1

The Rise of the Light Emitting Diode Lightbulb

Chris Roehrich

University of Nebraska at Kearney

SPCH445: Diffusion of Innovations

Dr. Ralph Hanson

December 9, 2022
 2

Introduction

Since the discovery of electricity, one of the most common uses has been to create light.

Thomas Edison first created his lightbulb in 1879 using a filament which burned as electricity

passed through, creating light and heat. Since 1879, the incandescent lightbulb (ILB) has been

dominant in the lighting industry; in the modern era, lights are everywhere and used for a wide

variety of purposes. This paper will consider the diffusion and adoption of the light emitting

diode (LED) lightbulb, from its invention and limited use in the 1980’s to the world-wide market

leading and climate saving position the LED light holds today. The LED light is a successful

innovation, yet this success did not come from the LED outcompeting the ILB. Social

marketing, and tying the LED lightbulb to larger, more politically charged concepts such as

climate change was critical for the successful adoption of the LED. This paper is structured to

focus on the four main elements of diffusion given by Rogers: “Diffusion is the process by which

(1) an innovation (2) is communicated through certain channels (3) over time (4) among

members of a social system” (Rogers, 2003). My method for researching for this paper was a

literary review of select articles and peer-reviewed journal articles.

The Innovation

Due to its design, the ILB is quite inefficient in that it produces heat while it creates light,

yet this product has remained relatively untouched and unchallenged for over 100 years. The

ILB was a very common object in households worldwide and had firmly become part of the

culture (Koretsky, 2021). During its century-plus long rule, the ILB became the symbol of

innovation and bright ideas; and even the point in popular jokes (Koretsky, 2021). The ILB’s

position in the market and culture was due to its comfortable light color, dimmability, and low

price (Koretsky, 2021).

 3

The LED light has greatly improved upon the ILB design and nearly eliminated all heat

expenditures from creating light. LED light was originally developed in the 1980’s, these were

primarily small, colored lights that were used in displays such as calculators and other devices

(Cho et al., 2017). The successful creation of reliable white LED lights occurred in 1996, which

ushered in a race towards commercialization and higher efficiencies by LED makers (Cho et al.,

2017). These white LED lights created a high-quality light, a more powerful light, and a more

efficient light than the ILB (Cho et al., 2017). The early applications of white LED lights were

known for their simplicity and efficiency (Cho et al., 2017). It’s important to point out that the

LED is a better product than the ILB, however, early on, the LED lights were more expensive

than the traditional ILB. Prior to the early 2000’s, the topic of light was not an issue to the

public; if you wanted light, you bought an ILB. There was no societal pressure, the lightbulbs in

your house were not tied to mainstream, publicized, government agendas; therefore, the LED

light continued to develop and improve yet remain un-adopted.

Figure 1.

Temporal development of the luminous efficacy of different types of lamps

 4

Note. Adapted from White light-emitting diodes: History, progress, and future, by Cho et al,

2017.

Relative Advantages of LEDs

One of the five factors affecting the rate of adoption of an innovation is relative

advantage. Relative advantage is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better

than the idea it supersedes” (Rogers, 2003, p.229). The perceived relative advantages of an

innovation can fall into categories such as economic and social. I believe the general public’s

perception of the relative advantage of LED lights has changed over the course of this

innovation. Originally, LED lights were known for their simplicity and efficiency; these new

LED lights produced a higher quality and brighter light than the traditional ILB. As they were

further developed, the LED was compatible with every lighting application including residential,

exterior, commercial, and utility lighting. Yet the adoption of the LED lightbulb was slow to

catch on with the public (Schultz et al., 2015). Prior to 2014, the factors affecting the purchase

of LED lights by residential consumers included price, quality, energy savings, and durability.

(Leelakulthanit, 2014). Of these factors, price is identified as having a direct, negative impact to

the adoption of LED lights (Leelakulthanit, 2014). At this point in time, the LED light bulb was

still quite expensive to purchase, although they were in all categories of lighting. The perceived

relative advantage of LED lights over the ILB was not enough to spur the consumer into

adopting these lights.

LED lights are more efficient than any other light source (Cho et al., 2017). This

connection to energy savings was first understood by the innovators themselves and was

eventually passed on to the early adopters and other change agents. The early adopters with the

financial means to adopt LED lights understood what full adoption of the LED light would mean,
 5

that is energy savings on a broad scale. This information was originally recognized by

researchers and various governments. It’s at this stage of communication where I believe the

relative advantage of the LED lightbulb changes. Once the government and researchers

understand the possibility for massive energy savings, they begin to promote the LED lightbulb,

either by positive reinforcement, such as promotions and subsidies, or by negative reinforcement

such as bans and taxes on the ILB (Howarth & Rosenow, 2014).

Figure 2

Development of luminous efficacy of visible-spectrum LEDs and luminous efficacy of

conventional light sources.

Note. Adapted from White light-emitting diodes: History, progress, and future, by Cho et al,

2017.

The Communication
 6

Until the early 2000’s the ILB was a mass produced and thoroughly engrained cultural

icon. This all begins to change in the early 2000’s once LEDs had been shown to produce

efficient and sustainable light that will work for the entire market. The period between 2000 and

among the first to begin changing the narrative on lighting were government agencies like the

United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star program and the

International Energy Agency (IEA). In 2006, the IEA issued a report that declared the ILB as a

symbol of waste (Koretsky, 2021). Prior to this, in 2005, the Energy Star program expanded its

mission statement to “identify and promote energy efficient products and buildings in order to

reduce energy consumption’ (Schultz et al., 2015). These changes and reports from

governmental agencies are excellent examples of the early stages of this adoption where the

knowledge of the product begins to infiltrate the policy makers and other well-to-do people who

can afford to adopt this product despite the price. The Energy Star program and IEA are the first

examples of governmental agencies becoming early adopters and then becoming opinion leaders

who influence the public. Once the government agencies became opinion leaders, the Press was

next to follow suit. In Europe, this change was reflected by a pre-2006 positive image of the ILB

compared to the 2006 to 2009 debates about the downsides of the ILB (Koretsky, 2021).

The most common governmental action to promote the use of LED lights was to

gradually ban the use of ILBs. The overall goal of these bans was to encourage the use of more

energy efficient and environmentally friendly lighting (Howarth & Rosenow, 2014). The

severity of the bans ranged from partial bans to full bans. The European Union (EU) issued a

full ban of ILB’s from 2009 to 2013 (Stegmaier et al., 2021). These bans in Europe were only

moderately successful, 96% of people knew about the ban and yet 89% of people still considered

the ILB the preferred product due to its low cost (Howarth & Rosenow, 2014).
 7

Figure 3

World Map of the bans on ILBs.

Note. Green=full ban, yellow=partial ban, orange=exchange program. Adopted from the

incandescent light bulb phase-out: exploring patterns of framing the governance of

discontinuing a socio-technical regimen, by Stegmaier et al, 2021.

The US took a slightly different approach, via positive re-enforcement through the

Energy Star certification of energy efficient products. After recognizing the slow adoption rate

of the LED prior to 2014, Energy Star conducted a social marketing campaign to promote LED

lights to residential customers (Schultz et al., 2015). This campaign was partnered with Duke

Energy and Energy Efficiency Vermont (Schultz et al., 2015). The campaign featured in-store

events and school-based fundraisers to promote the LED lightbulb to residential customers

(Schultz et al., 2015). The program was an astounding success at the locations where it was

employed, the in-store events recorded an 800% increase in sales after this campaign (Schultz et

al., 2015). This is a great example again of the early opinion leaders of this innovation

attempting to create change agents.

 8

This time period where these bans and governmental programs took place is a critical

turning point in the adoption of LED lights. Prior to government intervention, the adoption of

the LED light stagnated; mainly due to the high price of LEDs. This period is also critical

because this is when LED started to become synonymous with energy efficiency on a broad scale

and climate change. The early 2000’s is when the LED transitioned from being known as a

simple and efficient product to being directly connected to broad scale energy efficiency and

climate change (Cho et al., 2017; Howarth & Rosenow, 2014).

Figure 4

Fund-raising poster for Efficiency Vermont Energy Star campaign

 9

Note. Adopted from Using Social Marketing to Spur Residential Adoption of ENERGY STAR

certified LED lighting by Schultz et al, 2015.

Over Time

Once the connection between LED lights and energy efficiency and climate change was

solidified, the rate of adoption increased. The US Department of Energy (DOE) has tracked the

adoption of LED lighting since 2003 and evaluated where LEDs are having the greatest savings

impact (Elliott & Lee, 2020). The years of 2012 to 2014 is the timeframe when the adoption of
 10

LED lights really took off. In the US, between the years of 2012 to 2014, the adoption of LED

lights across all applications quadrupled to 215 million units (Yamada & Stober, 2015). This

resulted in 143 trillion British thermal units of energy reduction in the US which was double the

prior year’s saving and equated to $1.4 billion saved (Yamada & Stober, 2015). The DOE’s

most recent report for the years 2018 to 2020 shows that LEDs are now at 30% penetration

across all lighting applications, with approximately 2,325 million units installed (Elliott & Lee,

2020). This has resulted in 1,328 trillion British thermal units saved, equivalent to $14.7 billion

(Elliott & Lee, 2020). Additionally, these reports predict the total energy savings with 100%

LED lights. The most recent prediction is 5,054 trillion British thermal units of energy,

equivalent to $56 billion annually (Elliott & Lee, 2020).

The concept of critical mass comes to mind when reviewing these numbers. Critical

mass is defined as “the point at which enough individuals have adopted an innovation that the

innovation’s further rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining” (Rogers, 2003). I think these

DOE reports have provided great insights for the point at which the LED hit critical mass. I

believe the adoption of LED lights is now self-sustainable, however, the actual point where it

went through critical mass is yet to be known.

Figure 5

2014 Penetration Rates of LED Lighting Applications

 11

Note. Adopted from Adoption of Light-Emitting Diodes in Common Lighting

Applications by Yamada & Stober, 2015.

Social System Adoption

Throughout the adoption of the LED lightbulb, the role of opinion leadership, change

agents, and mass media has been critical in my opinion. Considering that LEDs were first

developed in the 1980’s and essentially market ready in 1996, this has been a slow innovation.

This likely is due to the limited number of change agents during these early years. The role of

governments and government agencies worldwide in becoming opinion leaders and projecting

information out to mass media outlets has been critical in quickening the adoption of LED lights.

The governments and government agencies have been successful in tying the adoption of LED

lights to climate change and energy efficiency due in part to the success of their change agents.
 12

As described in our textbook, change agents from the government may not be trusted by lower-

status clients (Rogers, 2003). I think rates of adoption of LED lights from 2014 on have shown

the success of the change agents.

Another key to the success of the LED light has been the role of mass media. When

looking at the adoption of LED lights worldwide, the two-step flow model for mass media is

definitely more accurate than the hypodermic needle model. Worldwide the role of opinion

leaders, namely the various world governments and government agencies, has been to pass

information along to change agents. Change agents then have spread influence throughout their

social worlds and spread the ideas about the LED lights. I believe the LED light has followed a

de-centralized diffusion network model as described in our textbook.

Consequences

There are both desirable and undesirable consequences to the adoption of LED lights.

The desirable consequences are the easiest to identify, namely the amount of savings of energy

annually. This is where the whole connection to climate change is really rooted; the less energy

we collectively use, the less the environment is affected by our energy generation. The financial

savings immediately presented to the end-user of LED lights is a great benefit, however LED

lights are now synonymous with climate change. As of 2020, feelings of guilt and pride have

been associated with the adoption of LED lights (Moghavvemi et al., 2020). Additionally,

partially due to the adoption of LED lights, the climate change narrative has been injected with

some qualified hope due to the energy savings (Geels, 2020).

The undesirable consequences of the adoption of LED lights have mainly been focused

on the countries that enacted strict bans. The ILB was a very common product, with 14

production plants in Europe alone. The ILB was its own caste, there were factories, workers,
 13

families, and towns that relied on these plants. The various governmental bans of ILBs sped up

the adoption rate of LEDs. The negative aspect of these bans was how drastically the people and

workers were forced to deal with being eliminated. In Europe, between 2005 and 2019, between

6,000 and 14,000 workers were laid off due to the outright ban of ILBs (Koretsky, 2021).

Additionally, some workers had to be re-trained and re-tooled for the immediate transition to

producing LEDs. The banning of ILBs raised a number of dissenting labor voices. These

dissenters were not successful in voicing their concerns due to the successfulness of the LED

light and the willingness of manufacturers to produce a higher cost product (Koretsky, 2021).

The success of the LED did come at the expense of some individuals.

Figure 6

Job cuts in Europe at Osram and Phillips Lighting

Note. Adopted from Phasing out an embedded technology: Insights from banning the

incandescent light bulb in Europe by Koretsky, 2021.

 14

Figure 7

Incandescent light bulb sales in Europe

Note. Adopted from Phasing out an embedded technology: Insights from banning the

incandescent light bulb in Europe by Koretsky, 2021.

Conclusion and Discussion

The adoption of the LED light has been a success. The ILB was a very common and

highly entrenched product in our society and culture. To quote Koretsky: “On the surface, the

ILB seems to have disappeared from mainstream because it was outcompeted by the LED. This

is, at best, an incomplete evaluation since a ‘better’ technology would probably not need policy

intervention on the same scale as the ILB did” (Koretsky, 2021). In this paper we have shown

how critical it was for the LED to be tied to the larger concepts of energy savings and climate

change. For this innovation, the role of opinion leaders and change agents actively passing

information and influencing others to adopt LEDs has been critical as well. Today, feelings of
 15

guilt and pride are now tied to your choice of lightbulb. This is due to the adoption of LED

lights. The LED lights are here to stay in my opinion; they have reached critical mass and the

adoption is now self-sustaining.

 16

References

Elliott, C., & Lee, K. (2020, August 1). Adoption of Light-Emitting Diodes in Common

Lighting Applications. United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/1669047

Cho, J., Park, J. H., Kim, J. K., & Schubert, E. F. (2017, March 2). White Light-Emitting Diodes:

History, Progress, and Future. https://doi.org/10.1002/lpor.201600147

Geels, F. W. (2020). Changing the Climate Change Discourse. Joule, 4(1), 18–20.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.12.011

Howarth, N. A. A., & Rosenow, J. (2014). Banning the bulb: Institutional evolution and the

phased ban of incandescent lighting in Germany. Energy Policy, 67, 737–746.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.060

Koretsky. (2021). Phasing out an embedded technology: Insights from banning the incandescent

light bulb in Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102310–.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102310

Leelakulthanit, O. (2014). The Factors Affecting the Adoption of LED Lamps. International

Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 13(4), 757–768

https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v13i4.8684

Moghavvemi, S., Jaafar, N. I., Sulaiman, A., & Tajudeen, F. P. (2020, June 25). Feelings of guilt

and pride: Consumer intention to buy LED lights. PloS One, 15(6), e0234602–.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234602

Rogers, E.M., (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Simon and Schuster Inc.

Schultz, P. W., Colehour, J., Vohr, J., Bonn, L., Bullock, A., & Sadler, A. (2015). Using Social
 17

Marketing to Spur Residential Adoption of ENERGY STAR®-Certified LED Lighting.

Social Marketing Quarterly, 21(2), 61–78.

https://doi-org.unk.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1524500415577429

Stegmaier, P., Visser, V. R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2021). The incandescent light bulb phase-out:

Exploring patterns of framing the governance of discontinuing a socio-technical regime.

Energy, Sustainability and Society, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-

00287-4

Yamada, M. & Stober, K. (2015, July). Adoption of Light-Emitting Diodes in Common Lighting

Applications. U.S. Department of Energy. https://doi.org/10.2172/1374108