My last post on the Domino effect of the yucky Domino’s video set me thinking in terms of what it means for the well accepted two-step communication model and the theory of diffusion of innovation.
Before the two step model, was the Hypodermic-needle model which suggested that mass media did all the communication – a single step in which mass media reached out to…well the masses – like injecting stuff into your body – single shot. The two step model of communication was first presented by Lazersfeld and Katz (Personal Influence, 1955) when they proposed that when mass media put out a communication, some members adopt it faster than others and then they in turn propagate it among others - The mother of the Social Network Theory.
This was the sort of idea that appears to have birthed the concept of ‘Diffusion of Innovation’ proposed by Everett Rogers (1962). Rogers provided us with one of the most enduring marketing ideas with his adoption/diffusion curve. Most marketing students would know that there are a small bunch of people with certain characteristics who are innovators and they adopt the idea/product much before the others. The early adaptors then follow suit and then the early majority followed by late majority and the miserable laggards who adopted last – leading to diffusion of innovation – typically an S-Shaped curve. Frank Bass (1969) then provided a rather robust mathematical model to quantify the diffusion model as a combination of mass media and personal influences.
While the idea of the adoption-diffusion curve has sufficiently sunk into our psyches, and the several of us have believed of the Adoption curve and the Bass model as the ultimate in diffusion theory, maybe its time to relook at the process with changing media structures.
A typical viral campaign that goes from mass media and then gets adopted across the late adoptors would be the strategy followed by Vodaphone’s ZooZoo ad campaign. More on that one later – since everyone is talking about it! The mass media creates something interesting worth accepting/acknowledging/adopting and then some people get hooked on to it earlier than the rest. They pass it along – on the internet – more adopters, followed by the early majority, late majority and the laggards – at which point the media might oscillate between television and the internet.
But consider what happened with Dominos Pizza – it was not a mass media that gave rise to the viral Dominos video that got passed along on to Youtube. It first started with individuals sharing a viral video which became newsworthy enough to get on to mass media. Some people heard about it and then checked out the TV, newspapers and the internet! This doesn’t quite follow the two step model or the Bass model - What kind of adoption/diffusion process is that?
Another question that generally bothers me with the diffusion model is the premise that a lot depended upon the qualities of the innovators – they were supposedly a minority and a special lot. Now with increasing adoption and maturation of the market, do we alienate them? For example, one adopts a new technology ‘cos its so cool and one is an innovator, and then others adopt it too – does Mr.Cool then get disappointed and jump the ship? Does a company targeting innovators appropriately for enabling diffusion end up alienating them as the product become mass market? Typically a question asked by my students when I explain how we can actually apply Roger’s idea of diffusion of innovation!
A couple of Wharton professors are apparently working on this:
………and here’s a link to Martin Bishop’s blog at Brand Mix, where he discusses this issue with the example of how Facebook handles this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment