ATTITUDE The concept of attitude is one of the most prevalent and important concepts in consumer behaviour.

Indeed, in the social sciences generally. Interest in attitudes emanates from the belief that knowledge of attitudes permits accurate prediction of consumer behaviour. Generally a consumers attitudes can be thought of as his or her basic orientation for or against various alternative products, services, retail outlets, and the like. Because attitudes form a coherent system of evaluative orientations, they are important components in any model of consumer decision-making. The Meaning of Attitudes Everyone has, on occasion, been asked to express his or her assessment of something. For example, How do you like your new Santro car? How do you feel about your teacher? etc. Thus, although can provide a precise definition of attitudes, most have clear intuitive understanding of what they are. Interestingly enough, even though there is a general agreement on the meaning of attitudes at the intuitive level, there is a little agreement at the theoretical level. An attitude is an abstract concept in that its structure or makeup cannot be directly observed. Thus, the nature of attitude fosters alternative views regarding the underlying structure of attitude and, consequently, alternative definition.

a consumer has about the support services a retailer offers as well as beliefs about the relative merits of the product. In other words, this attitude component includes considerations such as whether Coke or Pepsi tastes better, which has more carbonation, which has a better aftertaste, and which is a better thirst quencher. The affective component is the consumers overall feeling of like or dislike for an attitude object (that is, a product, service, advertisement, retail outlet). Generally, marketing analysts use verbal statements to measure the affective component. The affective and cognitive components are considered to be highly correlated: that is, consumer analysts have observed that a consumers beliefs and feelings toward a particular product are typically consistent. The behavioural component is the consumers action tendency or expected behaviour, that is, his or her intention. This likelihood-ofbuying component is relevant to the products normal purchase cycle. Thus, if a consumer indicates an intention to buy a Yamaha motorcycle, it is only reasonable to expect her to buy that brand the next time she buys a motorcycle. Marketing strategists have been particularly concerned about developing accurate and timely measures of the behavioural component because of the relationship between a consumers action tendency and his or her actual purchase behaviour. The idea of attitudes being comprised of three major components has had considerable impact on the thinking of consumer analysts and an especially pronounced impact in the area of advertising. The classical psychological model provided the basis for a conception of advertising effectiveness called the hierarchy of effects hypothesis. This model became widely accepted because it provided a concise and lucid, although not completely valid, explanation of how attitudes were changed through advertising. The relationship between the three-attitudinal components and the consumers movement from unawareness to purchase is illustrated in the Hierarchy of Effects Model. Essentially, this model suggests that not only are attitudes made up of three components, but also these components are arranged in a

The Classical Psychological Model

The classical definition is that an attitude is a mental and neutral state or readiness to respond which is organized through experience and which exerts a directive and/or dynamic influence on behaviour. It soon became popular to adopt the classical psychological model, which theorizes those attitudes are made up of three basic components: (1) cognitive, (2) affective, and (3) behavioural. In terms of consumer behaviour, the consumer behaviour, the cognitive component refers to the manner in which a consumer perceives information about a product, service, advertisement, or retail outlet. This component includes beliefs

particular order; that is, a consumer must have awareness and knowledge of a product (cognitive component) before a liking and preference (affective component) for it occur. The validity of this model has been the subject of extensive research and debate. There is, for example, some indication that an alternative hierarchy of effects may exist under certain consumption situations. The fact remains that the hierarchy of effects, model is conceptually founded on well-established psychological theory.
Related Behavioural Movement toward

pressure from the FTC to reduce the tar and nicotine contents of their cigarettes, need to aggressively promote their low tar brands to consumers who enjoy the full-flavour brands such as Marlboro, Winston, and Kool. In order to facilitate acceptance of the brands (ignoring the obvious ethical issues), the companies must first create awareness of the cigarettes and knowledge about their relative health attributes. Next, the companies must create a liking and preference for the brands until consumers are convinced of the advantage of smoking milder cigarettes. Finally, the company can seek trial and repurchase of the brands.

Dimensions

Purchase THE MULTI -ATTRIBUTE MODELS Purchase

Behavioural Conviction Preference Affective Liking Knowledge Awareness Cognitive Unawareness The past decade has been characterised by the emergence of multi-attribute models of attitudes. Although several models have been developed, the work of Fishbein has perhaps had the greatest impact. Fishbein introduced beliefs as the cognitive foundation on which attitudes are built. Attitudes are functionally related to intentions, according to Fishbein, which, in turn predict behaviour. (1). Evaluative criteria: desired outcomes from choice or use of an alternative expressed in the form of the attributes or specifications used to compare various alternatives. (2). Beliefs: information, which links a given alternative to a specified evaluative criterion, specifying the extent to which the alternative possesses the desired attribute. (3) Attitude: a learned predisposition to respond consistently in a favourable manner with respect to a given alternative. (4) Intention: the subjective probability that beliefs and attitudes will be acted upon.

Fig. 3.1: Hierarchy of Effects Model Furthermore, this model, highly regarded by practitioners, has provided considerable direction for the development of promotional strategy. For example cigarette manufacturers, who are under intense

Evaluative criteria

is evaluated individually on all attributes and the total evaluation is the sum of the ratings of each attributes. The consumer selects the brand with the highest overall evaluation. Attribute Adequacy Model: In the attribute adequacy model, an evaluation is arrived at in a manner similar to that discussed above, with the exception that an explicit assessment is made of the differences between ideal and actual of each attribute possessed by the object under consideration. NON-COMPENSATORY MODELS Conjunctive Model: In the case of this model, the consumer establishes a minimum acceptable level for each product attribute. A brand is determined to be acceptable only if each attribute equals or exceeds that minimum level. A lower than acceptable rating of one attribute will lead to a negative evaluation and rejection of the product. For example, a stereo component system may be evaluated as completely satisfactory in terms of sound reproduction and appearance but be rejected because it is not compact enough in size. Disjunctive Model: The disjunctive model suggests that consumers establish one or more attributes as being dominant. A brand will be evaluated as acceptable only if it exceeds the minimum specified level of these key attributes. To continue with the example of the stereo component set, assume that sound reproduction and mechanical characteristics are the dominant considerations. Any set measuring up to expectations on these attributes will be regarded as acceptable no matter what its size, colour, and so on. Lexiographic Model: According to the lexiographic model, the consumer ranks product attributes from most important to least important. The brand that dominates on the most important criterion receives the highest evaluation. If two or more brands tie, the second attribute is examined and so on until the tie is broken.

Beliefs Attitudes Intentions

Fig 3.2: The Relationship of Evaluative Criteria, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions

The multi-attribute models that have been developed to explain the process by which consumers form beliefs and attitudes fall into two major categories, compensatory and non-compensatory. Compensatory models--such as the expectancy value model and the attribute adequacy model--are models in which a weakness of one attribute may be compensated for by strengths of another attribute. Non-compensatory models--such as the conjunctive model, disjunctive model, and lexiographic model--are those models in which a weakness of one attribute is not compensated for by strength of another attribute. A brief explanation of the major compensatory and non-compensatory models are presented below. COMPENSATORY MODELS Expectancy-Value Model: This model assumes that each alternative will be evaluated on more than one attribute. Judgements are based on beliefs about whether or not an object actually possess an attribute and the evaluation of the goodness or badness of those beliefs. Each brand

While there is a distinct possibility that consumers use each of these models in certain circumstances, there is growing evidence that the expectancy-value model holds the greatest promise. The next section contains a detailed description of the two dominant expectancy-value models. ATTITUDES TOWARDS ALTERNATIVES
EXPECTANCY- VALUE MODELS

The dominant focus of consumer researchers in explaining attitudes toward alternatives has been the expectancy-value mode, particularly the Rosenberg Model and the Fishbein Model. The Rosenberg Model The Rosenberg Model considers attitudes to contain two variables: (1) values (approximately equivalent to evaluative criteria) and their importance in arriving at an attitude and (2) perceived instrumentality (the degree to which the taking of a point of view or following an action will either enhance or block the attainment of a value). For example, if low price is an important value (evaluative criterion) and the consumer has come to believe that brand A offers a low price, then the perceived instrumentality of brand A would be high. Rosenbergs model is expressed as follows:
N

In its pure form, the Rosenberg Model calls for the measurement of value importance on a scale of 21 categories ranging from gives me maximum satisfaction (+10) to gives me maximum dissatisfaction (10). From the earlier example, the low price might receive a rating of +10. Perceived instrumentality is assessed using 11 categories ranging from the condition is completely attained through a given action (+5) to the condition is completely blocked through undertaking the given action (-5). Perhaps brand A in the above example would be given a score of +5 on this variable. The Fishbein Model The Fishbein Model is similar in many ways to Rosenbergs formulation, but there are subtle differences. His first component is belief, defined as the probability that an object does or does not have a particular attribute. The second component is an affective term, normally stated in terms of good or bad. It specifies whether or not the possession or lack of possession of the attribute in question is positive or negative. Fishbeins model is expressed as follows.
N

A0 = Bi, ai i=1
where:

A0 = (Vied) (PIi)
i =1

where:

A0 = attitude toward the object; Bi = the ith belief about the object; ai = the evaluation of the object;
N = the total number of beliefs. That is, the formula calls for belief (Bi) and evaluation (ai) scores to be multiplied for each belief. Then these scores are summed to arrive at a single attitude ranking. This initial formulation by Fishbein was later revised to reflect the results of major research efforts. The revised Fishbein Model stated

A0
alternative 0;

= the overall evaluation of the attractiveness of

VIi = the importance of the ith value; PIi = the perceived instrumentality of alternative 0 with respect
to the value; N = the number of pertinent or salient values.

below has had a dramatic impact on the research and application of attitudes in consumer behaviour.

Wi= weight or importance of evaluation criterion i; Bib= evaluative aspect or belief with respect to

utility of

Aact = Bi ai i =1
where:

alternative b to satisfy evaluative criterion i; n = number of evaluative criteria important in selection of an alternative in category under consideration. In this formula, Wi is the weight or importance of the evaluative criterion, and Bib is the evaluation of the alternative along criterion. This rating is performed for each evaluative criterion, and the summed score is attitude toward the alternative.

Aact = attitude toward the act under consideration; Bi = the ith belief toward the act; ai = the evaluation of the object;
N = the total number of beliefs. The differences between A0 and Aact are not in the formulation but in the questions utilized to assess B and a components. The questions here focus on one specific purchase-and-use situation and attempt to evaluate the consequences. Belief may now be interpreted as the probability that a product attribute will exist or that the act of purchase will give certain consequences. The ai component evaluates that belief along a good-bad dimension. An Application of the Expectancy-Value Model Most of the marketing applications have not strictly followed either the Rosenberg Model or the Fishbein Model. Rather, the applications have used some modification of them. Consider, for example, the following application. n

Questions for Discussion. 1. What are the basic differences among the three major personality theories? How might the marketing strategies developed by proponents of each of these theories differ from one another? 2. For what types of products is life-style research most appropriate? In what ways would a marketing manager make the most productive use of information received from life-style research? 3. Because learning is basic to human existence, is it an appropriate area for marketing managers to attempt to manipulate? Explain your answer. 4. Is it possible to unlearn something? Does this affect consumer behaviour? Explain. 5. Distinguish between the classical psychological model and the multiattribute model. Which model holds the greatest promise for marketing strategists?

A0 = Wi Bib
i=1 where:

A0 = attitude toward a particular alternative 0;

UNIT - 4

THE DIFFUSION PROCESS The diffusion process is concerned with how innovations spread how they are assimilatedwithin a market. More precisely, diffusion is a process by which the acceptance of an innovation (a new product, a new service, new idea, new practice, new market) is spread by communication (mass media, salespeople, informal conversation) to members of a social system (a target market) over a period of time. This definition includes the four basic elements of diffusion process: (1) the innovation, (2) the channel of communication, (3) the social system, and (4) time. The Innovation There is no universally accepted definition of the term product innovation or new product. Indeed, the various approaches that have been taken to define a new product can be classified as firm-oriented, product-oriented, market-oriented, and consumer-oriented. Firm-oriented definitions: A firm-oriented approach treats the newness of a product from the perspective of the company producing and marketing it; that is, if the product is new to the company, it is considered new. This definition ignores whether or not the product is actually new to the marketplace (i.e., to the competitors or consumers). Consistent with this view, copies or modifications of a competitors product would qualify as new. While this definition has considerable merit if the objective is to examine the impact that a new product has on the firm, it is not very useful if the goal is to understand consumer acceptance of a new product. Product-oriented definitions: In contrast to firm-oriented definitions, a product-oriented approach focuses on the features inherent in the

DIFUSION OF INNOVATIONS
This unit examines a major aspect of consumer behaviourthe acceptance of new products and services. The introduction of new product is vital to both consumer and marketers. For the consumer, new products represent an increased opportunity for better satisfaction of personal. Social, and environmental needs. For the marketers, new products provide an important mechanism for keeping the firm competitive and profitable. The framework for exploring consumer acceptance of new product is drawn from the area of research known as the Diffusion of Innovations. Consumer researchers who specialize in diffusion of innovations are primarily interested in understanding (a) how the acceptance of new product spreads within a market, and (b) the decision making process that led the consumer to accepting or rejecting the new product. This discussion of the diffusion of innovations concentrates on two closely related processes: the Diffusion process and the Adoption process. In broadest sense, diffusion is a macro process concerned with spread of new product (an innovation) from its source to the consuming public. In contrast, adoption is a micro process that focuses on stages through which an individual consumer passes in making the decision to accept or reject a new product. In addition to an examination of these two interrelated processes, a profile of the of consumer innovator is presented herethose who are the first to purchase a new product. The ability of marketers to identify and reach this important group of consumers plays a major role in the success or failure of new product introduction.

product itself. And the effects these features are likely to have on consumers established usage patterns. One product-oriented framework considers the extent to which a new product is likely to disrupt established behaviour patterns. It defines three types of product innovations: continuous, dynamically continuous and discontinuous. A continuous innovation has the least disruptive influence on established pattern. It involves the introduction of a modified product, rather that a totally new product. Examples include Gel toothpaste, new model of old car etc. A dynamically continuous innovation is somewhat more disruptive than a continuous innovation, but still does not alter established behaviour patterns. It may involve the creation of new product or the modification of an existing product. Examples include CD player, erasable-ink pen etc. A discontinuous innovation requires consumers to adopt new behaviour patterns. Examples include home computer, videocassette recorder etc. Another product-oriented definition suggests that the extent of product newness can be measured in terms of how much impact its physical features or attributes are likely to have on user satisfaction. Thus, the more satisfaction a consumer derives from a new product, the higher it ranks on the scale of newness. The concept leads to the classification of products as artificially new, marginally new, or genuinely new. A genuinely new product has features that satisfy the user in a manner that differ significantly from that of an older product. New product that have been judged as having enough newness to qualify as genuinely new include frozen breakfast, in-home medical test kit etc. Market-oriented Definitions. A market-oriented approach judges the newness of a product in terms of how much exposure consumers have to the new product. Two market-oriented definitions of product innovation have been used extensively in consumer studies:

1. A product is considered new if it has been purchased by only a relatively small (fixed) percentage of the potential market. 2. A product is considered new if it has been on the market for relatively short (specific) period of time. Both of these market-oriented definitions are basically subjective because they leave to the researchers the task for establishing the degree of sales penetration within which the product can be called an innovation (e.g., the first five percent to use the new product) or how long a product can be on the market and still be considered new (e.g., the first three months the product is available) Consumer-oriented Diffusions. While each of the three approaches described above have been useful to consumer researchers in their attempt to study the diffusion of innovations, some researchers have suggested that a consumer-oriented approach is the most appropriate way to define an innovation. In this context, a new product is any product that a potential consumer judges to be new. In other words, newness is based on consumers perception of the product, rather than on physical features or market realities. Although the consumer-oriented approach has been endorsed by some advertising practitioners and marketing strategists, it has received little sympathetic attention from consumer researchers. Product Characteristics that Influence Diffusion All products that are new do not have equal potential for consumer acceptance. Some product seems to catch on almost overnight while others take a very long time to gain acceptance. Some new products never seem to achieve widespread consumer acceptance. It would reduce the uncertainties of product marketing if marketers could anticipate how consumers will react to their product. For example, if the marketer new that a product contained feature that were likely to inhibit its acceptance, the marketer could develop a promotional strategy that would compensate for these features, or

decide not to market the product at all. Although there are no precise formulas by which the marketers can evaluate a new products likely acceptance, diffusion researchers have identified five product characteristics that seem to influence consumer acceptance of new products: (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) trialability, and (5) observability. Relative advantage is the degree to which potential customers perceive a new product as superior to existing substitutes. An outstanding example of an innovation that offers users a relative advantage in their ability to communicate is the facsimile machine (or Fax). Compatibility is the degree to which potential consumers feel a new product is consistent with their present needs, values, and practices. For example, it is not too difficult to imagine men making the transition from permanent razorsinvolving disposal of only the bladeto fully disposable razors that are completely thrown away after the blade becomes dull. Complexity is the degree to which a new product is difficult to understand or use. Clearly, the easier it is to understand and use a new product, the more likely it is to be accepted. For example, the acceptance of instant coffee packet is due to its ease of preparation and use. Trialability is the degree to which a new product is capable of being tried on a limited basis. The greater the opportunity to try a new product, the easier it is for consumers to evaluate it. In general, it would seem that frequently purchased household products tend to have qualities that make trial relatively easy. For instance, for many supermarket products it is possible for consumers to make a trial purchase of a new brand in a smaller quantity than they might usually purchase. Marketers of such products recognise that smaller-thanaverage sizes tend to stimulate new-product trial. Observability (or communicability) is the ease with which a products benefits or attributes can be observed, imagined, or described to potential customers. Products that have a high degree of social

visibility, such as fashion items, are more easily diffused than products that are used in private, such as brand of toothpaste. Similarly, a tangible product is promoted more easily than an intangible product (i.e., service). It is important to recognise that each of these product attributes relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observabilityis dependent on consumer perception. A product that is perceived as having a strong relative advantage, as fulfilling present needs and values, as easy to try on a limited basis, and as simple to understand and to examine, is more likely to be purchased than a product that is not so perceived. Moreover, a particular innovation may diffuse differently in different culture. Resistance to Innovation What makes some new products almost instant success, while others struggle to achieve consumer acceptance? To help answer such questions, a model of innovation resistance has been developed in an attempt to provide further insights into the adoption and diffusion processes. The product characteristics of an innovation help to determine the extent of resistance, which increases with: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Low perceived relative advantage; Low perceived compatibility; Low trialability; Low communicability; and High complexity.

The Channels of Communication How quickly an innovation spreads through a market depends to a great extent on communications between the marketers and consumers, and communication among consumers. Researchers interested in diffusion pay particular attention to the product related information through various communication channels, and to the impact

of both the messages and the channels on adoption or rejection of new products. Central concern has been the relative influence of impersonal sources (e.g., advertising and editorial matter) and interpersonal sources (salespeople and informal opinion leaders). One major stream of research has focused on the relative importance of certain types of information sources on early versus later adoption of new products. Specifically, the following generalisations gleaned from diffusion research indicate that, relative to later adopters, the early adopters: 1. have more change-agent contact (e.g., with salespeople) 2. have greater exposure to mass-media communication channels 3. seek information about innovations more frequently 4. have greater knowledge of innovations 5. have a higher degree of opinion leadership. In recent years, a variety of new channels of communication have been developed to inform consumers of innovative products and services. In the process of the growth of interactive advertising, the consumers become an important part of communication, rather than just the message recipient.

innovations that are perceived as radical or as infringements on established custom are likely to be avoided. The following characteristics typify a modern social system: A positive attitude toward change. An advanced technology and skilled labour force. A general respect for education and science. An emphasis on rational and ordered social relationship rather than on emotional ones. An outreach perspective, in which members of the system frequently interact with outsiders, thus facilitating the entrance of new ideas into the social system. The members of the system can readily see themselves in quite different roles.

The orientations of a social system (either modern or traditional) may be national in scope and influence members of an entire society, or may exist at the local level and influence only those who live in a specific community. The key point is that a social systems orientation is the climate in which the marketers must operate in attempting to gain acceptance for their new products. Time Time is the backbone of the diffusion process. It pervades the study of diffusion in three distinct but interrelated ways: (1) purchase time, (2) the identification of adopter categories, and (3) the rate of adoption. Purchase Time: Purchase time concerns the amount of time that elapses between the consumers initial awareness of a new product and the point at which he or she purchases or rejects it. Purchase time is an important concept because the average time a consumer takes to adopt a new product is a predictor of the overall length of time it will take for new product to achieve widespread adoption. For example, when the individual purchase time is short, a marketer has reason to expect that the overall rate of diffusion will be faster than when the individual purchase time is long, as in the purchase of a personal computer.

The Social System The diffusion of a new product usually takes place in a social settingfrequently referred to as a social system. In the context of consumer behaviour, the terms Market Segment and Target Market are synonymous with the term Social System used in diffusion research. A social system is a physical, social, or cultural environment to which people belong and within which they function. The orientation of a social system, with its own special values or norms, is likely to influence the acceptance or rejection of new products. If the social system is modern in orientation, the acceptance of innovation is likely to be high. In contrast, if a social system is traditional in orientation,

Another aspect of the impact of time on the adoption and diffusion process is how an innovation, over time, moves toward becoming a necessity in the minds of adopter within a particular society. Adopter Categories: The concept of adopter categories involves the determination of a classification scheme that indicates where a consumer stands relative to other consumers in term of when he or she adopts a new product. Five adopter categories are frequently cited in the diffusion literature: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Instead of using the classic five-category adopter scheme, many consumer researchers have used other classification schemes, most of which consist of two or three categories that compare innovators or early triers with later triers or non-triers. Rate of Adoption: The rate of adoption is concerned with how long it takes for a new product to be adopted by members of a social system; that is, how quickly a new product is accepted by those who will ultimately adopt it. Recent research has shown that the rate of adoption for new product generally has been increasing (i.e., getting shorter). In the marketing of new products, the objective is usually to gain wide acceptance of the product as quickly as possible. Marketers desire a rapid rate of product adoption in order to penetrate the market and establish market leadership before competition takes hold. A penetration policy is usually accompanied by a relatively low introductory price designed to discourage competition from entering the market. Rapid product adoption also demonstrates to marketing intermediaries (wholesalers and retailers) that the product is worthy of their full and continued support. Under certain circumstances, marketers might prefer to avoid a rapid rate of adoption for a new product. For example, marketers who wish to employ a pricing strategy that will enable them to recoup their development costs quickly might follow a skimming policythey first make the product available at a very high price to consumers and then gradually lower the price in a stepwise fashion in order to attract additional market segments at each price reduction. In addition to how long it takes from introduction to the point of adoption (e.g., when the purchase actually occurs) it is useful to track the extent of adoption (i.e., the diffusion rate).

THE ADOPTION PROCESS The second major process in the diffusion of innovation is adoption. The focus of this process is the stages through which an individual consumer passes in arriving at a decision to try or not to try, to continue using or to discontinue using a new product. (The adoption process should not be confused with adopter categories.) Stages in the Adoption Process It is often assumed that the consumer moves through five stages in arriving at a decision to purchase or reject a new product: (1) awareness, (2) interest, (3) evaluation, (4) trial, and (4) adoption (or rejection). The assumption underlying the adoption process is that consumers engage in extensive information search, while consumer involvement theory suggests that for some products limited information search is likely. The stages in the adoption process have been described as follows: 1. Awareness: During the first stage of adoption process, consumers are exposed to the product innovation. This exposure is somewhat neutral, since they are not yet sufficiently interested to search for additional product information. 2. Interest: When consumers develop an interest in the product or product category, they search for information about how the innovation can benefit them. 3. Evaluation: Based on their stock of information, consumers draw conclusions about the innovation or determine whether further information is necessary. The evaluation stage thus represents a kind of mental trial of the product innovation. If the evaluation is satisfactory, the consumers will actually try the product innovation; if the mental trial unsatisfactory, the product will be rejected.

4. Trial: At this stage, consumers actually use the product on a limited basis. Their experience with the product provides them with critical information they need to adopt or reject. 5. Adoption: Based on their trials and /or favourable evaluation, consumers decide to use the product on a full rather than limited basis or they decide to reject it. A recent study of the consumer decision process suggests that it may be appropriate to add two additional stages between trial and adoptiondirect product experience (consequence) and product evaluation (confirmation). The adoption of some products and services may have minimal consequences, while the adoption of other innovations may lead to major behavioural and life style changes. Examples of innovations with such major impact on society include the automobile, the television, and the electric refrigerator. Limitations of Adoption Process Although the traditional adoption process model has been instructive for consumer researchers, it has been criticised for having following limitations: It does not adequately acknowledge that a need or problem recognition stage may precede the awareness stage. It does not adequately provide for the rejection of a product after its trial (i.e., a consumer may reject the product after trial or never use the product on a continuous basis). It does not adequately recognise that evaluation occurs throughout the decision-making process and not solely at the evaluation stage. It does not adequately account for the possibility that the five stages may not always occur in the specific order suggested, nor does it consider that some of the stages may in fact be skipped. Finally, it does not explicitly include post-purchase evaluation, which can lead to a strengthened commitments, or to a decision to discontinue use.

To overcome the limitations discussed above, the traditional adoption process model has been updated into a more general decision-making modelthe innovation decision process model. The five stages of the revised adoption process model are: 1. Knowledge: Consumers are exposed to the innovations existence and gain some understanding of how it functions. 2. Persuasion (attitude formation): Consumers form favourable or unfavourable attitudes toward the innovation. 3. Decision: Consumers engage in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation. 4. Implementation: Consumers put an innovation into use. 5. Confirmation: Consumers seek reinforcement for their innovation decision, but may reverse this decision if exposed to conflicting messages about the product. The innovation decision process model is more comprehensive than the earlier adoption process model and overcomes many of its basic limitations. It is much more attuned to the realities faced by the marketers launching a new product. A PROFILE OF THE CONSUMER INNOVATOR Consumer innovators can be defined as the relatively small group of consumers who are the earliest purchasers of a new product. The problem with the definition, however, concerns the concept earliest, which is, after all, a relative term. Sociologists have treated this issue by sometimes defining innovators as the first 2.5 percent of the social system to adopt an innovation. In a good number of marketing diffusion studies, however, consumer researchers have derived the definition of consumer innovator from the status of new product under investigation. For example, if the researcher assesses the new product as an innovation for the first three months of its availability, then he or she defines the consumers who purchase it during this period as innovators. Other researchers have defined innovators in terms of their innovativenessthat is, their purchase of some minimum number of

new products from a selected group of new products. For instance, in the adoption of new fashion items, innovator could be defined as those consumers who purchased more than one fashion products from a group of ten new fashion products. Non-innovators could be defined as those who purchased none or only one of the new fashion products. The Innovator is an Opinion Leader In discussing the characteristics of the opinion leader, it has been indicated that a strong tendency for consumer opinion leader to be innovators. In the present context, it is worthwhile to note that an impressive number of studies on the diffusion of innovations have found that consumer innovators are likely to provide other consumers with information and advice about new products, and that those who receive such advice frequently follow it. Thus, in the role of opinion leader, the consumer innovator often influences the acceptance or rejection of new products. If innovators are enthusiastic about a new product and encourage others to try it, the product is likely to receive broader and quicker acceptance. If the consumer innovators are dissatisfied with a new product and discourage others from trying it, its acceptance will be severely limited and it may die a quick death. For products that do not generate much excitement (either positive or negative), consumer innovators may not be sufficiently motivated to provide advice. In such cases, the marketer not only must rely almost entirely on mass media and personal selling to influence future purchasers, but the absence of informal influence is also likely to result in a somewhat slower rate of acceptance (or rejection) for the new product. Since motivated consumer innovators can speed up acceptance or rejection of a new product, they influence its eventual success or failure. Personality Traits This section will briefly highlight what researchers have learned about the personality of the consumer motivator. First, consumer motivators have been found to be less dogmatic than non-innovators. They tend to approach new or unfamiliar products with considerable openness and little anxiety. In contrast, non-innovators seem to find new

products threatening, to the point where they prefer to delay purchase until the products success has been clearly established. Consistent with their open-mindedness, consumer innovators are also inner-directed; that is. They rely on their own values or standards in making a decision about a new product. In contrast, non- innovators are other-directed, tending to rely on others for guidance on how to respond, rather than trusting their own personal values or standards. Researchers have isolated a link between variety seeking and certain personality traits and purchase behaviours that give insights into consumer innovators. Varietyseeking consumers have been found to be brand switchers and purchasers of innovative products and services. They have also been found to possess the following innovator-related personality traits; open-mindedness (i.e., low dogmatism), to be extroverts, to be liberal, low in authoritarianism, able to deal with complex or ambiguous stimuli, and to be creative. To sum up, consumer innovators seem to be more receptive to the unfamiliar; they are more willing to rely on their own values or standards than on the judgement of others. They are also willing to run the risk of a poor product choice in order to increase their exposure to new product that will be satisfying. For the marketer, the personality traits that distinguish innovators from non-innovators suggest that need for separate promotional campaigns for innovators and later adopters. Consumer innovators are more likely to react favourably to informative or fact-oriented advertising that appeal to their strong interest in the product category, and to readily evaluate the merits of a new product on the basis of their own personal standards. To reach noninnovators, it would seem appropriate to feature reference group settings and to use a recognised and trusted expert or celebrity to appeal to their other-directed responsiveness to authority figure. In terms of category width, which purports to measure an individuals risk-handling orientation, the consumer innovator has been found to be a broad

categorizer, whereas the non-innovator tends to be a narrow categorizer. Broad categorizer tends to try many new products, even though by doing so they subject themselves to the risk of acquiring unsatisfactory products. On the other hand, narrow categorizers are so afraid of making poor product choice that they limit their trial of new products, even though they may forgo the benefits of desirable new products. Perceived Risk Perceived risk is another measure of a consumers tendency to try new brands or products. Perceived risk can be thought of as the degree of uncertainty or fear about the consequences of a purchase that a consumer feels when considering the purchase of a new product. For example, consumers experience uncertainty when they are concerned that a new product will not work properly or be as good as other alternatives. Research on perceived risk and trial of new products overwhelmingly indicates that the consumer innovator is a low-risk perceiver. Consumers who perceive little or no risk associated with the purchase of a new product are much more likely to purchase it than consumers who perceive a great deal of risk. In other words, high-risk perception limits innovativeness. Venturesomeness Venturesomenessa personality-like variableis a broad based measure of a consumers willingness to accept the risk of purchasing new products. Measures of venturesomeness have been used to evaluate a persons general values or attitudes towards trying new product. Research that has examined venturesomeness has generally found that consumer who indicate a willingness to try new products tend to be consumer innovators (as measured by their actual purchase of new products). On the other hand, consumers who express a reluctance to try new products are in fact less likely to purchase new products. Therefore, venturesomeness seems to be an effective barometer of actual innovative behaviour. Consistent with their venturesomeness and lowered risk perception, consumer innovators are also likely to learn

about innovations earlier than others. They also tend to be more intrigued with the prospect of newness than are non-innovators. Consumer innovators are also more likely to be deal-prone (to take advantage of special promotional offers such as free samples etc.). Consumer innovators are also likely to be heavy users of the product category in which they innovate. Specifically, they would purchase larger quantities of the product and consume more than non-innovators. Media Habits Comparisons of the media habits of innovators and noninnovators across such widely diverse areas of consumption of fashion clothing and new automotive services suggest that innovators have somewhat greater exposure to magazines than non-innovators particularly to special interest magazines devoted to product category in which they innovate. Special-interest magazines frequently point to the fact that they reach innovative consumers in their own ads aimed at prospective advertisers. It appears that consumer innovators are likely to have less exposure to television than non-innovators. Studies concerning the relationship between innovative behaviour and exposure to other mass media, such as radio and news papers, have been too few and the results too varied to draw any useful conclusions. Social Characteristics Consumer innovators are more socially accepted and socially involved than non-innovators. For example, innovators are more socially integrated into the community, better accepted by others, and more socially involvedthat is, they are likely to belong to more social groups and organisationsthan non-innovators. This greater social acceptance and involvement of consumer innovators may in part explain why they function as effective opinion leaders. Demographic Characteristics It is reasonable to assume that the age of consumer innovator is related to specific product category in which he or she innovates;

however, research suggests that consumer innovators tend to be younger than either late adopters or non-innovators. This is no doubt due to the fact that many of the products selected for research attention are particularly attractive to or are targeted by marketers to younger customers. Questions for discussion Consumer innovators have more formal education, higher personal or family incomes, and more likely to have higher occupational status than later adopters or non-innovators. In other words, innovators tend to be more upscale than other consumer segments. Do consumer innovators in one product category tend to be consumer innovators in other product categories? The answer to this strategically important question is a guarded NO. The overlap of innovativeness across product categories seems to be limited to product categories that are closely related to the same basic interest area. Consumers who are innovators one new food product or one new appliance are more likely to be innovators of the other new products in the same general product category. In other words, no single or generalised consumer-innovativeness trait seems to operate across broadly different product categories, evidence suggests that consumers who innovate within a specific product category, will innovate again within the same product category. While there is little evidence to support the notion of a universal consumer innovator, there is evidence to support the existence of a relatively small number of consumers who respond to new offerings across the variety of loosely related product and service categories. These consumers, who have been labelled, super innovators, were among the first to purchase a new product or service in three or more areas. 1. What are the essential differences between products, market, and consumer--oriented definition of a new product? Which definition do you feel is most suitable for marketers? 2. Compare and contrast the adoption and diffusion processes. Discuss each process in terms of the market acceptance of fax machines.