See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242063431

Who are 'innovators' and do they matter?

Article · January 1999

CITATIONS READS
3 3,911

2 authors:

Heath J. McDonald Frank Alpert

RMIT University 98 PUBLICATIONS 2,072 CITATIONS
95 PUBLICATIONS 1,786 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teaching Innovations View project

Alcohol Sponsorship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Heath J. McDonald on 16 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

Targeting of
Who are “innovators” and “innovative”
do they matter? consumers
A critical review of the evidence supporting
the targeting of “innovative” consumers 421
Heath McDonald Received August 2006
Deakin Business School, Malvern, Australia, and Revised April 2007
Accepted April 2007
Frank Alpert
University of Queensland Business School, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to bring together and evaluate the reasons that have historically been
advanced to justify the heavy emphasis on innovative consumers within the general context of the
adoption of products and services, and to assess the strategic benefits to be gained from targeting such
market segments.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach is critical review and analysis of the published
literature.
Findings – This paper finds that, although the benefits of identifying innovative early adopters are
not as strong and clear-cut as is often claimed, they are still sufficient to warrant further research into
methods that will accurately identify them and predict their purchasing behaviour.
Practical implications – Targeting strategies should distinguish carefully between truly
innovative consumers and other early adopters. The costs of identifying them in a particular
market need to be weighed against the potential benefits.
Originality/value – Although many studies have attempted to address the question of what drives
individual adoption behaviour, the rationale for that focus has not been well established and is rarely
critiqued. In clarifying the situation, this paper should provide guidance for academic researchers and
marketing planners.
Keywords Innovation, Consumer behaviour, Market segmentation, Marketing strategy,
Marketing planning
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction: the rationale for studying innovative consumer behaviour

Marketing texts generally do not discuss the reasons for undertaking research into
adoption and diffusion processes, perhaps because this research field was already well
established by the time marketing academics showed serious interest in it. The study of
diffusion behaviour started with anthropologists, and spread throughout other disciplines
such as sociology, psychology and geography. Rogers (2003) provides a complete history.
These studies often have the understanding of human behaviour as their core goal.
Marketing as a discipline, though, is concerned with understanding human behaviour
primarily as a means to other ends, perhaps forecasting such future events as sales, Marketing Intelligence & Planning
Vol. 25 No. 5, 2007
and as a guide to maximising the effectiveness of corporate marketing activities pp. 421-435
(Hunt, 1991; Moorman and Rust, 1999). Although marketing research frequently q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-4503
synthesises the findings of other disciplines into marketing theory, the motives that DOI 10.1108/02634500710774923
MIP those other disciplines have for studying individual adoption behaviour do not
25,5 necessarily justify the interest of marketing scholars.
Some marketing authors argue in broad terms, claiming that individual adoption
behaviour is so crucial to marketing activities that its study seems almost compulsory.
Hirschman (1980, p. 283), for example, says “Few concepts in the behavioural sciences
have as much immediate relevance to consumer behaviour as innovativeness”.
422 These broad arguments calling for more research and understanding of innovative
behaviour could be criticised for being “ivory tower” perspectives, unless that
increased understanding can be shown to have some practical benefit. The question at
the heart of this research topic is commonly overlooked, namely “what is the benefit of
being able to identify and target innovators?” The purpose of this paper is to address
these questions directly, and review the evidence from past research.

What constitutes “innovative” behaviour?

In many past research studies, innovators are conceptually defined as those who adopt
an innovation earliest, which seems somewhat tautological. An important distinction
needs to be made, however, between different types of early adopters based on the
information sources they use to make their adoption decisions. The early buyers of any
new product or service will include some adopting independently and some acting
under the influence of word-of-mouth and other people’s experience. True innovators,
who are defined here as both early and independent adopters, provide a wide range of
benefits to the provider of a new product or service, whereas the imitative early
adopters provide only a subset of these benefits. The first step in evaluating the worth
of innovators is to define exactly what and who they are, and past research has not
always been clear on this.
Many of the problems that retard research into innovation and innovative
behaviour stem from a lack of consensus about the way in which key concepts should
be defined and thus operationalised. Two major definitions of “innovativeness” exist.
The latest version of the seminal text (Rogers, 2003, p. 22) defines innovativeness as
“the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other
members of a (social) system”. This definition and categorisation of innovators is
clearly time dependent; those adopting early are “innovators”. The distinction is made
simply by determining the mean time taken to adopt an innovation, and classifying
those who do so two standard deviations or more before the mean time as being the
“innovative” 2.5 per cent of the population. In other words, this is a purely statistical
artefact.
Such a definition contains an element of circular logic; early adopters are defined as
those who adopt early. It therefore does not offer any new insight into the reasoning
behind the action of innovating, and so is a construct that brings us no closer to
understanding the phenomenon it studies. Operationalising this definition, though
simple after the fact, cannot be done prior to an innovation launch. The arbitrary
categorisation of the first 2.5 per cent of all adopters as innovators can happen only
after the diffusion process has taken place – meaning such a definition has no
predictive ability. If innovators were more than just first adopters, if they had other
meaningful characteristics and were defined in those terms, then one could develop
theories to predict the adoption behaviour of individuals in a market and identify likely
early adopters in advance.
 Other researchers have attempted to overcome this problem by employing a Targeting of
cross-sectional technique, where the adoption time lag of past products is used as a “innovative”
predictive measure for a new, similar innovation. Midgley and Dowling (1978) point
out that such a method suffers from both measurement problems (consumer recall of consumers
past adoption times not being accurate), and theoretical problems (innovation being
considered to be product-category specific, and therefore not a good way of predicting
future actions with respect to different products). With these problems in mind, this 423
time-based definition of innovativeness is clearly too simple to be adequate.
In the same paper, Midgley and Dowling developed an alternative conceptualisation
of innovativeness, based on earlier work by Midgley (1977, p. 49):
Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual makes innovation decisions
independently of the communicated experience of others.
The obvious difference here is that no longer is innovative behaviour considered to be
solely defined in terms of time of adoption but rather on kind of information type taken
into account by the consumer when making the decision to adopt or not. Thus,
innovation could take place very late in the diffusion cycle of a product, provided that
the individual as making the adoption decision based on mass communications rather
than interpersonal communications. The concept has now been divorced from the
observed behaviour; thereby, it is argued, allowing greater understanding of
the process.
This definition owes much to the work of Bass (1969) who, when modelling
aggregate market behaviour, inferred that the commonly seen exponential growth
pattern of most product diffusion (the S-curve) had to be caused by communicated
experience or word-of-mouth. Bass categorised consumers as “innovators” and
“imitators” on the basis of their reliance on word-of-mouth.
Midgley and Dowling (1978, 1993) further distinguish between “actualised”
innovativeness (occurring at the time of adoption) and “innate” innovativeness
(a personality trait held to some degree by all members of society). Both Bass (1969)
and Midgley and Dowling (1978) claim that the first 2.5 per cent of adopters (the Rogers
definition) could include “innate innovators” who have actualised their innovativeness,
and “imitators” whose decision has been influenced by the actions and
communications of others. It is therefore possible for people who have a high degree
of innate innovativeness to adopt very late in the lifecycle of a product.
Hirschman (1980) reactivated research into the similar concept of “novelty seeking”
arguing that innovative behaviour develops within consumers over time, and that it is
the trait in consumers that drives actualised adoption. Again, innate characteristics
and actual behaviours are differentiated. This conceptualisation has not been
investigated by many other researchers and, apart from some conceptual insights, does
not seem to offer any new, practical direction. Dickerson and Gentry (1983) and
Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) are examples of the few who have nevertheless pursued
this research direction.
Textbooks of marketing management and consumer behaviour generally cover the
theory of adoption of innovations at a level of detail varying from a paragraph through
a section to a chapter. The latest edition of Kotler’s perennially popular Marketing
Management (Kotler and Keller, 2006, p. 660), for example, concludes an overview of
the Rogers adopter groups with: “Each of these five groups must be approached with a
MIP different type of marketing if the firm wants to move its innovation through the full
25,5 product life cycle”. It furthermore suggests that this does occur in marketing practice:
“Companies often target innovators and early adopters with their product roll-outs”.
No distinction is made, however, between the benefits of reaching innovators and early
adopters – both are important as the early buyers of a new market offering.
Arnould et al. (2002, p. 600) conclude that innovators should be targeted because
424 they “play a key role in the success of the innovation by spreading the word to other
consumers who might be interested in the benefits of the product”. However, they
recommend that early adopters should also be targeted for essentially the same reason:
“This makes them important to identify since they influence others in their network”
(p. 600). This, and the Kotler example, demonstrate the difficulty of differentiating
between whether innovators should be targeted more so than early adopters, and they
demonstrate inconsistent rationales for the targeting of these groups.
To summarise the argument so far, two main views on what constitutes innovative
consumer behaviour exist – those holding that it is time dependent, and those
proposing an innate quality of innovativeness (linked to the reliance on interpersonal
communications), which may be related to actual adoption time. In practice, most
researchers continue to use a simplistic time-based definition of innovators; see, for
example, Lockett and Littler (1997) or Frambach et al. (1998). Attempts to measure the
concept of innate innovativeness have often been both complicated in their application
and confusing in their findings, perhaps explaining this reliance on more simple
conceptualisations.
On one level, it could be argued that simply looking at first buyers rather than
innate innovators is sensible business practice. First, purchasers might be regarded as
a good proxy for “innate” innovators since, if the measure is accurate, it is unlikely that
an innately innovative individual would not adopt at a time that is early relatively to
the rest of the market. Non-adoption by an innately innovative person would be most
likely to occur as a result of what are loosely referred to as “situational factors” not of
consumer resistance or innovation unsuitability.
There are also well established links between innate innovativeness and high
product-class interest (Dickerson and Gentry, 1983; Taylor, 1977) and high levels of
media usage (Summers, 1972; Darden and Reynolds, 1974; Gatignon and Robertson,
1991), which should mean that the number of innate innovators who do not actualise
will be very small. The benefits of studying individual adoption behaviour largely
revolve around the importance of the innovator as being amongst the first to adopt an
innovation – termed “market initiators” by Foxall (1994). It could, therefore, be argued
that a time-based definition of innovators is the most relevant to marketing researchers
and, more directly, to practitioners.
However, it is self-evident that independent adoption is vital in the early stages of
the life cycle of a new product, simply because someone must initiate the
word-of-mouth communication. To reach a broad spectrum of the market within a
reasonable time frame, this would have to be generated by more than just a handful of
individuals. To initiate market adoption, marketing planners need to be able to identify
those people most likely to assess the product or service independently (in the absence
of word of mouth, presumably on the basis of mass-media input) and tailor appeals to
them, so as to ensure they hear about it, adopt it and spread the word to others.
Put simply, we cannot predict likely early adopters if all we know about them is that Targeting of
they adopt early. “innovative”
Both definitions can be seen to have value but, from a marketing management point
of view, it is the combination of both early and independent adoption that is vital to the consumers
future of the innovation. There seems to be no reason why a definition of innovators
cannot include both aspects that theorist have focussed on in the past. They are neither
contradictory nor conflicting. Accordingly, innovativeness is defined here as: 425
. . . the propensity of an individual to adopt relatively earlier than other members of the social
system, and to do so based primarily on non-personal communications.
Whether it is in practice worth measuring both innate innovativeness and actualised
innovativeness, and determining the best predictor of each depends on the claimed
benefits of doing so, which will next be evaluated.

The strategic benefits of identifying and targeting innovators

A disproportionate amount of marketing work has focused on the first adopters of
innovations, attempting to uncover their unique characteristics and reveal their
motives. The strong focus on the consumers thus classed as “early adopters” (Gatignon
and Robertson, 1991) is intuitive, given the supposed importance of their actions to the
future of both the innovation and the provider.
The question here is a simple one: are early adopters any more important in the
diffusion process than later adopters? Unless there are good reasons, treating them as a
distinct group within the rest of consumer society is not justified in a marketing sense.
If they are not meaningfully different from other purchasers, a simple factor such as
awareness or chance may be the sole driver of adoption time. If those are all that
distinguish between early and late adopters, then a mass marketing approach focussed
on raising awareness is warranted, to attempt to maximise early adoption rates.
Additionally, it is recognised that all early adopters are not the same. If measured
simply in terms of time of adoption, those first adopters will include some who have
innovated and others who have imitated. The innovative early adopters, defined here
as true “innovators” are a subset of all early adopters, providing distinct benefits to
companies who market the products that they adopt. It follows that marketing
practitioners need to be able to do more than just identify likely early adopters. They
must identify likely independent adopters specifically. Imitative adoption is a function
of proximity and/or communication with true innovators, so the identification of those
true, independent innovators is the key to influencing the diffusion process.
Critics of market segmentation argue that appealing to one particular segment of
the market can often be inefficient (Wright, 1996) or, worse, ineffective (Hammond et al.,
1996). Where it is clear one group of consumers will react differently and reward
specific targeting, segmentation is sensible, provided it can be done easily and
profitably. Nevertheless, criticism of the way the strategy is often approached has been
strong:
Before any segmentation effort . . . can be justified properly, we need evidence that two key
assumptions are true: namely that the segments are associated with a stable set of
preferences, and that targeting these segments really does give a higher return than other
approaches, such as mass marketing (Wright, 1996, p. 23).
MIP There is enough evidence in the literature to suggest that, when it comes to the
25,5 adoption of more innovative products, early adopters can be associated with a stable
set of preferences (McDonald et al., 2003; Rogers, 2003; Gatignon and Robertson, 1991).
Unfortunately, there is no consensus yet about a simple, reliable method of identifying
consumer innovators, prior to the launch of an innovation. Some advocated
explanations are: “domain specific innovativeness” based on personality theory
426 (Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992); “perceived innovation characteristics” (Tornatsky and
Klein, 1982) and “novelty seeking” (Hirschman, 1980), both drawing on perceptual
theory; and multi-attribute attitude “theory of planned behaviour” (Harrison et al.,
1997). The search for such a method, however, is not justified unless it can be shown
that being able to target innovators is likely to be more beneficial than mass marketing
initiatives. The following sections identify and critically review the evidence relating to
the benefits previously said to be gained from being able to identify and target
consumer innovators.
Some of these benefits, of course, flow from all early buyers, not just those who act
independently. Obviously, those prone to word-of-mouth influence will not act without
some innovators. Not one of these benefits is possible without some independent early
buyers, justifying the focus on identifying them.
With innovators being a subset of early adopters (imitators constituting the rest),
the benefits can be expressed as shown in Figure 1.

Early adopters bring cash flow to an organisation

The importance of the revenue generated by sales to early adopters is frequently
asserted (Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992; Gatignon and Robertson, 1985; Nabih et al., 1997).

IMITATIVE EARLY
ADOPTERS
Act Early on Recommendation
• Provide cash flow
• May promote product to others

TRUE INNOVATORS:
Act Early and Act Independently
Often are heavy users
Can help refine product
Figure 1. Create market leader image
Summary of benefits of
innovators
Innovators Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority
It is said that, without it, few companies could afford to make the product refinements Targeting of
and fund the marketing efforts required to spread the innovation to the wider “innovative”
community. Increasingly, such companies as Hewlett Packard and Gillette are relying
on the success of new product introductions for future growth and immediate consumers
profitability (Steenkamp et al., 1999).
Furthermore, retailers and wholesalers would be unlikely to support innovative
products for long unless innovative consumers purchased them. The growing power of 427
retailers in most economies means that they are intolerant of slowly moving products,
and often require new products to pay subsidies or be heavily supported before taking
them on (Berman, 1996; Jones and Ritz, 1991).
Put simply, failure to attract sufficient numbers of buyers in the early stage of the
product life cycle puts the organisation under considerable financial stress, and may
cause the demise of the innovation solely because it is removed from retail shelves
(Gatignon and Robertson, 1991). On the positive side, one research study focussed on
innovators, as opposed to all early adopters, found them to be less price sensitive than
later buyers (Goldsmith and Newell, 1997). If so, the practice of price skimming makes
good sense.

Early adopters promote the product to others

Bass (1969) argued that word-of-mouth communications drive the diffusion process, and
modelled the process. Innovators adopt early because they are comfortable making
decisions on the basis of mass-media communication alone. The vast majority, however,
wait for such interpersonal communication as word-of-mouth recommendations or
demonstrations, before they decide to adopt. Gatignon and Robertson (1985, p. 849)
observed that “individuals have different propensities for relying on mass media or
word-of-mouth communications” but contended that “personal influence is the key
factor responsible for the speed and shape of the diffusion process”.
Although this is a widely held belief, and is frequently used to justify research into
innovators, the evidence is in fact limited, and somewhat mixed. Early research
generally supported the notion of innovators as the generators and spreaders of
word-of-mouth messages about an innovation (Arndt, 1967; Engel et al., 1969;
Baumgarten, 1975). This research stream established the idea that the media sources
used by innovators were different from those influencing later buyers, and particularly
included media that were high in informational and editorial content. More recently, it
has been found that later adopters have more difficulty in determining appropriate
evaluative criteria, and therefore look to current users for help (Olshavsky and Spreng,
1996).
If we accept the idea that it is innovators who drive later adoption through their
words and actions, a number of important implications follow:
.
Unless some consumers adopt the innovation before any word-of-mouth
communication exists, and then discuss it with others, diffusion to a wide market
is unlikely to occur. Someone must start the interpersonal communication chain.
Failure to appeal to innovators means market failure for the innovation under
these conditions (Baumgarten, 1975).
. Innovators, through their word-of-mouth promotion on behalf of the product or
service, can reduce the cost of marketing promotion later in the life cycle (Feick
and Price, 1987; Arndt, 1967). Thus, word-of-mouth communication is vital for
MIP companies with risky products or limited promotional funds (Gatignon and
25,5 Robertson, 1985).
.
Innovators reduce the perceived risk for later adopters through their adoption
and use of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Early users contribute to both the
observability and trialability of the innovation through their example, and these
two factors are positively correlated with increased diffusion speed (Tornatsky
428 and Klein, 1982).

There is a great potential for wasting marketing resources if innovators are not
identified. Only a small proportion of potential buyers adopt on the basis of
mass-media communication alone. Therefore, initial marketing communication efforts
need to target those consumers as accurately as possible and address them directly,
assuming that the rest of the audience will be unresponsive until word-of-mouth
begins. Being able to tailor the marketing mix to innovators is often cited as the true
payoff for this research stream (Bass, 1969; Gatignon and Robertson, 1985; Goldsmith
and Flynn, 1992; Foxall, 1994; Argarwal and Prasad, 1998; Rogers, 2003).
Communication campaigns targeted at innovators can have the beneficial side effect
of building brand awareness and preference amongst a wider audience that happens to
notice them. The key strategic aim of mass communication, however, is initially to
drive innovators to act, and later encourage repeat purchase (East, 1997).
Despite the popularity and seemingly logical nature of this argument, there is some
contrary evidence in the literature. Arndt (1967), who was generally positive about the
communicative role of innovators, found that communication was not one-way but
took the form of information swapping discussions between current and potential
users. This process was not “controlling” with large numbers (46 per cent) of those
exposed to positive communications still choosing not to adopt. Labay and Kinnear
(1981) also found large groups of consumers with detailed product knowledge, very
similar to adopters, who decided not to adopt. The conclusion is that although
awareness must precede adoption, those exposed to both word of mouth and mass
media may yet still reject or delay adoption of the innovation.
If innovators are vital in spreading word-of-mouth communications, it is to be
expected that they will rate highly on opinion leadership scales. This has not
consistently been shown to be the case, with some positive results (Baumgarten, 1975)
and some negative (Robertson and Myers, 1969). Overall, the relationship has been
generally positive, but with many inconclusive findings (Subramanian and
Mittelstaedt, 1991). Poorly developed opinion leadership scales have been blamed for
these results (Flynn et al., 1996), but these could be read as indicating that many
innovators do not communicate the outcomes of their experience with others. The
propensity to do so may depend on the innovation itself. Dickerson and Gentry (1983,
p. 232) found that innovators in the field of computing were “not interested in the arts
or cooking or a great deal of social interaction” while Midgley and Dowling (1993)
found fashion innovators to be more socially active.
It has been proposed that some consumers actively distribute information on
products across a wide range of categories, and they have been labelled “market
mavens” (Feick and Price, 1987; Gladwell, 2005). This US Yiddish colloquialism is
roughly equivalent to expert, but it was found that the information distributors in
question often had little or no direct experience with the product; they were simply
opinion leaders. “Pundit” is perhaps a more accurate translation. Consumers, it appears Targeting of
can be innovators but not necessarily information spreaders, as well as being spreaders “innovative”
of information without actually adopting the products or services to which it relates.
Adding further complexity to the picture, the impact of word-of-mouth has not consumers
been shown to be consistent for all innovations. The nature of the innovation
plays a role in the amount of influence that word-of-mouth communication has on
later adopters (East and Lomax, 2005). Most consumers reduce their reliance 429
on personal sources for continuous innovations (Lambert, 1972), and it has been
shown that the level of social involvement in a product decision generally depends
on the type of product in question (Witt, 1969; Witt and Bruce, 1972; Bearden and
Etzel, 1982).
Reflecting the pro-innovation bias common to much of the research into the
adoption process (Rogers, 2003), studies so far have only looked at the role of
positive word-of-mouth. It would be more realistic to investigate the impact of both
positive and negative messages on later adopters, unless it is assumed that all early
adopters have had similarly positive experiences with the innovation. Recent studies
of the impact of word-of-mouth communication on brand choice have suggested that
negativity is both less frequent and less influential with respect to brand choice
(East and Lomax, 2005), but this has not been confirmed in the specific context of
innovation.
The “independent innovator” perspective put forward by Bass, despite its numerous
adaptations and expansions, has at its core, a simplistic view of the market operation.
The view is that the innovation is developed by an organisation, released to a naı̈ve
market, promoted by mass media and then by word-of-mouth from early users. Two
recent developments complicate this view of the adoption/diffusion process. First, the
rise of cross-national media and international travel mean that consumers are often
exposed to innovations from abroad, either through the media or first hand, long before
they are available in their home market. Secondly, improvements in communication
technology, most notably the rise of the internet, have allowed word-of-mouth
communication to occur globally and almost instantaneously. The formation of special
interest groups means that consumers can access word-of-mouth communications even
before the launch of products. The popularity of recent movie-related web sites, which
host previews, gossip and reviews up to 12 months before their scheduled release,
illustrates the complex nature of new-product related information sources today. The
impact of internet-based discussions on product adoption has already been discussed
by Sussan (2006). Whereas being well-travelled and well-connected was once the
domain of a select few, and a distinguishing characteristic of innovators (Rogers, 2003),
those are now characteristics of a much wider sector of society.
In conclusion, the flow of information throughout a market place today is
complicated and rapid and, though innovators would still seem to play an important
role in communications, their influence may not be as profound as some researchers
believe. Early buyers as a whole, though, are responsible for generating word-of-mouth
and setting an example for more conservative later buyers.

Innovators are often heavy users of the product or service category

The work of Ehrenberg (1988) has consistently shown that brands with a large market
share not only attract a large number of customers but also gain a large proportion of
MIP each customer’s business. Innovators tend to be heavy users of the product
25,5 class (Taylor, 1977; Summers, 1971), and so account for a large portion of sales
themselves, as well as influencing the buying behaviour of others. “Not only are the
heavy users early triers, but their reaction to a new product will be critical because of
the potential volume they represent” (Taylor, 1977, p. 106).
Thus, they are an important group to identify, attract and hold. Attracting a large
430 share of their custom is vital to gaining a large market share, and a product or service
needs to appeal to heavy users such as innovators to be successful in the long run. This
positive finding must be kept in proportion, however, since innovators constitute only
a small percentage of the market, as defined by the conventional Rogers figure of
around 2.5 per cent. They can therefore have only a limited impact despite their greater
than normal usage rates. The finding that those who adopted early had average
monthly purchases around 82 per cent higher than later adopters (Taylor, 1977),
suggests that innovators alone may account for only a small fraction of overall market
sales, and for up to 4 to 5 per cent of sales volume. In most markets, this would not
make them a viable segment to target unless there were other benefits.

Innovators can help to refine an/improve the product or service

Moore (1991, p. 29) argued that the real value of innovators is that they “appreciate
technology for its own sake”. He characterised first purchasers of high-technology
innovations as being “techies”. They seek out new things and are tolerant of
teething problems, provided they are given the opportunity to help to fix them.
Moore suggests that innovators provide companies with “great feedback early in the
design cycle and begin building a supporter who will influence buyers” (p. 31).
Although his conclusions are based almost exclusively on anecdotes and personal
experience, the idea that early users (or “lead users”) improve products, or even find
new uses for them, has been well documented (Price and Ridgway, 1983; Urban and
von Hippel, 1988; Schreier and Prugl, 2006). In practice, this behaviour is frequently
seen to occur in the case of computer software products such as Netscape and Linux
(Cochrane, 1999).

Early adopters contribute to a “market leader” image

Establishing an image as the market leader is said to be important in convincing the
more conservative members of society to adopt an innovation (Moore, 1991).
Obviously, a market leadership image cannot develop unless people have adopted and
are using the product or service, and it is appropriately distributed. Consumers often
use market leadership as a proxy for other criteria, such as quality, when making
unfamiliar purchase decisions (Kamins et al., 1999).
Market pioneers have been shown to gain substantial advantages in terms of
long-term market share, distribution and awareness. A successful pioneer can erect
barriers to entry against later entrants (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991). Successfully
identifying and appealing to innovators may then establish the innovation in the
market place for the rest of its life cycle. This benefit delivers more than just early
sales, positioning the product or service in the market place as the one used by
“experts” (as distinct from “mavens” or pundits). Those innovators who use the
product early in its life-cycle can form the basis of expertise-based advertising appeals.
Conclusion Targeting of
Despite innovators often being simplistically described as the first 2.5 per cent in the “innovative”
market place to adopt a new product or service (Rogers, 2003), the characteristic of
independent decision-making is of equal importance as the timing of adoption. Those consumers
consumers who purchase early and do so purely on their own initiative are the
true innovators in any market, and it is they who often determine an innovation’s
future. Other early buyers, who adopt having benefited from the advice or experience 431
of these innovators, do deliver benefits to the provider, but clearly cannot be expected
to enter the market until the independent innovators have.
With such a large number of inconsistent theoretical perspectives and complex but
limited evidence, what conclusions can be drawn about innovators and early adopters?
There are a number of valid reasons for researching and targeting innovators, though
not necessarily as strong as is often claimed. Perhaps, their most obvious and
important impact is that they start the diffusion process. If the bulk of consumers need
word-of-mouth promotion before they will adopt, someone must initiate this dialogue.
Personal views about an innovation are initially generated from within the innovative
buying group, and being able to identify those people prior to launch allows companies
to improve their chances of encouraging both the adoption process and the subsequent
spreading of word-of-mouth messages. Innovators also provide early sales,
increasingly critical for product survival, and can help to position a new product as
the initial market leader.
Yet there are also reasons to target all potential early adopters, irrespective of their
predisposition to be innovative. The large size of this group provides the early “buying
mass” that a new market offering needs. They may also help spread word of the new
offering to others. Thus, the safest approach at this time is to target both. As the
modern “wired world” accelerates the diffusion process, so early adopters have to be
targeted quickly. However, because innovators make the earliest moves, companies
should target them first and probably hardest. The establishment of “brand
communities” should be encouraged, to facilitate the spread of information amongst
interested consumers (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). Of course, a marketing
communications theme that successfully appeals to both groups would be the
planner’s ideal.
The theoretical perspectives and existing evidence do not provide a strong answer
to the questions if innovators should be especially targeted more heavily than early
adopters, or why they should be strongly targeted at all. In this situation, what is
urgently needed is more empirical evidence. This will require techniques to identify
innovators and early adopters before the launch of an innovative product or service, to
measure the extent to which their needs are differentiated, and to test their influence on
diffusion to other groups, longitudinally. Rogers (2003) has called a study of this nature
the “ideal” research design. Yet it is not easy to implement, and remains to be executed
in a marketing context.
To sum up, the safest strategy is to target both innovators and early adopters, but to
make sure that innovators are targeted first and, perhaps, most intensively. This
should be done in a manner that encourages them to engage in a dialogue with the
organisation and other potential consumers. Examples of this include web-based
forums and brand communities. Communications with innovators should reflect the
greater product knowledge and interest in the category that truly innovative
MIP consumers are likely to have, perhaps by passing on their positive experiences in
25,5 advertising campaigns. This may require an initial focus on rational appeals, rather
than emotional, and heavy expenditure on mass media in the early phases. The
marketing communications plan should furthermore facilitate a high level of contact
between the innovators in the audience and the company’s market intelligence
gatherers, by such means as trade shows, multi-media launches or online chat rooms.
432 Broader marketing strategy should also positively encourage innovative consumers to
demand the product or service from retailers, thereby generating demand pull in the
distribution channel.
Though the diffusion-adoption research stream is at least 45 years old, much work
remains to be done. In particular, empirical studies need to investigate more rigorously
whether or not innovators and early adopters can be identified pre-launch, if they are
looking for different benefits, and what the ongoing benefits to the company are in
terms of speeding up the diffusion process or simply making the innovation more
visible and acceptable.

References
Argarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “A conceptual and operational definition of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 204-15.
Arndt, J. (1967), “Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, pp. 291-5.
Arnould, E., Price, L. and Zinkhan, G. (2002), Consumers, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Bass, F. (1969), “A new product growth model for consumer durables”, Management Science,
Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 215-27.
Baumgarten, S.A. (1975), “The innovative communicator in the diffusion process”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 12, pp. 12-18.
Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), “Reference group influence on product and brand purchase
decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 183-94.
Berman, B. (1996), Marketing Channels, Wiley, New York, NY.
Cochrane, N. (1999), “Hackers have gates on the run”, The Age, Vol. 1, p. 12.
Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.D. (1974), “Backward profiling of male innovators”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 11, pp. 79-85.
Dickerson, M.D. and Gentry, J.W.G. (1983), “Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of
home computers”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 225-35.
East, R. (1997), Consumer Behaviour: Advances and Applications in Marketing, 2nd ed.,
Prentice-Hall, London.
East, R. and Lomax, W. (2005), “The impact on brand choice of positive and negative word of
mouth”, in “Marketing: building business, shaping society”, Proceedings of the Academy of
Marketing Conference, Academy of Marketing, Dublin (CD-rom: no unique page numbers).
Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1988), Repeat Buying Facts, Theory and Applications, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Engel, J.F., Kegerreis, R.J. and Blackwell, R.D. (1969), “Word-of-mouth communication by the
innovator”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, pp. 15-19.
Feick, L.F. and Price, L.L. (1987), “The market maven: a diffuser of marketplace information”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 83-97.
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. (1996), “Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two Targeting of
new measurement scales”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 137-47.
“innovative”
Foxall, G.R. (1994), “Consumer initiators: adaptors and innovators”, British Journal of consumers
Management, Vol. 5, pp. 1-10.
Frambach, R.T., Barkema, H.G., Nooteboom, B. and Wedel, M. (1998), “Adoption of a service
innovation in the business market: an empirical test of supply side variables”, Journal of 433
Business Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 161-74.
Gatignon, H.A. and Robertson, T.S. (1985), “A propositional inventory for new diffusion
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 849-67.
Gatignon, H.A. and Robertson, T.S. (1991), “Innovative decision processes”, in Robertson, T.S.
and Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behaviour, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, pp. 316-48.
Gladwell, M. (2005), Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Little, Brown and
Company, New York, NY.
Goldsmith, R. and Flynn, L.R. (1992), “Identifying innovators in consumer product markets”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 42-55.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), “Measuring consumer innovativeness”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-20.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Newell, S.J. (1997), “Innovativeness and price sensitivity: managerial,
theoretical and methodological issues”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 163-74.
Hammond, K., Ehrenberg, A.S.C. and Goodhardt, G.J. (1996), “Market segmentation for
competitive brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 39-49.
Harrison, D.A., Mykytyn, P.P.J. and Riemenschneider, C.K. (1997), “Executive decisions about
adoption of information technology in small business: theory and empirical tests”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 171-95.
Hirschman, E.C. (1980), “Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 283-95.
Hunt, S. (1991), Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science,
South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH.
Jones, J.M. and Ritz, C.J. (1991), “Incorporating distribution into new product diffusion models”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8, pp. 91-112.
Kamins, M., Alpert, F. and Perner, L. (1999), “Consumers perception and misconception of market
leadership and market pioneership”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19,
pp. 807-34.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, 12th ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Labay, D.G. and Kinnear, T.C. (1981), “Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption
of solar energy systems”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 271-8.
Lambert, Z.V. (1972), “Perceptual patterns, information handling and innovativeness”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 9, pp. 427-31.
Lockett, A. and Littler, D. (1997), “The adoption of direct banking services”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 791-811.
MIP McDonald, H.J., Corkindale, D.R. and Sharp, B.M. (2003), “Behavioral versus demographic
predictors of early adoption: a critical analysis and comparative test”, Journal of
25,5 Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 84-95.
Midgley, D.F. (1977), Innovation and New Product Marketing, Wiley, New York, NY.
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), “Innovativeness, the concept and its measurement”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 229-42.
434 Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1993), “A longitudinal study of product form innovation: the
interaction between predispositions and social messages”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 19, pp. 611-25.
Moore, G. (1991), Crossing the Chasm, Harper Collins Books, Chicago, IL.
Moorman, C. and Rust, R.T. (1999), “The role of marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63,
pp. 180-97.
Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-32.
Nabih, M.I., Bloem, S.G. and Poiesz, T.B.C. (1997), “Conceptual issues in the study of innovation
adoption behaviour”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 190-6.
Olshavsky, R.W. and Spreng, R.A. (1996), “An exploratory study of the innovation evaluation
process”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13, pp. 512-29.
Price, L.L. and Ridgway, N.M. (1983), “Development of a scale to measure use innovativeness”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 679-84.
Robertson, T.S. and Myers, J.H. (1969), “Personality correlates of opinion leadership and
innovative buying behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, pp. 164-8.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schreier, M. and Prugl, R. (2006) in Grewal, D., Levy, M. and Krishnan, R. (Eds)Vol. 17,
“Enhancing knowledge development in marketing”. Proceedings of the 2006 AMA
Educators Conference, Chicago, IL, pp. 2-13.
Steenkamp, J-B.E., Hofstede, F.T. and Ten Berge, J.M.F. (1999), “A cross-national investigation
into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 55-69.
Subramanian, S. and Mittelstaedt, R.A. (1991), “Conceptualizing innovativeness as a consumer
trait: consequences and alternatives”, American Marketing Association, Summer,
pp. 352-60.
Summers, J.O. (1971), “Generalised change agents and innovativeness”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 8, pp. 313-6.
Summers, J.O. (1972), “Media exposure patterns of consumer innovators”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 36, pp. 43-9.
Sussan, F. (2006), “Movie anyone? An investigation of online reputation mechanisms as social
capital influencing consumer new product interest”, in Grewal, D., Levy, M. and Krishnan,
R. (Eds)Vol. 17, pp. 326-7, “Enhancing knowledge development in marketing”, Proceedings
of the 2006 AMA Educators Conference, Chicago, IL.
Taylor, J.W. (1977), “A striking characteristic of innovators”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 14, pp. 104-7.
Tornatsky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982), “Innovation characteristics and innovation
adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, EM-29, February, pp. 28-45.
Urban, G.L. and von Hippel, E. (1988), “Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial Targeting of
products”, Management Science, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 569-82.
Witt, R.E. (1969), “Informal social group influence on consumer brand choice”, Journal of
“innovative”
Marketing Research, Vol. 6, pp. 473-6. consumers
Witt, R.E. and Bruce, G.D. (1972), “Group influence and brand choice congruence”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 9, pp. 440-3.
Wright, M. (1996), “The dubious assumptions of segmentation and targeting”, Management 435
Decision, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 18-24.

Further reading
Hirschman, E.C. (1992), “Cocaine as innovation. A social-symbolic account”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 129-39.

Corresponding author
Heath McDonald can be contacted at: heath.mcdonald@deakin.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats