Entre crainte et désir pour les objets connectés : comprendre l’ambivalence des consommateurs

Abstract

Entre crainte et désir pour les objets connectés : Comprendre l'ambivalence des consommateurs Résumé : Notre recherche étudie l'ambivalence des consommateurs à l'égard de l'achat et de l'utilisation des objets connectés. Une étude qualitative en deux phases (composée de 22 entretiens individuels et de 2 groupes focus) explore les dimensions de l'ambivalence (facilité, intelligence, lien social et affect). Plusieurs schémas d'ambivalence émergent en fonction du lien existant entre le consommateur (utilisateur ou non) et la fonction qu'il donne à l'objet (utilitaire, expérientielle, symbolique). La typologie proposée permet de recommander une évolution du discours marketing autour des objets connectés.

Customer learning trajectories when using a product for the first time

“…For example, it might be interesting to compare learning trajectories of the use of the same product for different individuals or of the same individual but for different products. The emergence of connected products for example, which “are considered as facilitating and simplifying everyday life but also as complex and time-consuming objects” (Ardelet et al, 2017: 41) renews the interest of this research theme on which there is still much to learn.…”

Mental imagery: A lever for valuing an intangible offer

“…This perception is strongly linked to the technological and functional complexity of an offer, to its degree of novelty, and to the intensity of knowledge required for its implementation (Glückler and Hammer, 2011; Lee and Lee, 2014; Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2009; Schumann et al, 2012; Villar et al, 2012). Several studies show that consumers perceive connected things as complex (Ardelet et al, 2017; Rijsdijk and Hultink, 2009), thus implying a sense of limited knowledge. In their study involving three types of objects (e.g.…”

“…In this study, we study mental self-imagery as a lever of tangibilization through the lens of perceived value. This analytical framework putatively reflects consumers’ ambivalence about smart offers (Ardelet et al, 2017; Mani and Chouk, 2017; Touzani et al, 2017) because it considers both the costs and benefits associated with an offer.…”

“…Similarly, Mani and Chouk (2017) studied perceived utility, perceived novelty, perceived price, and perceived novelty of these offers, without linking these variables to their potential effects on perceived value. In a similar vein, Ardelet et al (2017) studied questions of ease, intelligence, social ties, and effects that smart objects could create. Touzani et al (2017) demonstrated that utilitarian, hedonic, and social benefits are the main motivations associated with the use of connected objects.…”

“…In this analysis, mental self-imagery as a lever of tangibilization of an offer will be studied through the lens of perceived value. Consumers’ perception of smart offers is ambivalent in that consumers recognize that such offers provide many benefits, yet they remain reluctant to adopt them owing to their complex nature (Ardelet et al, 2017; Mani and Chouk, 2017; Touzani et al, 2017). Because the analytical framework of perceived value takes into account both the positive and negative valences associated with the use of an offer, it is well adapted to the smart offer context (Kumar and Reinartz, 2016; Rivière and Mencarelli, 2012).…”