Streaming platforms in India now compete less for new users and more for the ones they already have. Earlier analysis of this dataset showed that price value, personalization, habit, and perceived algorithmic intrusiveness together explain a good part of why subscribers stay. This paper asks a different question: does it matter who the user is? It tests whether the intention to keep using an OTT platform changes with monthly income, and whether users with more education find recommendation algorithms more intrusive. Responses were collected from 311 active OTT users in Alappuzha district, Kerala, using a structured five-point Likert questionnaire, and were analysed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan post hoc tests. Neither demographic mattered. Users in the lowest income bracket reported about the same intention to continue as users in the highest, and perceptions of algorithmic intrusiveness were steady from school-level respondents through doctoral ones. The pattern suggests that once someone is already watching and paying, what keeps them on a platform has more to do with experience and routine than with earnings or qualifications. For platforms, that means pricing plans and messages about data use may not need separate versions for each income or education tier, at least among young, digitally comfortable users like these. The study also shows why the demographic assumptions common in OTT adoption research deserve testing rather than acceptance.
Pillai, R., Chandra, V., Vishnu, P. & Anjali, S. (2026). Demographic Differences in OTT Continuance Intention and Perceived Algorithmic Intrusiveness. International Journal of Advanced Research in Commerce, Management &Amp; Social Science, 09(03(III)), 170–174. https://doi.org/10.62823/ijarcmss/9.3(III).9466
- Bellamkonda, S. T., Gangwar, V. P., Sudhagoni, V. S., & Adepu, N. (2021). Profiles and preferences of OTT users in Indian perspective. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(8), 4931–4940.
- Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
- Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
- Brodsky, J. E., Zomberg, D., Powers, K. L., & Brooks, P. J. (2020). Assessing and fostering college students’ algorithm awareness across online contexts. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(3), 43–57.
- Choudhary, S., Dixit, S., & Govil, S. (2023). Analysing consumer preferences and pattern for OTT platforms: A study. Journal of Emerging Intelligent Computing Techniques and Applications, 8(2), 21–30.
- Debora Dhanya, A., & Jaidev, U. P. (2019). Perceived personalization, privacy concern, e-WOM and consumers’ click through intention in social advertising. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications, 11(4), 39–55.
- George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
- Sinha, D., Sinha, S., Phutela, N., & Grover, P. (2024). OTT enchantment: Decoding the secret of millennial’s subscription intentions. International Review of Management and Marketing, 14(6), 119–130.
- Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
