The show must go on(line): the impact of content and system quality on the usage of television streaming content libraries

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Figure 2. Dimensionality of content quality as a second-order construct.

Figure 3. Dimensionality of system quality as a second-order construct.

Figure 4. Main effects of the research model.

Table 1. Hypotheses testing.

H1a: Price Value ➔ Actual Usage	not supported
H1b: Price Value ➔ Word of Mouth	supported
H1c: Price Value ➔ Brand Perception	supported
H2a: Content Quality ➔ Actual Usage	supported
H2b: Content Quality ➔ Word of Mouth	supported
H2c: Content Quality ➔ Brand Perception	supported
H3a: System Quality ➔ Actual Usage	not supported
H3b: System Quality ➔ Word of Mouth	supported
H3c: System Quality ➔ Brand Perception	supported
H4a: Habit ➔ Actual Usage	supported
H4b: Habit ➔ Word of Mouth	supported
H4c: Habit ➔ Brand Perception	supported

Table A1. Exemplary countries and their television stations’ content libraries.

Exemplary countries	Examples of television stations‘ content libraries
Germany	ARD Mediathek (https://www.ardmediathek.de) RTL+ (https://plus.rtl.de)
UK	BBC iPlayer (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer) ITV Player (https://www.itv.com)
US	ABC Player (https://abc.com) NBC Player (https://www.nbc.com)
France	France TV (https://www.france.tv)
Netherlands	NPO Start (https://npo.nl/start)
Italy	RaiPlay (https://www.raiplay.it)
Scandinavia	SVT Player Sweden (https://www.svtplay.se) TV4 Player Sweden (https://www.tv4play.se) NRK TV Norway (https://tv.nrk.no)
Japan	NHK Player (https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/live/)
Argentina	Argentinisima Satelital (https://www.argentinisimatv.com.ar)

Table A2. Constructs and results of exploratory factor analyses.

Construct	Item	Factor Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha
Actual Usage
AU_Inten	I use media libraries intensively.	0.889	0.819
AU_Freq	Overall, how often do you use media libraries (e.g., ARD or ZDF Mediathek)? (Less than once a month – several times a day)	0.903
AU_hours	Without thinking about it too much, roughly how many hours a week do you spend using media libraries (e.g., ARD or ZDF Mediathek)?	0.776
Brand Perception
Brand1	The … brand is different from other competing video streaming providers.	0.909	0.885
Brand2	The image of the brand … is unique.	0.915
Brand4	The … brand is quite different and more individual than competing video streaming providers.	0.879
Word of Mouth
WOM2	I’m trying to get others interested in …	0.911	0.903
WOM3	I actively defend … against its critics.	0.915
WOM4	I say positive things to other people about …	0.918
Content Actuality
Content_Act1	… provides up-to-date content.	0.879	0.909
Content_Act2	… offers contemporary content.	0.905
Content_Act3	… offers fresh content.	0.916
Content_Act4	… offers many new releases.	0.844
Content Relevance
Content_Rele1	… offers content that is of interest to me.	0.918	0.938
Content_Rele2	… offers content that is relevant to me.	0.939
Content_Rele3	… offers content that I need.	0.890
Content_Rele4	… offers content related to my concerns.	0.928
Content Range
Content_Ran1	… has a large amount of content.	0.920	0.943
Content_Ran2	… offers a wide range of different productions.	0.930
Content_Ran3	The content offered by … is varied.	0.926
Content_Ran4	On … I can access a broad range of content.	0.923
Content Originality
Content_Orig2	… offers its own productions (originals).	0.886	0.854
Content_Orig3	… offers content that I can’t find with other providers.	0.855
Content_Orig4	… offers content produced by this provider.	0.898
Effort Expectancy
EE1	Learning how to use … is easy for me.	0.908	0.921
EE2	My interaction with … is clear and understandable.	0.922
EE3	I find … easy to use.	0.915
EE4	I find it easy to get … to do what I want it to do.	0.852
Usability
UX1	… is well thought-out and stylish.	0.909	0.917
UX2	… has a visually appealing design.	0.898
UX3	Navigation within … is easy to understand.	0.870
UX4	The app/website of … is well designed.	0.902
Technical System Reliability
System_Rel1	I think that … provides a very reliable service.	0.907	0.917
System_Rel2	I think that … loads quickly as an application.	0.891
System_Rel3	I think that … is safe to use.	0.888
System_Rel4	… is free of defects and functions as advertised.	0.895
Habit
Habit1	I am addicted to using …	0.897	0.877
Habit2	I must use …	0.935
Habit3	I automatically use … without thinking much about it.	0.855
Price Value
PP1	… is good value for money.	0.953	0.959
PP2	For the current price, … provides good value.	0.968
PP3	… is reasonably priced.	0.962

Table A3. Composite reliability and average variance extracted.

Construct	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted
Content Actuality	0.936	0.785
Content Originality	0.911	0.774
Content Quality	0.960	0.618
Content Relevance	0.956	0.844
Content Range	0.959	0.855
Effort Expectancy	0.944	0.809
Habit	0.924	0.803
Brand Perception	0.928	0.812
Price Value	0.973	0.924
System Quality	0.953	0.628
Actual Usage	0.893	0.735
System Reliability	0.942	0.802
Usability	0.941	0.801
Word of Mouth	0.939	0.837

Table A4. Discriminant validity through the square root of average variance extracted (AVE on diagonal).

Construct	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)
Content Actuality (1)	0.886
Content Exclusivity (2)	0.622	0.880
Content Relevance (3)	0.717	0.571	0.919
Content Range (4)	0.742	0.607	0.702	0.925
Effort Expectancy (5)	0.440	0.399	0.441	0.413	0.900
Habit (6)	0.305	0.271	0.449	0.347	0.146	0.896
Brand (7)	0.506	0.454	0.531	0.554	0.311	0.485	0.901
Price Value (8)	0.514	0.415	0.52	0.525	0.404	0.322	0.494	0.961
Actual Usage (9)	0.386	0.286	0.535	0.405	0.289	0.534	0.388	0.340	0.858
Technical System Reliability (10)	0.608	0.539	0.524	0.617	0.627	0.230	0.495	0.546	0.328	0.895
Usability (11)	0.619	0.522	0.569	0.628	0.618	0.326	0.546	0.510	0.344	0.772	0.895
Word of Mouth (12)	0.472	0.385	0.590	0.481	0.298	0.595	0.629	0.470	0.454	0.405	0.502	0.915

Table A5. Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations.

Construct	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)
Content Actuality (1)
Content Exclusivity (2)	0.706
Content Quality (3)	0.963	0.864
Content Relevance (4)	0.774	0.636	0.925
Content Range (5)	0.801	0.677	0.941	0.744
Effort Expectancy (6)	0.48	0.451	0.521	0.472	0.443
Habit (7)	0.339	0.313	0.438	0.497	0.379	0.162
Brand (8)	0.562	0.52	0.645	0.582	0.605	0.342	0.549
Price Value (9)	0.549	0.457	0.599	0.545	0.55	0.429	0.349	0.533
System Quality (10)	0.677	0.613	0.725	0.611	0.661	0.907	0.289	0.555	0.577
Actual Usage (11)	0.444	0.339	0.532	0.603	0.457	0.33	0.628	0.451	0.377	0.407
Technical System Reliability (12)	0.665	0.609	0.705	0.561	0.662	0.682	0.254	0.547	0.581	0.971	0.372
Usability (13)	0.678	0.591	0.725	0.612	0.675	0.672	0.361	0.604	0.543	0.967	0.393	0.841
Word of Mouth (14)	0.519	0.437	0.606	0.642	0.519	0.325	0.668	0.704	0.501	0.489	0.522	0.442	0.55

Table A6. Correlations on the level of the constructs.

Construct	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
Content Quality (1)	1
System Quality (2)	0.658	1
Habit (3)	0.409	0.272	1
Price Value (4)	0.577	0.555	0.322	1
Actual Usage (5)	0.483	0.534	0.534	0.340	1
Brand (6)	0.597	0.520	0.485	0.494	0.388	1
Word of Mouth (7)	0.570	0.463	0.595	0.470	0.454	0.629	1
Marker Variable (8)	0.123	0.129	0.073	0.136	0.081	0.123	0.100	1