiple album arts in top-down with
left-right direction increases the likelihood of customers
mobile streaming applications adoption rate more than
presenting one album art in the only top-down direction
4. Empirical examinations and findings
4.1. Study 1: online experiment
4.1.1. Study goal
Study 1 examines the causal relationship between swip-
ing direction on adoption of music streaming application
followed by investigating the interaction between swip-
ing direction and album arts. We have adopted exper-
imental study since experimental study articulates the
causality of the relationship. In an online experiment,
we reach a diverse pool of participant without any geo-
graphical boundaries. Moreover, online experiments
assist in reducing the effect of potential confounding fac-
tors(e.g. interviewer effect) thus increases internal val-
idity of the findings. To facilitate the causal inference,
we manipulate both swiping direction and album arts
to measure the change or impact on the adoption of
music streaming application.
4.1.2. Study design and sample
Study 1 used a 2 (swiping direction: top-down only vs.
top-down with left-right) × 2 (album arts: single vs. mul-
tiple) between-subjects design. Swiping direction, both
top-down only and top-down with left-right were
manipulated by creating mobile responsive webpages
where browsing or swiping was possible in top-direction
only to manipulate the top-down only condition and
browsing or swiping was possible in top-down direction
with left-right to manipulate top-down with the left-right
condition. Album arts, both single and multiple album
arts were manipulated by creating mobile responsive
webpages where single album art was presented in the
screen for single album art condition, and multiple
album arts are presenting for multiple album arts
condition.
Mobile responsive webpages (see Figure 2) were
developed by a professional IT (information technology)
development and management firm. A detailed RS
(requirement specification) was provided to the IT firm
to develop an application and four separate mobile
responsive webpages. Our research context is the music
streaming application which is mostly used in mobile
devices. A mobile app (Android version) was also devel-
oped incorporating all four conditions. But the mobile
application was not used for our study as a downloadable
link of the mobile application is difficult to distribute.
Moreover, the usability of applications are mobile oper-
ating system dependent (e.g. android, windows, iOS etc.).
So, our developed android application is not in use for
participants who are using other mobile operating sys-
tems. Mobile responsive webpages were developed for
four conditions that congruent with mobile applications
so that analogous screens participants can experience
while browsing the mobile application.
Mobile responsive webpages were developed by
taking into consideration only this study relevance and
at the same time controlling other options available in
applications. For example, the background colour was
the same, and outlook of the screens presented similarly
(e.g. four icons below the top bar of the screen, a blue top
bar branding as ‘Entertainment’ etc.). Moreover, no
other options were given to browse the mobile webpage
except browsing and presenting albums in accordance to
study objective of our research study.
We developed the survey through online survey man-
agement tool Qualtrics. We recruited participants
through Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk) to partici-
pate in this online experiment in return for a nominal
payment. Mturk developed by Amazon has received
wide acceptance by the academic researchers to conduct
research and expose the opportunity to recruit diverse
participants from the U.S. and other countries. Good-
man and Paolacci (2017) exhibited that 27% empirical
works of five volumes in the Journal of Consumer
Research empirically conducted using Mturk and adopt-
ing Mturk is increasing in top marketing academic jour-
nals. To be congruent in our study context, the Mturk
invitation specified participants must have a smartphone
as a condition to participate in this online experiment.
The initial sample from Mturk consisted of 250 partici-
pants. We excluded 38 participants because either they
failed to pass in the instructional manipulation check
(IMC) question or they did not complete the survey. We
put an instructional manipulation check question: please
rate ‘agree’ if you read this question. Instructional manipu-
lation check is common in the cross-sectional survey to
ensure accountability for the responsible behaviour of the
participants (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko
2009). In general, 16% to 18% of participants fail in IMC
checks (Emrich and Verhoef 2015). 15.2% of participants
were failed in this research study to pass the IMC. The
final sample consisted of 212 respondents
(35.8% female; Modage = 20 − 29).
4.1.3. Procedure and measures
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four con-
ditions as a part of 2 (swiping direction: top-down only
vs. top-down with left-right) × 2 (album arts: single vs.
multiple) between-subjects design. Each participant
was given a link of the mobile responsive webpage to
browse and experience the page of music streaming

Single
Top-Down Only
Top-Down with
Left-Right
Figure 2. Study 1 stimuli.
application. While experiencing the page of music
streaming application, participants were asked to indi-
cate on a seven-point scale (1=strongly disagree;
7=strongly agree) their continued intention to use
music streaming application. The 6-item scale with
reliability (/ = 0.75) as adapted from Bhattacherjee
(2001) and modified to fit the domain of music stream-
ing application. We used its mean score for our analysis.
We controlled for demographic variables: gender, age
group, income level, education and ethnicity. Extensive
research exhibited that demographic variables have a sig-
nificant effect on consumers behaviours (Pol 1991; Kor-
gaonkar and Wolin 1999). Additionally, to minimise the
cultural effect on adoption, we controlled all the demo-
graphic variables in analysis. Furthermore, we also con-
trolled for music lifestyle factors: music preferences,
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 11
Multiple
medium of listening music and active music listening
hours. Consumers lifestyle factors have an impact on
their attitude toward online behaviour and usage (Wu
2003). We used one item measures for all the control
variables.
4.1.4. Manipulation checks
To check the manipulation of swiping direction, partici-
pants were asked to indicate the experience of visual pro-
cessing fluency, a three-item 7-point scale (e.g. ‘it was
easy for me to experience and visually process the page
of music streaming application’: 1=strongly disagree;
7=strongly agree) with reliability, / = .90 adapted
from Landwehr, Labroo, and Herrmann (2011) and
modified to fit the domain of music streaming appli-
cation. As expected, participants perceived top-down
12 M. R. I. RUSHAN

only condition (MTop-Down Only = 5.72, SD = 0.97) is moderated the effect of swiping direction on continued
significantly higher to visually process than top-down intention to use hence the adoption of music streaming
with left-right condition (MTop-Down with Left-Right = application.
5.05, SD = 1.17;F(1, 210) = 20.78, p , .001). We conducted planned comparisons to better under-
To check the manipulation of album arts after experi- stand the interaction effects across all conditions and to
encing the page of music streaming application, we asked test our hypothesis 2. Planned contrasts revealed no sig-
participants to indicate the perceived complexity (e.g. nificant difference for continued intention to use music
‘this assortments of the album arts of the music stream- streaming application between presenting multiple
ing application is too complex to consider’: 1=strongly album arts in top-down direction only
disagree; 7=strongly agree), a three-item 7-point scale (M = 5.21,SD = 0.18) and presenting multiple album
with reliability, / = .89 adapted from Kahn and Wan- arts in top-down with the left-right direction
sink (2004) modified to fit the domain of music stream- (M = 5.18, SD = 0.19;F(3, 208) = 0.00, p = 0.99).
ing application. As expected, the results revealed that We did not find any significant difference for continued
participants indicated higher perceived complexity in intention to use music streaming application between
the multiple album arts condition presenting single album art in top-down with left-right
(MMultiple = 5.54, SD = 1.01) comparing than single direction (M = 5.12,SD = 0.18) and presenting mul-
album art condition (MSingle = 5.09,SD = tiple album arts in top-down with the left-right direction
1.09; F(1, 210) = 9.68, p , .010). Hence, the manipu- (M = 5.18,SD = 0.19); F(3, 208) = 0.40, p = 0.48).
lation of both swiping direction and album arts were Planned contrasts revealed that participants indicated a
successful. significantly higher continued intention to use of music
streaming application while presenting single album art
in top-down with left-right direction
4.1.5. Results
(M = 5.12,SD = 0.18) comparing to presenting single
We estimated a 2 (swiping direction: top-down only vs.
album art in top-down direction only
top-down with left-right) × 2 (album arts: single vs. mul-
(M = 4.40, SD = 0.19;F(3, 208) = 6.14, p = 0.01).
tiple) full-factorial ANOVA with continued intention to
use as the dependent variable. We found a significant
main effect for album arts
Table 2. Means for continued intention to use across treatment
(F(1, 199) = 5.10,p = 0.03). The effect of swiping
conditions (Study 1).
direction was marginally significant
Single Multiple
(F(1, 199) = 3.44, p = 0.07). Table 2 and Figure 3 album art album arts
represents the mean scores of all the scenario conditions. M SE M SE
Most importantly, the results revealed a significant inter- Swiping direction top-down only 4.40 .19 5.21 .18
action effect between album arts and swiping direction Swiping direction top-down with left-right 5.12 .18 5.18 .19

(F(1, 199) = 3.94, p = 0.05). Therefore, album arts

6
Continued Intention to Use

4
Top-Down Only Top-Down with Left-Right

Swiping Direction
Single Multiple

Figure 3. Means for continued intention to use (Study 1).


More importantly, we found a significantly higher con-
tinued intention to use of music streaming application
while presenting multiple album arts in top-down with
the left-right direction (M = 5.18, SD = 0.19) than pre-
senting single album art in top-down direction only
(M = 4.40,SD = 0.19; F(3, 208) = 9.48, p = 0.00).
Hence, our hypothesis H2 received empirical support.
5. Discussion
The findings of study 1 provide support for the inter-
action effect between album arts and swiping direction.
Precisely, we find evidence for our theorising that atypi-
cal design hence presenting multiple album arts in top-
down with left-right direction is more fluent and increase
the likelihood of continued intention to use therefore the
adoption of music streaming application in comparison
to experience typical design hence presenting single
album art in only top-down direction. We did not find
any significant effect (received a marginal effect) of swip-
ing direction on continued intention to use the music
streaming application.
5.1. Study 2: online experiment
5.1.1. Study goal
Study 2 also examines the causal relationship between
swiping direction on the adoption of music streaming
application and investigates the interaction between
swiping direction and album arts. The purpose of the
study 2 is to validate the findings of study 1 by repeating
the same procedure but with a different sample. The
sample difference adds to the external validity of the
research and helps to assess the generalisability of
findings across the studies.
5.1.2. Study design and sample
We conducted another online study with a different
sample using a 2 (swiping direction: top-down only vs.
top-down with left-right) × 2 (album arts: single vs. mul-
tiple) between-subjects design. We used the same stimuli
as applied in study 1 to keep the objective of repeating
the same procedure across both studies.
We collected data for study 2 using snowball sampling
via Facebook. The initial sample consisted of 131
participants. We excluded 29 participants as they failed
to pass the IMC so that 22.14% of participants failed to
pass the instructional manipulation check. The final
sample for study 2 consisted of 102 respondents
(32.4% female; Modage = 20 − 29).
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 13
5.2. Procedure and measures
Participants received an invitation link to participate in a
survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of
four conditions as a part of 2 (swiping direction: top-
down only vs. top-down with left-right) × 2 (album
arts: single vs. multiple) between-subjects design. Partici-
pants were given a link of a mobile responsive webpage
to browse and experience the page of music streaming
application. While experiencing the page of music
streaming application, participants were asked to indi-
cate on a seven-point scale (1=strongly disagree;
7=strongly agree) their continued intention to use
music streaming application. We used the same control
variables (age, gender, income, education, ethnicity,
music preferences, medium of listening music and active
music listening hours.) for study 2.
5.2.1. Manipulation checks
To check the manipulation of swiping direction, partici-
pants were asked to indicate the experience of visual pro-
cessing fluency on a three-item 7-point scale. As
intended, participants perceived top-down only con-
dition (MTop-Down Only = 4.49, SD = 1.45) is signifi-
cantly higher to visually process compare to top-down
with left-right condition (MTop-Down with Left-Right =
3.91, SD = 1.23; F(1, 100) = 4.79, p , .05). to assess
the manipulation of album arts, respondents stated on
a three-item 7-point scale regarding the perceived com-
plexity from their experience of browsing the page of
music streaming application. As expected, participants
indicated higher perceived complexity in the mutiple
album arts condition (MMultiple = 5.98, SD = 0.86)
comparing than single album art condition
(MSingle = 5.17, SD = 0.13; F(1, 100) =
12.96, p , .001). Therefore, the manipulation of both
swiping direction and album arts were successful.
5.2.2. Results
We conducted a 2 (swiping direction: top-down only vs.
top-down with left-right) × 2 (album arts: single vs. mul-
tiple) full-factorial ANOVA with continued intention to
use as the dependent variable. Study 2 findings revealed
no significant main effect for either album arts
(F(1, 89) = 2.15, p = 0.15) or swiping direction
(F(1, 89) = 2.41, p = 0.12). We found a significant
interaction effect between album arts and swiping direc-
tion (F(1, 89) = 3.87, p = 0.05). So, album arts mar-
ginally moderated the effect of swiping direction on
continued intention to use hence the adoption of
music streaming application. Table 3 and Figure 4 rep-
resents the mean scores of all the scenario conditions.
14 M. R. I. RUSHAN

To get a better impression of the interaction effect, we (M = 4.43, SD = 0.30) than presenting single album
conducted planned contrasts. Planned contrasts revealed art in top-down direction only
no significant difference for continued intention to use (M = 3.48, SD = 0.31;F(3, 98) = 8.22, p = 0.01).
music streaming application between presenting mul-
tiple album arts in top-down direction only
5.2.3. Discussion
(M = 4.54, SD = 0.33) and presenting multiple
The findings of study 2 also provide support for the
album arts in top-down with the left-right direction
interaction effect between album arts and swiping direc-
(M = 4.43, SD = 0.30; F(3, 98) = 0.04, p = 0.84).
tion. We did not find any evidence in support of H1, and
We did not find any significant difference for continued
thereby there is no significant effect of swiping direction
intention to use music streaming application between
on continued intention to use hence adoption of music
presenting single album art in top-down with left-right
streaming application. Additionally, we did not find
direction (M = 4.56, SD = 0.26) d presenting multiple
any evidence for the effect of album arts on adoption
album arts in top-down with the left-right direction
of music streaming application. We found support in
(M = 4.43, SD = 0.30); F(3, 98) = 0.00, p = 1.00)
favour of H2 that atypical design hence presenting mul-
Planned contrasts revealed that participants indicated a
tiple album arts in top-down with left-right direction is
significantly higher continued intention to use of music
fluent to increase the likelihood of continued intention
streaming application while presenting single album art
to use hence the adoption of music streaming application
in top-down with left-right direction
in comparison to experience typical design, presenting
(M = 4.56,SD = 0.26) comparing to presenting single
single album art in an only top-down direction.
album art in top-down direction only
Hence, study 2 validates the findings from study 1 by
(M = 3.48, SD = 0.31(3, 98) = 8.60, p = 0.00).
repeating the same procedure, and we consistently found
Most importantly, in support of H2, we found a signifi-
the interaction effect between album arts and swiping
cantly higher continued intention to use of music
direction across both studies with two different samples
streaming application while presenting multiple album
that add to the external validity of the research.
arts in top-down with the left-right direction

Table 3. Means for continued intention to use across treatment 5.3. Study 3: field study
conditions (Study 2).
5.3.1. Study goal
Single Multiple
album art album arts Study 3 examines the impact of version change from a
M SE M SE typical design to an atypical design on music streaming
Swiping direction top-down only 3.48 .31 4.54 .33 application’s KPI (Key Performance Indicators): total
Swiping direction top-down with left-right 4.56 .26 4.43 .30 subscribers count, number of paid subscribers and
streaming usage (minute). Particularly, study 3 aims to

5
Continued Intention to Use

3
Top-Down Only Top-Down with Left-Right

Swiping Direction
Single Multiple

Figure 4. Means for continued intention to use (Study 2).


validate our second proposition with actual streaming
application data that presenting multiple album arts in
top-down with left-right direction (atypical design)
increases likelihood of customers mobile streaming
applications adoption rate more than presenting one
album art in only top-down direction (typical design).
5.3.2. Research setting and data collection
We collected data from a Norwegian company who is pro-
viding music streaming solution through a local partner in
Bangladesh. We received data for two periods (before vs.
after) of major version change. Before the major version
change, single album art was presenting, and consumers
could browse only top-down direction which was in line
with our argument of typical design. After the major ver-
sion change, multiple album arts were introduced and
presented in the mobile screen, browsing was extended
as well in top-down with left-right direction which was
atypical design as we built the proposition in our study.
This study provided initial hints that what we found in
previous two experiments could be found in the real life
as well. It is important to mention the limitation that
with data in hand, it was not possible to isolate the
effects of other marketing activities such as promotions,
public relations etc. after the version change. Figure 5
depicts the music streaming application screen of both
before and after version change where the company chan-
ged both design and experience.
The data consisted of 3 months (May 2017–July 2017)
representing before version change period and another 3
Before Version Change
Figure 5. Music streaming application screen of before and after version change.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 15
months (August 2017–October 2017) representing after
version period. After sorting the data, three key par-
ameters: total subscribers count, number of paid subscri-
bers and streaming usage were considered for our study
purpose. Total subscribers count is representing total
number of customers (including both paid and free sub-
scriber in the music streaming application) who are
using the service. Number of paid subscribers is the accu-
mulated subscribers who are paying money to use the
music streaming application and subscribed in a paid
package. Streaming usage is the total second of music
streamed or listened by the customers in the app. We
converted all the raw data in thousands and also the
streaming usage data from second to minute state.
5.3.3. Results
We examined the effect of change in design and experi-
ence happened through version upgradation on the
given three parameters: total subscribers count, number
of paid subscribers and streaming usage.
Total subscribers count. One-way ANOVA revealed a
signifincant difference between before version change
and after version change. Results indicated a higher
number of total subscribers count after the version
change (M = 866.83, SD = 40.88) comparing to
before the version change
(M = 690.36, SD = 37.96,F(1, 4) = 30.03, p , .01).
After Version Change
16 M. R. I. RUSHAN
Number of paid subscribers. One-way ANOVA showed a
higher number of paid subscribers count who are using
the music streaming application after the version change
(M = 796.45, SD = 40.95) than before the version
change
(M = 658.25, SD = 28.08; F(1, 4) = 23.25 , .01).
Streaming usage. One-way (ANOVA) indicated a higher
number of streaming minutes were streamed by the
subscribers after the version change
(M = 86673.67,SD = 12990.58) an before the version
change (M = 54820.33, SD = 2386.79; F(1, 4) =
17.45, p , .05).
5.3.4. Discussion
The findings of study 3 provide support for the increased
adoption after the design and experience change for the
consumers. In all the three scenarios, after the version
change significantly increased number of subscribers
are using the streaming service, paying for the appli-
cation to use and listening to music. So study 3 further
validates the findings of previous two online experimen-
tal studies that an atypical design hence presenting mul-
tiple album arts in top-down with left-right direction is
fluent to increase the likelihood of continued intention
to use of music streaming application in comparison to
experience a typical design thereby presenting single
album art in only top-down direction. Importantly,
study 3 also provides the confirmation of the generalisa-
bility of the findings from the previous two studies.
6. General discussion
The main purpose of our research study is to investigate
how product differentiation can be achieved with aes-
thetic design and user experience in particular through
two fundamental features, swiping direction and album
arts. We examined whether an atypical design works bet-
ter compared to a typical design for adoption of music
streaming applications. Our first proposition was swip-
ing direction has an effect on the likelihood of adoption
for music streaming application, and album arts moder-
ate this relationship. Specifically, we examined which
combination of swiping direction and album arts are
preferred by the consumers to adopt music streaming
application, and our assumption was presenting multiple
album arts in top-down with left-right direction
increases the likelihood of adoption of music streaming
application than presenting single album arts in top-
down direction only.
In study 1, we find a marginal effect of swiping direc-
tion on continued intention to use hence adoption of
music streaming application. Additionally, album arts
have a significant effect on adoption of music streaming
application. We also observe a significant interaction
effect between swiping direction and album arts. More-
over, we find that presenting multiple album arts in
top-down with left-right direction increases the likeli-
hood of adoption of music streaming application than
presenting single album arts in top-down direction
only, which supports our proposition. In study 2, we fol-
lowed the same study settings and procedure applied in
study 1 but with a different sample. We did not find any
effect of swiping direction or album art on adoption of
music streaming application. We find a significant inter-
action effect between album arts and swiping direction
followed by the evidence to support our proposition of
presenting multiple album arts in top-down with left-
right direction increases the likelihood of adoption of
music streaming application than presenting single
album arts in top-down direction only. In study 3, we
find that after introducing an atypical design, more con-
sumers are using the application and their usage
increased significantly in comparison to the typical
design they had before. So this study provides strong
support for our second proposition.
Overall, we did not find enough evidence to support
our proposition 1 that swiping direction has an effect
on adoption of music streaming application. Addition-
ally, we did not find support for the effect of album
arts on adoption. For interaction effect, study 2 findings
complement the study 1 findings. Additionally, study 3
findings also complement the findings we have from
two experimental studies. We find an interaction effect
between swiping direction and album arts across both
experimental studies and support for these findings
from study 3. Most importantly, in favour of our prop-
osition two and in line with our theoretical arguments
of typical vs. atypical design, we find enough evidence
to imply that presenting multiple album arts in top-
down with left-right direction (atypical design) increases
the likelihood of adoption of music streaming appli-
cation than presenting single album arts in top-down
direction only (typical design).
6.1. Theoretical contributions
Our study importantly makes several theoretical contri-
butions to extant literature. The major contribution is
that we extend previous literature streams to address
the questions in the music streaming industry. First, we
contribute to the literature of product design (e.g.
Bloch 1995; Cox and Cox 2002; Homburg, Schwemmle,
and Kuehnl 2015) by examing the effect of two dimen-
sions: swiping direction and album arts on adoption of
music streaming application. Our results support the

notion that consumers value not only the functional
attributues but also experiential attributes (e.g. aesthetic
design). Additionally, involving customers in the design
ideation phase exposes the opportunity to take feedbacks
for designing the innovative products (Laursen and
Salter 2006). So, our findings from the experimental
study also support this phenomenon to create innovative
designs for music streaming application by taking into
considerations consumers input during the design
process.
Second, we contribute to the extant literature of app
usability (e.g. Hoehle and Venkatesh 2015; Lee and
Price 2016) with our focus that which combination of
album arts and swiping direction increase the likelihood
of adoption of music streaming application. Specifically,
we focus on the combination of presenting multiple
album arts in top-down with left-right direction
increases the likelihood of adoption of music streaming
application for which our results indicate higher contin-
ued intention to use than presenting single album arts in
top-down direction only. Therefore, this combination of
swiping direction and album arts increase the usability of
music streaming application.
Third, in addition, to contribute to product design
and app usability, our findings have contributions for
music associated research (e.g. Papies, Eggers, and Wlö-
mert 2011; Papies and van Heerde 2017) by examining
experiential design attributes effect on music streaming
application. Specifically, our findings suggest that imple-
menting of atypical design increase the likelihood of
adoption of music streaming application and we are
first to test this implication for any music-related tech-
nology product.
Finally, our findings further validate the theorisation
on processing fluency (e.g. Landwehr, Labroo, and Herr-
mann 2011; Landwehr, Wentzel, and Herrmann 2013)
and extend the thoery by addressing the questions in
muisc streaming industry. We find support in line with
existing literature that atypical design is more fluent to
increase aesthetic liking comparing to typical design.
We show atypical design increases the likelihood of
adoption more than typical design by investigating the
presentation of multiple album arts in top-down with
the left-right direction (atypical design) vs. presentation
of single album arts in top-down direction only (typical
design).
6.2. Practical implications
Our findings have several implications for product devel-
opment managers of music streaming providers. The
major implication from our findings is that streaming
solution providers should adopt atypical design to
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 17
differentiate their products. First, marketers focus is
always to differentiate their products comparing to the
competitors in the marketplace. As we discussed before,
product differentiation through delivering seamless
experience is one of the key aspect through which
music streaming providers can position differently. Our
findings suggest for presenting multiple album arts in
the applications along with the flexibility to browse all
the album arts and information in both top-down and
left-right direction. So incorporating these options will
expose a new aesthetic experience for the consumers. A
change from typical settings will portray a newness and
vivid experience for customers followed by the increase
in the perception that the providers are innovative.
Second, marketers can apply the research findings both
for existing and upcoming music streaming applications.
At the time of new product development, marketers can
apply our findings of presenting multiple album arts
with the flexibility of both directions. The technology
designers may focus on these findings while designing
the products. If the product to be launched in a local set-
ting only (e.g. country specific), then marketers can take
feedbacks from consumers that how many album arts to
be presented. Existing applications can bring changes
through version change of the application.
Third, marketers can bundle different genre and
artist-specific album arts to present in the music stream-
ing application. In a typical setting, there is no option for
bundle presentation as consumers experience one album
art at a time. So, through our findings of presenting mul-
tiple album arts expose the opportunity to present genre
and artist-specific branding in music streaming appli-
cations. Moreover, marketers can build a page with
genre or artist-specific albums and use push marketing
to promote through BTL and social media.
Finally, our research findings are not only limited to
apply in music streaming application but also can be
applied for other entertainment applications such as
video streaming, games, online shopping and other
entertainment based mobile responsive portals-web-
pages (e.g. e-book). There is no much difference between
all these applications and music streaming application.
Overall, all these applications can portray a new experi-
ence to consumers upon implementing our insights.
6.3. Limitations and further research
The present research focused on two experiential design
dimensions (swiping direction and album arts) to assess
the adoption of music streaming application. This study
did not consider some other experiential issue under
design such background colour, whether to have a top
banner in the mobile screen, banner size, action button
18 M. R. I. RUSHAN
dimension-size, how much information to provide with
album arts, song quality-version, play button position in
the screen and so on. In addition to experiential features,
our study did not include some other functional features
such as personal playlist, music player, curation, social
media integration etc. Our study conducted an online
experiment with online samples only. A different study
setting with different stimuli and a field study could add
more external validity and generalisability of the findings.
We did not consider other marketing factors such as
brand equity, pricing, promotion, social media impact
on the adoption of music streaming application.
As of our best knowledge, our research is the first
study that evaluated the effect of two features, album
arts and swiping direction on the likelihood of adoption
of music streaming application. A comprehensive usabil-
ity study considering all the experiential and functional
attributes will bring more insights that how other factors
affect the adoption of streaming services. Further
research can explore the moderating effect of marketing
factors (e.g. price, promotion etc.) and psychological fac-
tors (e.g. emotion, involvement, personality etc.) to pro-
vide more specific insights on adoption of the streaming
application. It will also be worthwhile to explore how
loyal customers perceive the aesthetic change for stream-
ing applications. Additionally, future study can explore
from sensory marketing perspective while consumers
interact with atypical design in mobile screen, then
how enjoyments emerge from the interaction, other sen-
sory interactive possibilities and moreover how all these
affect consumer behaviours. Overall, we expect this
research study sparks further interest on extending our
findings with other settings and methodology.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Md Rifayat Islam Rushan http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5294-
7253
References
Allen, B., D. Chandrasekaran, and S. Basuroy. 2018. “Design
Crowdsourcing: The Impact on New Product
Performance of Sourcing Design Solutions From the
“Crowd”.” Journal of Marketing 82 (2): 106–123.
Australian Business Deans Council. 2019. “Australian Business
Deans Council Journal Quality List – 2019.” https://abdc.
edu.au/research/abdc-journal-list/.
Baek, T. H., and C. Y. Yoo. 2018. “Branded App Usability:
Conceptualization, Measurement, and Prediction of
Consumer Loyalty.” Journal of Advertising 47 (1): 70–82.
Barsalou, L. W. 2008. “Grounded Cognition.” Annual Review
of Psychology 59: 617–645.
Bhalke, D. G., C. R. Rao, and D. S. Bormane. 2016. “Automatic
Musical Instrument Classification Using Fractional Fourier
Transform Based-MFCC Features and Counter Propagation
Neural Network.” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems
46 (3): 425–446.
Bhattacharjee, S., R. D. Gopal, K. Lertwachara, J. R. Marsden,
and R. Telang. 2007. “The Effect of Digital Sharing
Technologies on Music Markets: A Survival Analysis of
Albums on Ranking Charts.” Management Science 53 (9):
1359–1374.
Bhattacherjee, A. 2001. “Understanding Information Systems
Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model.” MIS
Quarterly 25 (3): 351–370.
Biswas, D., K. Lund, and C. Szocs. 2019. “Sounds Like a
Healthy Retail Atmospheric Strategy: Effects of Ambient
Music and Background Noise on Food Sales.” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 47 (1): 37–55.
Bloch, P. H. 1995. “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design
and Consumer Response.” Journal of Marketing 59 (3):
16–29.
Bloch, P. H., F. F. Brunel, and T. J. Arnold. 2003. “Individual
Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics:
Concept and Measurement.” Journal of Consumer
Research 29 (4): 551–565.
Brakus, J. J., B. H. Schmitt, and S. Zhang. 2014. “Experiential
Product Attributes and Preferences for New Products: The
Role of Processing Fluency.” Journal of Business Research
67 (11): 2291–2298.
Brasel, S. A., and J. Gips. 2014. “Tablets, Touchscreens, and
Touchpads: How Varying Touch Interfaces Trigger
Psychological Ownership and Endowment.” Journal of
Consumer Psychology 24 (2): 226–233.
Brown, T. 2008. “Design Thinking.” Harvard Business Review
86 (6): 84–92.
Brown, J. C., and P. Smaragdis. 2004. “Independent
Component Analysis for Automatic Note Extraction From
Musical Trills.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 115 (5): 2295–2306.
Bucklin, R. E., and C. Sismeiro. 2003. “A Model of Web Site
Browsing Behavior Estimated on Clickstream Data.”
Journal of Marketing Research 40 (3): 249–267.
Byrd, D., and J. G. Simonsen. 2015. “Towards a Standard
Testbed for Optical Music Recognition: Definitions,
Metrics, and Page Images.” Journal of New Music Research
44 (3): 169–195.
Chandran, N. 2015. “Can Apple Win the Streaming Wars.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/09/can-apple-win-the-
streaming-wars.html.
Chang, W., and S. A. Taylor. 2016. “The Effectiveness of
Customer Participation in New Product Development: A
Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Marketing 80 (1): 47–64.
Cho, H., and N. Schwarz. 2006. “If I Don’t Understand It, It
Must be New: Processing Fluency and Perceived Product
Innovativeness.” ACR North American Advances.
Chung, T. S., R. T. Rust, and M. Wedel. 2009. “My Mobile
Music: An Adaptive Personalization System for Digital
Audio Players.” Marketing Science 28 (1): 52–68.

Cilibrasi, R., P. Vitányi, and R. D. Wolf. 2004. “Algorithmic
Clustering of Music Based on String Compression.”
Computer Music Journal 28 (4): 49–67.
Cox, D., and A. D. Cox. 2002. “Beyond First Impressions: The
Effects of Repeated Exposure on Consumer Liking of
Visually Complex and Simple Product Designs.” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (2): 119–130.
Creusen, M. E., G. Gemser, and M. Candi. 2018. “The Influence
of Experiential Augmentation on Product Evaluation.”
European Journal of Marketing 52 (5/6): 925–945.
Creusen, M. E., R. W. Veryzer, and J. P. Schoormans. 2010.
“Product Value Importance and Consumer Preference for
Visual Complexity and Symmetry.” European Journal of
Marketing 44 (9/10): 1437–1452.
Cui, A. S., and F. Wu. 2016. “Utilizing Customer Knowledge in
Innovation: Antecedents and Impact of Customer
Involvement on New Product Performance.” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 44 (4): 516–538.
Dahl, D. W., A. Chattopadhyay, and G. J. Gorn. 1999. “The
Use of Visual Mental Imagery in New Product Design.”
Journal of Marketing Research 39 (1): 18–28.
Danaher, B., Y. Huang, M. D. Smith, and R. Telang. 2014. “An
Empirical Analysis of Digital Music Bundling Strategies.”
Management Science 60 (6): 1413–1433.
Danaher, P. J., G. W. Mullarkey, and S. Essegaier. 2006.
“Factors Affecting Web Site Visit Duration: A Cross-
Domain Analysis.” Journal of Marketing Research 43 (2):
182–194.
Datta, H., G. Knox, and B. J. Bronnenberg. 2017. “Changing
Their Tune: How Consumers’ Adoption of Online
Streaming Affects Music Consumption and Discovery.”
Marketing Science 37 (1): 5–21.
Elberse, A. 2010. “Bye-bye Bundles: The Unbundling of Music
in Digital Channels.” Journal of Marketing 74 (3): 107–123.
Emrich, O., and P. C. Verhoef. 2015. “The Impact of a
Homogenous Versus a Prototypical Web Design on Online
Retail Patronage for Multichannel Providers.” International
Journal of Research in Marketing 32 (4): 363–374.
Feng, T., Liu, Z., Kwon, K.-A., Shi, W., Carbunar, B., Jiang, Y.,
and Nguyen, N. (2012). “Continuous Mobile Authentication
Using Touchscreen Gestures.” Paper presented at 2012
IEEE conference on Technologies for Homeland Security
(HST), Waltham, MA, November 13–15. IEEE.
Futrelle, J., and J. S. Downie. 2003. “Interdisciplinary Research
Issues in Music Information Retrieval: ISMIR 2000–2002.”
Journal of New Music Research 32 (2): 121–131.
Goodman, J. K., and G. Paolacci. 2017. “Crowdsourcing
Consumer Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 44
(1): 196–210.
Gorn, G. J., A. Chattopadhyay, J. Sengupta, and S. Tripathi.
2004. “Waiting for the Web: How Screen Color Affects
Time Perception.” Journal of Marketing Research 41 (2):
215–225.
Goyal, N., M. Bron, M. Lalmas, A. Haines, and H. Cramer.
2018. “Designing for Mobile Experience Beyond the
Native Ad Click: Exploring Landing Page Presentation
Style and Media Usage.” Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology 69 (7): 913–923.
Hagtvedt, H., and S. A. Brasel. 2016. “Cross-modal
Communication: Sound Frequency Influences Consumer
Responses to Color Lightness.” Journal of Marketing
Research 53 (4): 551–562.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 19
Hagtvedt, H., and V. M. Patrick. 2008. “Art and The Brand:
The Role of Visual Art in Enhancing Brand Extendibility.”
Journal of Consumer Psychology 18 (3): 212–222.
Hauser, J., G. J. Tellis, and A. Griffin. 2006. “Research on
Innovation: A Review and Agenda for Marketing Science.”
Marketing Science 25 (6): 687–717.
Hein, W., S. O’Donohoe, and A. Ryan. 2011. “Mobile Phones
as an Extension of the Participant Observer’s Self:
Reflections on the Emergent Role of an Emergent
Technology.” Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal 14 (3): 258–273.
Herzenstein, M., S. S. Posavac, and J. J. Brakus. 2007.
“Adoption of New and Really New Products: The Effects
of Self-Regulation Systems and Risk Salience.” Journal of
Marketing Research 44 (2): 251–260.
Hoehle, H., and V. Venkatesh. 2015. “Mobile Application
Usability: Conceptualization and Instrument
Development.” MIS Quarterly 39 (2): 435–472.
Homburg, C., M. Schwemmle, and C. Kuehnl. 2015. “New
Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and
Consequences.” Journal of Marketing 79 (3): 41–56.
Hsu, C.-L., and J. C.-C. Lin. 2016. “Effect of Perceived Value
and Social Influences on Mobile App Stickiness and In-
app Purchase Intention.” Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 108: 42–53.
IFPI (2018). Global Music Report 2018. London. http://www.
ifpi.org/downloads/GMR2018.pdf.
Im, S., B. L. Bayus, and C. H. Mason. 2003. “An Empirical
Study of Innate Consumer Innovativeness, Personal
Characteristics, and New-Product Adoption Behavior.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (1): 61–73.
Irrgang, M., J. Steffens, and H. Egermann. 2020. “From
Acceleration to Rhythmicity: Smartphone-Assessed
Movement Predicts Properties of Music.” Journal of New
Music Research 49 (2): 178–191.
Jia, J. S., B. Shiv, and S. Rao. 2014. “The Product-Agnosia
Effect: How More Visual Impressions Affect Product
Distinctiveness in Comparative Choice.” Journal of
Consumer Research 41 (2): 342–360.
Kahn, B. E., and B. Wansink. 2004. “The Influence of
Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and
Consumption Quantities.” Journal of Consumer Research
30 (4): 519–533.
Kelly, E. 2010. “Music Indexing and Retrieval: Current
Problems.” The Indexer: The International Journal of
Indexing 28 (4): 163–166.
Knees, P., M. Schedl, and M. Goto. 2019. “Intelligent User
Interfaces For Music Discovery: The Past 20 Years And
What’s To Come.” 20th International Society for Music
Information Re-trieval Conference, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Knijnenburg, B. P., M. C. Willemsen, Z. Gantner, H. Soncu,
and C. Newell. 2012. “Explaining the User Experience of
Recommender Systems.” User Modeling and User-Adapted
Interaction 22 (4–5): 441–504.
Korgaonkar, P. K., and L. D. Wolin. 1999. “A Multivariate
Analysis of Web Usage.” Journal of Advertising Research
39 (2): 53–68.
Kostyk, A., J. M. Leonhardt, and M. Niculescu. 2019.
“Processing Fluency Scale Development for Consumer
Research.” International Journal of Market Research.
doi:10.1177/1470785319877137.
20 M. R. I. RUSHAN
Kotler, P. 2003. Marketing Management. 11th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kreuzbauer, R., and A. J. Malter. 2005. “Embodied Cognition
and New Product Design: Changing Product Form to
Influence Brand Categorization.” Journal of Product
Innovation Management 22 (2): 165–176.
Krishna, A. 2012. “An Integrative Review of Sensory
Marketing: Engaging the Senses to Affect Perception,
Judgment and Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Psychology
22 (3): 332–351.
Kubacki, K., and R. Croft. 2011. “Markets, Music and All That
Jazz.” European Journal of Marketing 45 (5): 805–821.
Lamere, P. 2008. “Social Tagging and Music Information
Retrieval.” Journal of New Music Research 37 (2): 101–114.
Landwehr, J. R., A. A. Labroo, and A. Herrmann. 2011. “Gut
Liking for the Ordinary: Incorporating Design Fluency
Improves Automobile Sales Forecasts.” Marketing Science
30 (3): 416–429.
Landwehr, J. R., D. Wentzel, and A. Herrmann. 2013. “Product
Design for the Long Run: Consumer Responses to Typical
and Atypical Designs at Different Stages of Exposure.”
Journal of Marketing 77 (5): 92–107.
Lange, E. B., and K. Frieler. 2018. “Challenges and
Opportunities of Predicting Musical Emotions with
Perceptual and Automatized Features.” Music Perception:
An Interdisciplinary Journal 36 (2): 217–242.
Laursen, K., and A. Salter. 2006. “Open for Innovation: The
Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance
among UK Manufacturing Firms.” Strategic Management
Journal 27 (2): 131–150.
Lee, J. H., and R. Price. 2016. “User Experience with
Commercial Music Services: An Empirical Exploration.”
Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology 67 (4): 800–811.
Liao, Z., and X. Shi. 2017. “Web Functionality, Web Content,
Information Security, and Online Tourism Service
Continuance.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
39: 258–263.
Liedtka, J. 2015. “Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with
Innovation Outcomes Through Cognitive Bias Reduction.”
Journal of Product Innovation Management 32 (6): 925–938.
Liu, Y., K. J. Li, H. Chen, and S. Balachander. 2017. “The
Effects of Products’ Aesthetic Design on Demand and
Marketing-mix Effectiveness: The Role of Segment
Prototypicality and Brand Consistency.” Journal of
Marketing 81 (1): 83–102.
Long, C. E., S. Bonjack, and J. Kalwara. 2019. “Making
Beautiful Music Metadata Together.” Library Resources &
Technical Services 63 (3): 191.
Louboutin, C., and D. Meredith. 2016. “Using General-
Purpose Compression Algorithms for Music Analysis.”
Journal of New Music Research 45 (1): 1–16.
Lowe, M. L., and K. L. Haws. 2017. “Sounds Big: The Effects of
Acoustic Pitch on Product Perceptions.” Journal of
Marketing Research 54 (2): 331–346.
Lurie, N. H., and C. H. Mason. 2007. “Visual Representation:
Implications for Decision Making.” Journal of Marketing
71 (1): 160–177.
Ma, Z., T. Gill, and Y. Jiang. 2015. “Core Versus Peripheral
Innovations: The Effect of Innovation Locus on Consumer
Adoption of New Products.” Journal of Marketing
Research 52 (3): 309–324.
Maier, E., and F. Dost. 2018. “The Positive Effect of Contextual
Image Backgrounds on Fluency and Liking.” Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services 40: 109–116.
Mandel, M. I., and D. P. Ellis. 2008. “A web-Based Game for
Collecting Music Metadata.” Journal of New Music
Research 37 (2): 151–165.
Massey, A. P., V. Khatri, and M. M. Montoya-Weiss. 2007.
“Usability of Online Services: The Role of Technology
Readiness and Context.” Decision Sciences 38 (2): 277–308.
Mattila, A. S., and J. Wirtz. 2001. “Congruency of Scent and
Music as a Driver of In-Store Evaluations and Behavior.”
Journal of Retailing 77 (2): 273–289.
Mclntyre, H. 2018. “Streaming Continues To Power The
Music Industry’s Growth At 2017s Halfway Point.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2017/09/21/
streaming-continues-to-power-the-music-industrys-growth-
at-2017s-halfway-point/#be9d715404e7.
Meyer, R. J., S. Zhao, and J. K. Han. 2008. “Biases in Valuation
vs.” Usage of Innovative Product Features. Marketing Science
27 (6): 1083–1096.
Moe, W. W., and P. S. Fader. 2001. “Modeling Hedonic
Portfolio Products: A Joint Segmentation Analysis of
Music Compact Disc Sales.” Journal of Marketing
Research 38 (3): 376–385.
Mowen, J. C., X. Fang, and K. Scott. 2010. “Visual Product
Aesthetics: A Hierarchical Analysis of Its Trait and Value
Antecedents and Its Behavioral Consequences.” European
Journal of Marketing 44 (11/12): 1744–1762.
Müller-Stewens, J., T. Schlager, G. Häubl, and A. Herrmann.
2017. “Gamified Information Presentation and Consumer
Adoption of Product Innovations.” Journal of Marketing
81 (2): 8–24.
Naveda, L., and M. Leman. 2010. “The Spatiotemporal
Representation of Dance and Music Gestures Using
Topological Gesture Analysis (TGA).” Music Perception:
An Interdisciplinary Journal 28 (1): 93–111.
Neil, T. 2014. “Mobile Design Pattern Gallery: UI Patterns for
Smartphone Apps.” O’Reilly Media.
Newman, C. L., K. Wachter, and A. White. 2018. “Bricks or
Clicks? Understanding Consumer Usage of Retail Mobile
Apps.” Journal of Services Marketing 32 (2): 211–222.
Nicolua, A. 2017. “How streaming saved the music industry.”
https://www.ft.com/content/cd99b95e-d8ba-11e6-944b-e7e
b37a6aa8e.
Nielsen Music (2017). Year-End Music Report. U.S. https://
www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-
downloads/2018-reports/2017-year-end-music-report-us.pdf.
Oppenheimer, D. M., T. Meyvis, and N. Davidenko. 2009.
“Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing
to Increase Statistical Power.” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 45 (4): 867–872.
Orth, Ulrich R., and Keven Malkewitz. 2008. “Holistic Package
Design and Consumer Brand Impressions.” Journal of
Marketing 72 (3): 64–81.
Papies, D., F. Eggers, and N. Wlömert. 2011. “Music for Free?
How Free Ad-Funded Downloads Affect Consumer
Choice.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39
(5): 777–794.
Papies, D., and H. J. van Heerde. 2017. “The Dynamic
Interplay Between Recorded Music and Live Concerts:
The Role of Piracy, Unbundling, and Artist
Characteristics.” Journal of Marketing 81 (4): 67–87.

Patrick, V. M., and H. Hagtvedt. 2011. “Aesthetic Incongruity
Resolution.” Journal of Marketing Research 48 (2): 393–402.
Peck, J., V. A. Barger, and A. Webb. 2013. “In Search of a
Surrogate for Touch: The Effect of Haptic Imagery on
Perceived Ownership.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 23
(2): 189–196.
Peck, J., and S. B. Shu. 2009. “The Effect of Mere Touch on
Perceived Ownership.” Journal of Consumer Research 36
(3): 434–447.
Pendlebury, T., and X. Blanco. 2018. “Best Music Streaming
App: Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, Amazon and Google
Play Compared.” https://www.cnet.com/how-to/best-
music-streaming-service/.
Pol, L. G. 1991. “Demographic Contributions to Marketing:
An Assessment.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 19 (1): 53–59.
Reber, R., N. Schwarz, and P. Winkielman. 2004. “Processing
Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the
Perceiver’s Processing Experience?” Personality and Social
Psychology Review 8 (4): 364–382.
Rossetti, D., and J. Manzolli. 2019. “Analysis of Granular
Acousmatic Music: Representation of Sound Flux and
Emergence.” Organised Sound 24 (2): 205–216.
Rubera, G. 2014. “Design Innovativeness and Product Sales’
Evolution.” Marketing Science 34 (1): 98–115.
Schlosser, A. E., T. B. White, and S. M. Lloyd. 2006.
“Converting Web Site Visitors Into Buyers: How Web Site
Investment Increases Consumer Trusting Beliefs and
Online Purchase Intentions.” Journal of Marketing 70 (2):
133–148.
Schreier, M., C. Fuchs, and D. W. Dahl. 2012. “The Innovation
Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers’ Innovation
Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users.”
Journal of Marketing 76 (5): 18–32.
Schwarz, N. 2004. “Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer
Judgment and Decision Making.” Journal of Consumer
Psychology 14 (4): 332–348.
Seidel, V., and S. Fixson. 2013. “Adopting “Design Thinking”
in Novice Multidisciplinary Teams: The Application and
Limits of Design Methods and Reflexive Practices.”
Journal of Product Innovation Management 30 (S1): 19–33.
Shen, J., M. Tao, Q. Qu, D. Tao, and Y. Rui. 2019. “Toward
Efficient Indexing Structure for Scalable Content-Based
Music Retrieval.” Multimedia Systems 25 (6): 639–653.
Shen, H., M. Zhang, and A. Krishna. 2016. “Computer
Interfaces and the “Direct- Touch” Effect: Can IPads
Increase the Choice of Hedonic Food?” Journal of
Marketing Research 53 (5): 745–758.
Sinha, R. K., F. S. Machado, and C. Sellman. 2010. “Don’t
Think Twice, It’s All Right: Music Piracy and Pricing in a
DRM-Free Environment.” Journal of Marketing 74 (2):
40–54.
Sinha, R. K., and N. Mandel. 2008. “Preventing Digital Music
Piracy: The Carrot or the Stick?” Journal of Marketing 72
(1): 1–15.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 21
Song, J. H., and G. M. Zinkhan. 2008. “Determinants of
Perceived Web Site Interactivity.” Journal of Marketing 72
(2): 99–113.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E., and I. Geyskens. 2006. “How Country
Characteristics Affect the Perceived Value of Web Sites.”
Journal of Marketing 70 (3): 136–150.
Sturm, B. L. 2014. “The State of the art ten Years After a State
of the art: Future Research in Music Information Retrieval.”
Journal of New Music Research 43 (2): 147–172.
Sunaga, T. 2018. “How the Sound Frequency of Background
Music Influences Consumers’ Perceptions and Decision
Making.” Psychology & Marketing 35 (4): 253–267.
Talke, K., S. Müller, and J. E. Wieringa. 2017. “A Matter of
Perspective: Design Newness and Its Performance Effects.”
International Journal of Research in Marketing 34 (2):
399–413.
Thibeault, M. D. 2012. “From Compliance to Creative Rights in
Music Education: Rethinking Intellectual Property in the Age
of New Media.” Music Education Research 14 (1): 103–117.
Tom, G., P. Pettersen, T. Lau, T. Burton, and J. Cook. 1991.
“The Role of Overt Head Movement in the Formation of
Affect.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12 (3): 281–289.
Van der Heijden, H. 2003. “Factors Influencing the Usage of
Websites: The Case of a Generic Portal in The
Netherlands.” Information & Management 40 (6): 541–549.
Veryzer, R. W., and B. Borja de Mozota. 2005. “The Impact of
User-Oriented Design on New Product Development: An
Examination of Fundamental Relationships.” Journal of
Product Innovation Management 22 (2): 128–143.
What is Spotify. 2017. https://press.spotify.com/us/about/.
Wilkie, K., S. Holland, and P. Mulholland. 2010. “What can the
Language of Musicians Tell us About Music Interaction
Design?” Computer Music Journal 34 (4): 34–48.
Wlömert, N., and D. Papies. 2016. “On-demand Streaming
Services and Music Industry Revenues—Insights From
Spotify’s Market Entry.” International Journal of Research
in Marketing 33 (2): 314–327.
Wu, S.-I. 2003. “The Relationship Between Consumer
Characteristics and Attitude Toward Online Shopping.”
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 21 (1): 37–44.
Xambó, A., E. Hornecker, P. Marshall, S. Jordà, C. Dobbyn,
and R. Laney. 2017. “Exploring Social Interaction with a
Tangible Music Interface.” Interacting with Computers 29
(2): 248–270.
Zeithaml, V. A., A. Parasuraman, and A. Malhotra. 2002.
“Service Quality Delivery Through Web Sites: A Critical
Review of Extant Knowledge.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 30 (4): 362.
Zhang, L. 2018. “Intellectual Property Strategy and the Long
Tail: Evidence From the Recorded Music Industry.”
Management Science 64 (1): 24–42.
Zhu, R., and J. Meyers-Levy. 2005. “Distinguishing Between
the Meanings of Music: When Background Music Affects
Product Perceptions.” Journal of Marketing Research 42
(3): 333–345.
22 M. R. I. RUSHAN

Appendix Table A1. Continued.

Study 1 Study 2
Table A1. Descriptive Statistics of Study 1 and Study 2. Characteristics Estimate (%) Frequency (%)
Study 1 Study 2 $30,000 to $50,000 63 29.7 19 18.6
Characteristics Estimate (%) Frequency (%) More than $50,000 48 22.6 25 24.5
Gender Frequency of Listening Music
Male 136 64.2 69 67.6 Daily 171 80.7 87 85.3
Female 76 35.2 33 32.4 Weekly 16 7.50 6 5.9
Age (years) Fortnightly 5 2.40 1 1.0
11–19 4 1.90 1 1.0 Monthly 20 90.4 8 7.8
20–29 132 62.3 70 68.6 Weekly Active Music Listening
30–39 55 25.9 28 27.5 Hours
40–49 9 4.20 0 0 0–5 67 31.6 36 35.3
50 and older 12 5.70 3 2.9 6–10 67 31.6 33 32.4
Education 11–15 43 20.3 26 25.5
High School/College 35 16.5 10 9.8 More than 15 35 16.5 7 6.9
Polytechnic 7 3.3 6 5.9 Preference (Genre)
Bachelor’s Degree 117 55.2 56 54.9 Alternative Music 66 31.1 21 20.6
Master’s Degree 52 24.5 29 28.4 Blues 19 9.0 8 7.8
PhD Degree 1 .50 1 1.0 Classical Music 15 7.10 24 23.5
Ethnicity Jazz 48 22.6 12 11.8
European 19 9.0 6 5.9 Pop 48 22.6 32 31.4
American 108 50.9 19 18.6 Others 16 7.5 5 4.9
Australian 3 1.40 1 1.0 Medium of Listening Music
Indian 74 34.9 25 24.5 Mobile 154 72.6 80 78.4
Chinese 3 1.40 12 11.8 Computer/Laptop 2 .90 10 9.8
New Zealand 1 .50 1 1.0 Tab 36 17.0 4 3.9
Others 4 1.90 38 37.3 Television 11 5.20 5 4.9
Income Level iPod/MP3 Player 7 3.30 3 2.9
Less than $10,000 39 18.4 24 23.5 Others 2 .90 0 0
$10,000 to $29,999 62 29.2 34 33.3

(Continued)