In this article we examine differences in the impact of scarcity appeal types and purpose to buy a special edition product on consumers with varying levels of need for uniqueness (NFU). We used a 2 (scarcity appeal: limited quantity scarcity vs limited time scarcity) × 2 (purpose to buy: to use vs to collect) × 2 (need for uniqueness: low vs high) between-subjects experimental design for this study. The first two variables (scarcity appeal and purpose to buy) were manipulated using scenarios and NFU was measured. A total of 203 adults (male: 58%, mean age 31.3 years) participated in the experiment. All the participants were randomly assigned to one of the four between-subjects conditions. As a cover story, the participants were told that they were completing a scenario study. The participants were asked to read the scenario, and then to imagine that they were planning to buy the Rio 2016 olympics special edition running shoes. Two different kinds of scarcity message appealing limited quantity and limited time were created. The wording used to manipulate scarcity condition stated “only 100,000 pairs limited stocks” and “only available during the Rio 2016 olympics”. In addition, purpose to buy the special edition shoes was manipulated by wording statements “to use” or “to collect”. All other elements were held constant across both conditions. After reading the scenarios, the participants answered the dependent variables along with manipulation check question. Both limited quantity scarcity (hereafter LQS) and limited time scarcity (hereafter LTS) manipulation was checked by one item: “How they feel the competition is strong.” The item had end points of 1 = very weak and 7 = very strong. The dependent variables were measured using two items on a seven-point scale, namely the extent to which the participant considered the special edition running shoes to be attractive and to have purchase intention. After this, the participants answered some questions, following which they completed the NFU scale by Tian, Bearden & Hunter(2001), and other demographic variables. Reliability for the NFU scales were satisfactory (α=.728). The manipulation check item was tested across scarcity appeal conditions using t-test. Results showed that the perceived competition in LQS and LTS condition was insignificantly different (LQS=5.13, LTS=5.06; t= .347, p < .729). Hence, scarcity manipulation is successful. A 2 (type of scarcity appeal: LQS vs LTS) × 2 (purpose to buy: to use vs to collect) between- subjects ANOVA was used to examine interaction effect in terms of attractiveness and purchase intention. For attractiveness, the two-way interaction between the scarcity type and purpose to buy was not significant, F (1, 198)=1.184, p > .278. However, for purchase intention, the two-way interaction between the scarcity type and purpose to buy was significant, F (1,198)=5.315, p < .02. Specifically, in order to collect the special edition running shoes, the LTS showed higher purchase intention than the LQS (LTS= 5.20 vs LQS=4.56), while in order to use the special edition running shoes the LQS showed higher purchase intention than LTS (LTS= 4.53 vs LQS=4.88). In addition, a 2 (scarcity appeal: limited quantity scarcity vs limited time scarcity) × 2 (purpose to buy: to use vs to collect) × 2 (need for uniqueness: low vs high) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted on attractiveness and purchase intention to investigate the moderating role of NFU. All subjects are classified into either the high NFU group or the low NFU group by the midpoint value of 4 point in the NFU scales. For attractiveness, the three-way interaction effect was marginally significant, F(1,195)= 3.604, p < .059. Specifically, for low NFU individuals, the LQS and LTS showed similar levels of product attractiveness between the types of purpose to buy (to collect: LQS=4.67 vs LTS= 4.65, to use: LQS= 4.49 vs LTS=4.50). However, for high NFU individuals, the LQS showed higher attractiveness than the LTS when buying the special edition in order to use (LQS= 5.85 vs LTS=4.62). While the LTS showed higher attractiveness than the LQS when buying the special edition in order to collect (LQS= 5.14 vs LTS=5.63). For purchase intention, the three-way interaction was significant, F(1,195)=5.037, p < .026. Specifically, for low NFU individuals, the interaction between types of scarcity and purpose to buy was insignificant (to collect: LQS=4.53 LTS=4.79, to use: LQS=4.56, LTS=4.45), while for high NFU individuals, the interaction was significant (to collect: LQS=4.64 LTS=6.06, to use: LQS=5.85, LTS=4.77). This research makes theoretical contributions to scarcity message studies by examining the relative effect of limited quantity scarcity message and limited time scarcity message on the special edition product depending on purpose to buy (to use vs to collect). The most significant finding of this study is that the LTS and LQS message have different effects on product’s attractiveness and consumer’s purchase intention across different purpose to buy the special edition product. This study shows that the Aggarwal et al.(2011)’s argument that LQS message is more effective in enhancing consumer’s response than LTS message is acceptable only when consumers buy the special edition product in order to use, however the argument is unacceptable when consumers intend to buy the special edition product in order to collect. In addition to interaction between the types of scarcity appeal and purpose to buy, consumer’s need for uniqueness moderate the interaction effects between these factors on product’s attractiveness and consumer’s purchase intention.