European Journal of MarketingDiffusion of Innovation and Opinion LeadershipP.W. TurnbullA. Meenaghan

Article information:To cite this document:P.W. TurnbullA. Meenaghan, (1980),"Diffusion of Innovation and Opinion Leadership", EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 3 - 33Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004893

Downloaded on: 22 December 2014, At: 08:23 (PT)References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1732 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:T.P. Beane, D.M. Ennis, (1987),"Market Segmentation: A Review", European Journal of Marketing, Vol.21 Iss 5 pp. 20-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004695Christopher M. Moore, Grete Birtwistle, Steve Burt, (2004),"Channel power, conflict and conflictresolution in international fashion retailing", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Iss 7 pp. 749-769http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560410539230Jason MacVaugh, Francesco Schiavone, (2010),"Limits to the diffusion of innovation: A literaturereview and integrative model", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13 Iss 2 pp. 197-221http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601061011040258

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 203778 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as wellas providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time ofdownload.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

| 3

Diffusion of Innovation and Opinion Leadership by P. W. Turnbull and A. Meenaghan

The term "diffusion" is employed to describe the process whereby an innovation or a new idea or practice spreads through a social system over time. Rogers[l] who has done much research work in this area, suggests that four crucial factors are involved in the diffusion process:

(1) the innovation; (2) the communication concerning the innovation from one individual to another; (3) the social system in which the innovation is diffused; and (4) the time dimension of the process.

Robertson[2], while agreeing with Roger's analysis, defines diffusion in a manner more applicable to the marketing of new products by adding two further elements. Diffusion is:

(1) the adoption (2) of new products or services (3) over time (4) by consumers (5) within social systems (6) as encouraged by marketing activities.

Diffusion research is a summary term used to embrace studies which trace the process of diffusion, the process of adoption and the patterns of influence involved[3]. Diffu­sion studies cross a wide variety of academic disciplines. Rogers and Stanfield[4] identified 14 main research traditions from an analysis of 708 studies, prominent among which were such traditions as social anthropology, rural sociology, agricul­tural economics and medical sociology. Of the 708 studies, less than three per cent were in the marketing tradition and only thirteen were concerned with industrial marketing[5].

Despite the low involvement of marketing research in the area of diffusion, market­ing management's interest in this area is to examine the extent to which the diffusion of a new project can be guided and controlled. The diffusion process can be related in the PLC concept, the basic difference is that the diffusion process refers to the cumula­tive percentage of potential adopters within a given market over time while the PLC concept is based on absolute product sales over time[6].

The marketing company can to some extent control the diffusion process by adjusting its marketing mix variables to elicit the required response from the target

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

4 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

market. Robertson[7] believes that the specific shape of a product's diffusion process is the result of both the "interaction effect" and marketing and competitive strategies. "The interaction effect refers to a process of influence and imitation among consumers by which adopters of a new product lead others to purchase."[8] The concept of interaction effect is based on the belief that certain adopter types who purchase early provide legitimation and encouragement by the act of adoption to later adopters (who are less venturesome) through the medium of personal influence, interpersonal communication and social display.

Theories of Innovation Adoption Three separate theories of innovation adoption are suggested by Lazer and Bell[9] in outlining the process by which different segments of social systems come to accept an innovation.

The Theory of Random Selection Proponents of this theory believe that there is a unique core market who will purchase a new product regardless of socio-economic characteristics. The newness of the product and the status, prestige and recognition it provides for the buyer are the motives that guide this non-rational buyer.

Opinion Leadership There are opinion leaders or influential within each peer group who serve as pace­setters or taste-makers for the group, determining the adoption of each innovation for the group. This concept of opinion leadership will be discussed in greater depth later.

The Trickle-Down Theory Acceptance of the innovation begins with the top echelon of consumers, the upper income classes, and filters down the social strata to the population masses. This theory really says that the upper classes are opinion leaders or influentials for other sections of the population while the opinion leadership theory holds that there are influentials on all social class levels who determine the acceptance or rejection of the innovation.

The trickle-down theory was the basis of Veblen's[10] explanation of consumer behaviour. He regarded man as a social animal conforming to the general norms of his larger culture and to the more specific standards of the sub-culture and the face-to-face groupings to which his life was bound. The needs of this social animal and therefore his consumption behaviour are moulded by his present group-membership and more importantly, his aspired group membership. Consumers will attempt to emulate the behaviour of the classes above them. The upper classes being the more wealthy and better educated section of society will first acquire the new product

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership |5

which will later filter down the social strata to the lower classes until universalisation is achieved.

This theory was also agreed by both Simmel[ll] and Nystrom[12] in their analysis of the fashion adoption process. New clothing fashions are first adopted by the upper classes and later diffused among the lower classes. As universalisation is achieved, the upper classes discard the new fashion, seeking exclusiveness in the newer fashion. Berg[13] believes that "fashion exists through participation, yet its essence is destroyed by communication to a greater number of people".

Perhaps it is appropriate at this stage to mention briefly a few psychological con­cepts which are particularly useful in explaining the adoption and diffusion process. Reference theory[14] refers to the notion that comparison groups are used as frames of reference by individuals to determine their own self-status or relative position in a social system. In making a judgment or evaluation of his own position, the individual may use the group and its norms as a standard or check-point. This comparison may cause the individual to mould his behaviour pattern to comply with the group whose acceptance he seeks. Alternatively as a result of the comparison with a particular group, the individual may choose to behave in a manner incompatible with the group norms, this deviation may occur because the individual no longer wishes to be associated with that particular group or because he has adopted the norms of a group to which he aspires[15].

Closely related to our above discussion is the concept of group pressure. The group may exert pressure on the individual to cause him to conform to group norms. Zettenberg's[16] theory of compliant action suggests that man desires to maximise the occurrence of favourable self-evaluations and will therefore comply with group norms. However, the individual in order to project his own identity, may seek to be indepen­dent where group pressure is forcing the individual towards conformity, and he may well react in the opposite direction[17]. This avoidance of compliance is termed reactance[18].

Thus in adoption, two distinct types of behaviour may be observed: (1) emulation (keeping up with the Joneses); and (2) competition (keeping ahead of the Smiths)[19].

These concepts are helpful in explaining the contagion process whereby successive sections of the population adopt the innovation, and the interaction process whereby emulation behaviour leads to a "snowball" or "bandwagon" effect.

To return to our discussion of the trickle-down theory, Robinson[20] proposed a variation of the vertical flow. He maintained that diffusion occurred not only vertically down the social strata, but also horizontally across each stratum. The innovation was adopted by individuals on a social stratum and was diffused to other members of that social stratum before flowing vertically downwards to a lower social level. Barbel and Lobel[21] believe that as fashion trickles down the social classes it undergoes certain changes with the result that a general style trickles down, but differences in

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

6 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

quality, price etc., are maintained to enable women to manifest their own social standing.

Several refutations of the trickle-down theory appear in the literature. Katz and Lazarsfeld[22] found that people on similar status levels were most often referred to as a source of influence. Where influence did cross social strata, both upward and down­ward flows were apparent. Midgley and Wills[23] found the lower social classes to be the first to adopt men's clothing fashions and thus the diffusion is vertically upwards. King[24] believes that the trickle-down theory is largely untested and does not reflect contemporary fashion behaviour. In his investigations of women's millinery, he found that fashion trickled across the social strata and that the majority of both early and late adopters referred to their own social strata in considering fashion adoption. King, however, does admit that some trickle-down may exist but suggests that its importance has been reduced due to the impact of the mass media and the changing social environment.

Aaker and Myers[25] believe that all information is diffused through some form of communication channel and these may be of two types:

(1) Vertical channels Such a channel is said to exist "if there is a meaningful difference in the interests, social status, demographic or economic characteristics of the communication units"[26].

(2) Horizontal channels These occur where communication flows among members of groups with similar interests and characteristics. Such groups may be work groups, social groups, etc.

They further divide these communication channels into formal and informal types. A formal channel is established and controlled by the communicator while informal channels are not intentionally established and are not controlled by the communicator.

While the trickle-down theory is normally proposed in terms of social class, other social variables such as education, income, culture and life-cycle stage could be used to implement the theory. Influence may flow as a direct result from observation as in the case of fashion emulation. It would appear that the trickle-down theory is less applicable to the affluent society as a theory of innovation adoption. Certain products and practices such as denim jeans, popular music styles and modern dance routines are likely to flow vertically up while "haute couture" fashions may to some extent still trickle down.

The Adoption Process While the diffusion process is a macro-process describing the spread of an innovation through a social system, adoption can be viewed as a micro-process involving a number of stages which the individual must pass through in his decision regarding adoption. The adoption process is a mental decision-making process involving several

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 7

stages. The most widely accepted outline of the process is the innovation adoption model proposed by Rogers[27] involving five basic stages. His model is similar to the AIDA and hierarchy of effects models:

(1) Awareness At this stage the adopting unit (individual, family or firm) learns of the new product's existence.

(2) Interest His curiosity aroused, the consumer desires increased information of a more precise nature.

(3) Evaluation Using the information accumulated to date, the consumer assesses the product. This stage has been called the "mental trial" stage[28].

(4) Trial The new product is adopted on a limited basis.

(5) Adoption The adopting unit decides to purchase and use the new product, believing it to satisfy his needs.

The first three stages are purely mental while the final two stages can be both physical and mental, depending on whether the innovation is a product, practice or idea. The duration of the adoption process is much shorter for early adopters than for the late adopters[29]. The adoption process can be viewed as a learning process or an influence process. As increased familiarity moves the adopter over the stages, both cognitive and affective learning is involved[30]. The level of new learning involved in adopting the new product will directly affect the diffusion rate[31].

Adoption as an Influence Process Early adopters of a new product influence other potential adopters to try the new product[32]. This influence may be direct in that innovators or early adopters enter into product-related discussions with the later adopters or it may be indirect where the innovator creates an awareness of the new product through social display, as in the case of conspicuous innovations in the area of fashion.

The fact that innovators and early adopters already possess the new product may provide legitimation for potential users who are less venturesome thereby encouraging further adoption[33]. This process of influence essential to the notion of the "inter­action" effect and the influence from the more innovative market segments and through the mass media from the change agent serves to move less innovative market segments through the stages of the adoption process.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

8 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

Adopter Categories This refers to the classification of individuals within a social system on the basis of innovativeness which is defined as "the degree to which an adopting unit is earlier in accepting an innovation than other adopting units"[34]. For the distributions he examined, Rogers[35] found the non-cumulative diffusion curve to be bell-shaped and best represented by a normal distribution. Using the mean and standard deviations of this statistical distribution he classified adopters as falling within areas under this curve. His classification is as follows:

% (A) Innovators 2·5 (B) Early Adopters 13·5 (C) Early Majority 34·0 (D) Late Majority 34·0 (E) Laggards 16·0

The Innovator The innovator is the most thoroughly researched of all the adopter categories. He is the individual within the social system who first adopts a new idea or practice. In rural sociology this group is defined as the first 2·5 per cent of total adopters while in marketing studies definitional percentages as high as 10 per cent[36] and 33 per cent[37] have been used. The dominant characteristic of this most innovative group is "venturesomeness"[38]. They seek out new products often before general release[39] and "they desire the hazardous, the rash, the risky and the avant-garde"[40]. The study of diffusion and adoption practices among farmers and doctors dominates this area of research and in presenting the characteristics of the innovator and other adopter types, this paper will draw heavily on the summary findings presented by Robertson[41] and Rogers and Stanfield[42].

Innovator characteristics. Certain characteristics are positively related to innovative­ness, however these may vary for different product types.

(1) Demographic characteristics Age and education are positively related to innovativeness. Webster[43] believes that education leads to better usage of information and increases tolerance for risk taking. Income, or what Robertson[44] refers to as privilege (financial standing relative to other community member), and social status (or level of living[45]) are also important pre-requisites for innovativeness.

(2) Social interaction characteristics The extent to which an individual participates either formally or informally with other community members is related to innovativeness. The following social interaction characteristics are positively related to innovativeness:

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 9

(1) Social participation; (2) Opinion leadership; (3) Cosmopolitanism; (4) Social mobility; (5) Deviancy from social system norms; (6) Contact with change agencies; (7) Interpersonal communications exposure; (8) Mass media exposure.

(3) Personality and attitudinal characteristics The evidence on personality as a predictor of innovativeness is inconclusive while other-directedness and generalised self-confidence are innovator character-istics[46]. Furthermore, knowledgeability, general attitude towards change, achievement motivation and education aspiration are all higher among in­novator types. Both perceived risk and brand loyalty are negatively related to innovativeness[47]. Arndt[48] found that risk perception was the main characteristic differentiating early from late buyers. Pessemier, Burger and Tigert[49] found that early buyers had a greater predisposition to buy because of dissatisfaction with previous purchases. The early buyers were also higher on the demographic and social interaction scales. Lazer and Bell[50] found differences in characteristics between adaptive and functional innovators.

Communications and the Innovator. Greater exposure to the mass media has been identified as a major correlate of innovativeness. The literature suggests that the innovator receives his information from impersonal sources—the mass media and other sources outside his immediate community. Equipped with this information he is in a position to influence later adopters through interpersonal conversations. In their study of drug diffusion and adoption, Coleman, Katz and Mendel[51] found that innovative doctors were subscribers to a greater number of medical magazines and attended more occupation-related meetings outside the community. Pessemier, Burger and Tigert[52] found early buyers to be greater magazine readers. Lazer and Bell[53] found that innovators were exposed to more hours of television per day and a greater number of magazines.

Apart from the mass media, innovators being highly mobile have a greater variety of contacts and a greater involvement with personal communications. Some contra­dictory evidence which questions these general findings has been presented. Robert-son[54] found that general exposure to both television and press was almost identical for innovators and non-innovators. He further showed that awareness and knowledge levels as a result of communication did not distinguish innovators from non-innovators. Innovators at the conviction and purchase stage preferred personal to impersonal sources for legitimation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

10 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

King[55] in examining six impersonal media found that early buyers had higher exposure than other consumers except in the case of television viewing. These differences while greater for the innovator group were not all highly significant. He further showed that innovators, being more gregarious, had a greater involvement in social participation and communication. Similar involvement in information-receiving was found among early and other consumers. However the early buyer preferred different kinds of information sources.

The importance of the innovator. Several reasons can be suggested as to why innovators are an important market segment.

(1) They account for initial levels of market penetration and most new product failures never gain their acceptance[56].

(2) They influence later adopters. The "interaction effect" suggests that this segment is in a position to influence later market segments. Influence can come about in three ways. (i) Social display

Conspicuous new products will encourage interpersonal conversations with the owner thereby creating awareness and knowledge.

(ii) Legitimation The fact that the innovator group has already purchased the new product provides high risk perceivers with a feeling of security about purchasing the new product.

(iii) Encouragement Innovators may create awareness and knowledge of the new product's existence and in conversation urge their fellow community members to adopt. The desire to reduce their cognitive dissonance following purchase may be their motive.

Early Adopters This group is the first to adopt the new idea after its general release. The summary term used by Rogers[57] to describe this group was "respect", which refers to the position that this group holds within the community, as leaders of opinion. They are well integrated within the local community, enjoying higher status and are over-privileged in terms of education, remuneration and occupation compared to other community members[58]. Their attitudes and values are more progressive than later adopters reflecting their cosmopolite nature[59]. As a result of their greater contact with change agents through the mass media and because this group serves an im­portant opinion leadership role, they act as a source of influence for other com­munity members providing a legitimising source of reference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 11

Early Majority Their dominant characteristic is "deliberateness"[60]. Their attitudes are somewhat more conservative than earlier adopters[61]. They need evidence of successful adoption and use by others before considering adoption. They have slightly above-average education and social status and although they rarely hold leadership posts, they maintain considerable contact with change agents and have many informal com­munity contacts.

Late Majority Their dominant characteristic is "scepticism"[62]. This group will not adopt until majority opinion legitimises the new product's utility, then they will yield to social pressure and conform. They are below average in social status, have smaller incomes and below average education. They also travel little outside the community. Financially, socially and perhaps psychologically, they cannot afford to be innovative. They are not very active in community organisations and they make less use of the mass media as a source of information, relying on other community members for opinions. Adoption by this group heralds a slowing-down in the adoption rate and impending market saturation.

Laggards Tradition-orientation is the dominant feature of this final group of adopters[63]. They are lowest on social status, income and education. Their point of reference is the past and they are more family and religion oriented. Rarely are they members of formal organisations and could be described as social isolates[64], rarely moving outside their local community. They are deeply suspicious of anything new and will resist change. They are much more security-minded and rely little on the mass media for information, their sources of information tend to be friends of similar beliefs. Uhl, Andrus and Poulsen[65] found that laggards in food adoption had lower incomes and higher brand loyalty and smaller families. They were also older and more often, single.

Pessemier, Burger and Tigert[66] found that later buyers were less mobile, had significantly higher education and were more likely to be information receivers.

Factors Affecting the Adoption Process Certain features of the innovation or new product can either encourage or retard the adoption rate. Rogers[67] outlined five such features:

(1) Relative advantage or perceived superiority of the innovation. (2) Compatibility with to-date market experiences. This is similar to Cranes [68]

notion of product isolation and can be related to the concept of perceived risk. (3) Complexity or degree of new learning imposed by the innovation. Lion-

berger[69] distinguished four degrees of complexity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

12 | European Journal of Marketing 14,1

(4) Divisibility or degree of commitment[70] can affect the adoption rate. Bohlen et al[71] suggest that the greater the cost, the slower the adoption rate.

(5) Communicability: innovations lending themselves to greater description will diffuse at a faster rate.

Robertson[72] believes that products which are highly visible or conspicuous will encourage more product-related conversations. He further suggested that testability, the degree to which a product can be tested against some objective criterion, will affect the diffusion rate. Rogers and Stanfield[73] found that

(1) fulfillment of felt needs, (2) availability, and (3) immediacy of benefits

were positively related to innovativeness. Levitt[74] believes that the more people affecting the buying decision, the longer the adoption period. Wasson[75] suggests that the greater the level of newness associated with the innovation, the slower the adoption rate.

Perceived Risk This is one of the most important elements affecting the adoption process. Risk perception has been widely used to explain consumer purchasing behaviour. Basically the concept states that a consumer confronted with a purchase decision is attempting to close some gap between his present state of satisfaction and that to which he aspires, and any action undertaken by him will have certain consequences about which he is uncertain[76]. The consumer is unable to specify in advance with any degree of certainty the range of possible outcomes and this creates tension and a feeling of decision risk for the consumer.

Two basic aspects of the perceived risk concept are suggested[77]. (1) Uncertainty: The consumer is uncertain about the satisfactions derived from

his present product. He is also uncertain about his own ability in decision­making. He is unclear about what he is really seeking from this purchase, and the fact that some element of compromise is involved in a purchase decision further increases his uncertain state. He is not fully aware of all the benefits to be derived from the contemplated product. Products which are highly differentiated such as cars, stereo and photographic equipment provide good examples of risk situations, and the mass of technical information which the consumer must digest further accentuates the problem.

(2) Consequences: The outcome of a decision can have economic, personal or social implications for the buyer. Economic in that time and money is wasted, personal in that confidence or personal ego is reduced and social in that the. buyer's standing in the eyes of his peers is adversely affected in the event of a poor decision. Roselius[78] suggests four types of loss, time, hazard, ego and money losses as the consequence of a poor purchase decision.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership |13

The buyer in a risk-situation employs a number of strategies to offset the adverse consequences and reduce his feeling of uncertainty. Cunningham[79] found that high risk perception led to brand commitment while eleven "risk relievers" ranging from government testing to acceptance or word-of-mouth advice were found to vary in ranking depending on the situation[80]. The main risk-reducing technique used by the consumers is to seek increased information about the contemplated product in order to determine which products best satisfy his buying goals. An increase in information serves to increase confidence in decision-making and reduces pre-purchase anxiety. However, a mass of information may lead to even greater confusion for the buyer so causing him to rid himself of the anxiety by purchasing at random[81]. He may alternatively postpone or avoid the decision until the data is better appreciated.

Innovators and early adopters are low risk perceivers[82] and adoption by them provides encouragement for later sections of the community to acquire the new product. Later adopters, in order to reduce the risk, seek the advice of to-date adopters and to a lesser extent the mass media provides these high risk perceivers with in­formation. Perceived risk can be related to those product characteristics which serve to retard the diffusion rate and risk perception can be regarded as one of the main factors in bringing about interpersonal communications.

Risk perception can be seen as a product/person- or situation-specific phenomenon. One would expect that where price is high, risk would be high. However, Cunning-ham[83] found high risk levels for low-priced products, Sheth[84], in a study of low risk new products of a mild continuous innovation type, found that risk levels led to heavy reliance on interpersonal conversation. Briggs[85] found that decisions on wine purchasing led to personal influence being the most important decision variable, though here the risk may be of a social nature. With regard to the individual consumer certain characteristics can be related to risk perception. One would expect that self-confidence is negatively related to perceived risk while Bauer[86] believes that such demographic characteristics as education, social class and income levels can be nega­tively related to perceived risk. In certain situations where the need creates a heightened state of tension and an array of possible satisfiers are available, then risk will be greater.

Two-Step Flow of Communications The communication process is clearly an important influence in the diffusion of innovation. The simple one-way model of communication in terms of source messages, channel and audience and the movement of the audience over a series of steps towards the act of purchasing, although useful in understanding the workings of communica­tion, can be criticised on several points[87].

(1) It suggests that most messages get to the audience. (2) It proposes that if the message does get through, the audience will react in the

manner suggested.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

14 | European Journal of Marketing 14,1

(3) It fails to take into account other methods of communication which work on the audience.

In the light of these criticisms it is appropriate that we should turn our attention to another model of the process proposed by Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet[88], namely the two-step flow model which suggests that communication does not affect the audience directly, but works through a network of interpersonal communications. Their findings result from a study of voters in the 1940 American Presidential Election and the influences on their voting behaviour. They found that information flowed from the mass media to influentials within the community and that these influentials or opinion leaders were an important source of influence for more passive segments of the population.

The two-step flow model suggests that information is fed by change agents to opinion leaders who act on the more passive audience segments to influence their behaviour patterns. This concept is agreed by Cox[89] who suggests that "advertising is not, in itself, a cause of audience effects, but works with and through various mediating factors such as audience predispositions and personal influence (e.g., word-of-mouth advertising)". Perhaps the greatest testimony to the workings of the two-step flow is given by Schramm who states that "the great effects of mass communication are gained by feeding ideas and information into small groups through individual receivers" [90].

Criticisms of the Two-Step Flow While the model is an accurate reflection of elements of communications process, several criticisms have been levelled against it. Rogers[91] has outlined some of its difficulties as follows:

(1) "It implies that opinion leadership is a dichotomous trait. A given sample of respondents may often be dichotomised into opinion leaders versus followers,

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 15

but in fact, opinion leadership is a continuous variable, and should certainly be conceptualised (even though not always measured) as such.

(2) It implies a competitive rather than complementary role for mass media and interpersonal communication channels. The two-step flow hypothesis ignores stages in the decision-making process about a new idea. Channel differences in the knowledge versus persuasion stage exist for both opinion leaders and followers; thus it is not only opinion leaders who use mass media channels.

(3) It ignores the so-called time of knowing. Maybe opinion leaders are simply early knowers of a new idea, who pass the innovation along to later knowers.

(4) It implies active opinion leaders and a passive audience, while actually many opinions are actively sought by followers from opinion leaders.

Cox[92] also criticises the model on the basis that the mass audience are not passive receivers of information, and that they initiate much of the product-related discussions. Both Cox[93] and Arndt[94] have shown thai about 50 per cent of the product-related discussions are initiated by opinion followers. The assumption of the original model, that the initiative in the transmission of information lies with the communicator, be he the change agent or the opinion leader, is incorrect. Cox[95] further criticised the suggestion that impersonal and personal sources of communication are competitive and in his review he offers an information-seeking model based on the notion that some degree of initiative can be afforded to the audience. This concept of information-seeking is in line with the views of Bauer[96] who believes that the audience are not "passive patsies being pushed around by communicators".

Robertson[97] criticises the model for its assumption that an absolute opinion leader exists for each informal group and state that opinion leadership resides to some degree in all group members. A worthwhile criticism is made by Aaker and Myers[98] who believe that the model ignores "the exchange or two-way transaction nature of communications and influence". Two further criticisms of the model can be made. The influence exerted by the opinion leader is not of equal importance at all stages of the adoption process and, further, the two-step flow model suggests that the primary source of influence for the opinion leader is the mass media, when,in fact, he is also influenced by fellow community members when arriving at his decision.

Phenomenistic Approach [99] Both the one-way model and the two-step flow model involving opinion leadership suggest that the arrival of certain stimuli will cause the receiver to act in a certain manner. The one-way model is normally viewed as a stimulus-response process with impersonal communications directly affecting the receiver. The two-step model is largely based on the notion that communications from the opinion leader will cause the receiver to act in the manner exhorted. Neither model allows for individual responses in terms of selective exposure, perception, retention and decision. Neither model allows for the fact that differences in individual consumers will result in different responses being elicited following exposure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

16 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

The phenomenistic approach suggests communication as a transactional process whereby mass communication and, for that matter, personal influence, operate together with the situational factors within the receiver to bring about a response. In fact it views communications as one of many influences on behaviour, while a host of other influences on the decision are supplied by the individual consumer and his environment. Klapper[100], who suggested that mass communications rarely alter opinions alone or directly, argues for a phenomenistic approach as follows:

(1) "Mass communication is generally not a necessary and sufficient cause of effects, but operates through mediating factors—environmental conditions as well as audience pre-dispositions and attributes.

(2) Mass communication is most often a 'contributory agent' in a process of re­inforcing existing conditions. Communication most simply, is much more likely to reinforce than to change.

(3) When mass communication does serve to change, it is because the mediating factors are inoperative or are themselves favouring change."

The Concept of the Opinion Leader The two-step flow of communications or word-of-mouth advertising is based on the notion that certain influential individuals in a community form an added stage in the process whereby information flows from the change agents through these opinion leaders to the mass audience. These key individuals play important roles in the func­tioning of their respective groups and exist without title or other formal recognition. Various labels have been designated to these influentials, such as tastemakers, trend­setters, fashion leaders, high mobiles, but they are most often referred to as opinion leaders. Blumer[101] believes that they "embody within themselves some effective anticipation of what the fashion-consuming public is going to adopt, and to this extent they are operating as a surrogate, a kind of unwitting agent of the public".

The term opinion leader is often applied to the individual whose occupation is related to the topic area in question such as a film reviewer, although most often the term is reserved for that special individual within a community who is integrated socially, being similar to the group members he influences. Katz and Lazarsfeld[102], who first defined the concept, view opinion leadership as being an "almost invisible, certainly inconspicuous form of leadership at the person-to-person level of ordinary, informal everyday contact."

Studies subsequent to the Katz and Lazarsfeld research provide proof of the exis­tence of this key individual, who because of the authority vested in him by his peers, is in a position to encourage or hinder the adoption of a new product. Myers[103] showed that the opinions of the group followed those of the opinion leader in the adoption of a new food product when both positive and negative opinions were ex­pressed to different groups. The voting study of Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet[104],

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 17

the Decatur study of Katz and Lazarsfeld[105], Merton's study in Rovere[106] and the Drug study of Coleman, Katz and Mendel[107] all provide proof of the influence exerted by the opinion leader.

While the concept is generally discussed in terms of verbal communication in the passing on of advice or information, imitation through observation may be the medium of influence. Whyte[108] in his study of air-conditioning ownership found it to be concentrated in confined locations and attributed this to both verbal and non­verbal communications. Robertson[109], in examining the diffusion of a new house­hold appliance, found both verbal and non-verbal communications in operation while King[110], in examining fashion adoption, attributed influence patterns to non-verbal communications.

While the original concept tended to define opinion leadership as a dichotomous characteristic, the view is now held that opinion leadership is a multi-stage process where degrees of influence vary among individuals in the community[111]. Information receivers use both mass media and impersonal sources in a complementary manner, and the information receivers are active in seeking information. Even though the opinion leader is generally higher in status, most word-of-mouth activity takes place between people on similar status levels reflecting the horizontal flow of interpersonal discussions.

Motivation for Opinion Leadership The notion that your best salesman is a satisfied customer and the fact that certain products and services provide social conversation topics give some clues as to what causes word-of-mouth advertising. Dichter[112] identified four types of opinion leadership motivation.

(1) Product involvement. Experience with a product produces a tension which is not eased by product use alone and relief is found to some extent in discussion.

(2) Self-involvement. The product experience is put into the service of self-confirmation by the speaker who needs to reassure himself in front of others. The "bandwaggon" effect which we noted in connection with diffusion theory may be reversed when the consumer takes pride in adopting an "underdog product" as a means of confirming his self-concept of deviancy or other-directedness.

(3) Message involvement. This occurs when advertisements are used as the basis of discussion.

(4) Other-involvement. The basic desire here is to share with others the benefits enjoyed.

The Gate-keeper Concept We have said that the influential or opinion leader in a social system can use his influence either to encourage or hinder the new products diffusion process. Where the influential uses his influence to hinder the progress of an innovation, he is deemed

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

18 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

to be fulfilling a gate-keeper role. "The gate-keeper is either a key member of the group or an expert outside advisor in a position to make decisions and choices for the adopting-unit"[113]. The gate-keeper, like the opinion leader, has no special place on the time continuum of adoption and can influence both early and late adopters. The influential, being more exposed to the mass media, may selectively screen and distort the information passed on to the information receiver[114]. Where the influential fails to pass on the information or critically rejects the new product's claims, he is in essence fulfilling a gate-keeping role.

Some evidence of this concept exists. Arndt[115] on the role of product-related conversations showed that those who received unfavourable product-related advice were far less likely to purchase a new product than those who received no advice, while those given favourable information are far more likely to buy.

Myers[116] showed that group opinions followed those expressed by influentials for both positive and negative comments. Dichter[117] in a study of word-of-mouth conversations "showed that there were 80% as many raps by brand as there were boosts by brand".

There is some evidence that unfavourable comments are more influential than positive comments. Crane[118] showed that bad news about products is transmitted more readily by interpersonal discussions, unfavourable views caused a drop in purchase by 24 percentage points while favourable messages only caused a rise of 12 percentage points. Engel Kegerreis and Blackwell[l 19] found no statistical evidence to support the hypothesis that innovators use word-of-mouth channels to pass on negative experiences to a significantly greater extent than positive experiences.

Characteristics of the Opinion Leader While numerous studies have attempted to differentiate leaders from followers on the basis of social, demographic, cultural, personality and attitudinal traits, Katz[120] suggests three factors which distinguish leaders from followers:

(1) the personification of certain values: i.e., who one is in terms of demographic, social and cultural features;

(2) competence: i.e., what one knows within certain topic areas; (3) strategic social location: i.e., this refers to who one knows and one's contacts

within and outside the group. Katz[121] further believes that there is little difference between leaders and followers

with regard to levels of interest or the social spheres to which they belong. If we accept that the community is not polarised into leaders and followers and accept that opinion leadership is a matter of degree involving a multi-stage process, then differences between the advisor and advisee may be minute. Several studies point to differences between the two groups, but research findings are inconclusive.

Coleman, Katz and Mendel[122] in their study of drug diffusion found that doctors qualifying as opinion leaders were more socially integrated, had longer terms of practice, were more exposed to specialist media. The Decatur study[123] on personal

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 19

influence examined four product areas and found that opinion leaders had higher status, were more gregarious and had outgoing personalities. Rogers[124] suggested social participation, social status and cosmopolitanism as opinion leadership traits. Darden and Reynolds[125] in studying male fashions found venturesomeness and interest in fashion to be predictors of leadership, while Summers[126] found the female fashion leaders to be younger, better educated with higher incomes and better jobs. They also had higher group membership, greater physical and social mobility, were more interested in fashion and read more fashion magazines. Midgley and Wills[127] found that male fashion leaders were more likely to be early adopters, and were younger, more innovative and had lower social status.

Mancuso[128] suggests that mobility, status and confidence are the three main opinion leadership variables. The opinion leader may also be distinguishable in his relationship with other people. Wasson et al[129], believe that "the opinion leader must be the highest prestige member of the group, and we know that the leader must be the one who conforms more closely to the norms of the group than any other member". Rogers and Cantano[130] confirm this view while Klapper[131] states that opinion leaders are "especially familiar with and loyal to group standards and values". All the major studies[132] point to the fact that the opinion leader is more exposed to the mass media than other group members, and that this is his main source of information and influence. However, Aaker and Myers[133] believe that opinion leaders are more exposed to relevant media than mass media in general. Katz[134] and Berelson, Lazarsfeld and McPhes[135] believe that the opinions of other group members are an important source of influence even for the opinion leaders themselves. Crane[136] shows that late buyers find word-of-mouth channels significantly more helpful than early buyers (who are more likely to be opinion leaders). Robertson[137] summarises the opinion leaders' characteristics as follows:

"Age varies by product category; social status is most often the same as that of advisees; high gregariousness is uniformly the case; cosmopolitanism, or orienta­tion beyond the local community is generally cited, but has not been tested ex­plicitly for consumer goods; knowledge is generally greater; no distinguishing personality features exist; norm adherence is greater; and higher innovativeness is found."

Is the Opinion Leader also the Innovator ? The characteristics of the opinion leader outlined above are strikingly similar to those of the innovator and most studies of opinion leadership find it positively related to innovativeness. However, this does not necessarily mean that they are one and the same person. Research discussed above has shown that the opinion leader conforms to group norms and almost reflects the average group member enabling his fellow group members to emulate his behaviour without appearing extraordinary or con­spicuous. The innovator, however, by definition of his role must be a deviant, being venturesome enough to stand out from common group practices. "The opinion

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

20 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

leader could be characterised as an editor of fashions, the innovator as an adventurer." [38]

Summers[139] in reviewing this question concluded that where innovativeness was reflected in the norms of a progressive system, opinion leadership would be linked to innovativeness, but where the system or market was tradition-oriented and resistant to change, opinion leadership would reflect this.

Agreeing with Summer's analysis, Robertson[140] believes that the normative structure of the social system will determine whether the innovator is also the opinion leader. Pessemier et al.[141], found questions on opinion leadership to be "con­spicuous for their inability to distinguish the kind of buyer". However, it is generally agreed that the opinion leader is an early adopter. King[142] believes that "the innovator is the earliest visual communicator of the season's styles for the mass of fashion consumers. The influential appears to define and endorse appropriate standards." Engel, Kegerreis and Blackwell's[143] results point to the influence of the innovator, they found that 59 per cent of innovators were asked for their opinions on new products as compared with 32 per cent of the general population.

Generalised or Specific Opinion Leadership The question of whether opinion leaders are expert in only one narrow area—• monomorphic—or expert in a variety of spheres—polymorphic—is one which appears to be unresolved. Much of the confusion surrounding this question can be attributed to different methods of identifying opinion leaders, different methods of cross-tabulation of statistical data and the related nature of the topic areas chosen for examination.

Katz and Lazarsfeld[144] suggested that opinion leadership was a specific pheno­menon and that each topic area had its own leaders. Silk[145], who carried out a study among self-designated opinion leaders, found no significant evidence of overlap across five closely related areas in the dental hygiene field, but some evidence, though not conclusive, of generalised opinion leadership. Robertson and Myers[146] in examining this question in three product areas, food, clothing and small appliances, found no hard evidence of overlap across product categories. King and Summers[147] cite two studies in the area of rural sociology where opinion leadership was found to be primarily monomorphic.

Montgomery and Silk[148] found evidence of overlap in opinion leadership within product categories of similar interest, and less evidence of overlap across product categories. Marcus and Bauer[149] in a re-analysis of the data used by Katz and Lazarsfeld, found significantly greater evidence of overlap across two and three topic areas than chance conditions would suggest. Myers and Robertson[50] studied opinion leadership across twelve product and interest areas and found significant evidence of overlap, particularly in related or similar topic areas. King and Summers[151] in studying overlap across six consumer product categories found overlap to be a common phenomenon and at its greatest between product categories involving

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 21

similar interest. With such conflicting evidence, the question of whether a general opinion leader exists remains unresolved, however despite Silk's findings it would appear that such an opinion leader may exist within product categories of similar interest.

Communications and Opinion Leadership The opinion leader is more exposed to the mass media than the rest of the popula-tion[152]. This fact is generally substantiated by studies in the area of personal influence and opinion leadership, however little evidence is available for the specific area of consumer marketing. Nicosia[153] in studying the area of automobile in­surance found, in fact, that opinion leaders were somewhat less exposed to the mass media. In the drug study[154] influential doctors were more exposed to specialist media and Summers[155] showed that the opinion leader for fashion diffusion was more exposed to fashion magazines, but not to radio and television. It has been concluded that the opinion leader is more exposed to relevant mass media but not to mass media in general[156].

The implication from the diffusion literature is that the mass media is the main source of influence for the influencial, however, as we have said above, personal influence can also play a major part in his reaching his adoption decision. Armed with this information he proceeds to influence his fellow group members. We will discuss the effectiveness of the various information sources, but none of the studies in this area distinguish between the different adopter types.

Situations where Word-of-Mouth is Important Certain features about the product, the environment and the adopter may cause information sources to have an increased importance. It seems logical to suggest that where these product characteristics which retard the diffusion process are operative, then interpersonal influence and product-related discussions will be more important. Several such situations have been suggested[157]:

(1) where the product investment is high; (2) where the level of objective information concerning the product is low; (3) where the product has significant social or symbolic value; (4) where perceived risk is high. Cox[158] has proposed that where the mass media have created awareness and

interest, but not provided enough information for evaluation, then information-seeking will occur. Robertson[159] believes that "the product variables of visibility, testability, complexity and perceived risk . . . do help to predict when personal influence will be most operative".

Perceived Risk and Word-of-Mouth Communications In order to reduce risk to tolerable levels, high risk perceivers seek information which may be new or stored in the memory[160]. Both formal and informal informa-

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

22 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

tion sources are used. Arndt[161] and Bauer[162] found that opinion leaders are important as trusted sources while Cunningham[163] found that high risk perceivers used more information sources, but found little evidence that trusted sources were preferred. High risk products lead to more product-related discussions and consumers have a risk hierarchy of products and limit their discussions to those products at the top[164].

High risk perceivers are more likely to initiate product-related conversations; both Cox[165] and Arndt[166] found that non-influencial started 50 per cent of these discussions. Information flows from the opinion leader, who is thought to be a low risk perceiver, to those perceiving high risk. These now become opinion leaders for others who perceive even higher risk, thus information and influence spreads through the market in a contagion process[167]. Cunningham [168] however found that "those high-medium in perceived risk are somewhat more likely to consider themselves opinion leaders than are those low in perceived risk", but this finding is contrary to expectations.

Even if personal information channels are preferred, marketer-controlled channels also provide information which can reduce risk. Bauer[169] believes that where risk is high, company image is the dominant source of influence, but where risk is low, personal influence plays an important part in bringing about compliance. Briggs[170] and Sheth[171] found that personal influence was particularly important in buying decisions involving low financial commitment. As the innovation is increasingly adopted, risk perception is reduced and verbal encouragement and social display influence later adopters.

Sources of Information and Influence Two basic sources of information and influence are available to the adopter:

(1) impersonal sources via the mass media; (2) personal sources involving the opinion leader in a two-step flow of com­

munication. Kotler[172] suggests that sources of information can be classified as follows:

(1) Personal influence channels (a) Advocate channels—company salesmen; (b) Expert channels—independent sources; (c) Social channels—buyer's peers.

(2) Non-personal channels (a) Mass and selective media; (b) Atmosphere; (c) Events.

While it is generally difficult to control a product's market performance, added complications arise in the case of fashion industries where trends are extremely

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 23

difficult to determine and fashion cycles are subject to the whims of a largely un­predictable market. In the popular music industry which exhibits all the characteristics of a fashion industry, the promotion variable is of critical importance. Within this promotion a wide variety of sub-variables are available to create awareness, know­ledge, conviction and purchase-attitude levels in the target market and the effectiveness of each sub-variable in this promotion-mix will vary over the product's market life.

The PLC concept views the process of market introduction from the point of view of the marketing company while the marketing theory on diffusion and adoption outlines the process from the point of view of the market.

Two theories of innovation adoption are widely used to explain the process. The trickle-down theory suggests that the acceptance of an innovation filters down the social strata while the opinion leadership theory holds that certain influencial sin the community provide leadership in innovation adoption for less venturesome sections of the community. Both these theories are widely applied to the adoption of fashion goods. Five types of adopters have been identified according to the degree of innovative-ness and five stages of the adoption process are also suggested. Different sources of information and influence have different levels of effectiveness at different stages of adoption and different adopter types employ different information sources. Those buying early in the product's life use the mass media while those buying during maturity or decline are particularly impressed by the number of purchasers to date. Thus, over the life cycle adopters have two broad sources of influence or information, that directed at them by the marketing company through the promotion mix and that directed at them by opinion leaders who can encourage or hinder.

Cox[173] classifies information sources as being marketer dominated, consumer dominated or neutral. Recall rates for neutral sources are higher[174]. Crane[175] identifies four channels of adopter influence, word-of-mouth, publicity, personal selling and advertising and in order of effectiveness are as follows:

(1) people of goodwill (2) sharers of interest (3) bearers of tangible evidence (4) intimates (5) connoisseurs (6) celebrities (7) salesmen (8) professional experts. Sources of information can be classified according to a number of headings. (1) Control: Is the source marketer or consumer controlled or neutral? (2) Is the information relayed in a face-to-face situation or impersonally? (3) Does the channel of influence permit consumer feedback to ensure relevancy

of information as in the case of word-of-mouth and personal selling?

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

24 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

(4) Credibility: This is a function of the extent to which the source is perceived to have "an axe to grind". Word-of-mouth is generally high on credibility while media advertising is low[176].

(5) Robertson[177] distinguishes channels of information according to whether they permit one-way or two-way communication.

Effectiveness of Information Channels and Influence Sources Before any discussion on this topic is possible, it is important to realise that different information sources fulfil different functions over the adoption process. Coleman, Katz and Mendel[178] believe that it is important to distinguish between those sources which inform and those which legitimate. Mass media, they claim, has an "informative'' role while personal influence exerted through the two-step flow of communication performs a legitimising role. Katz[179] believes that personal influence is more effective than the mass media because it is non-purposive, flexible and trustworthy. The mass media, he believes, more often play a reinforcing role in the strengthening of predispositions and of decisions already taken. Interpersonal relations are believed to have three main functions[180]:

(1) as channels of information; (2) as sources of social pressure to conform; (3) as sources of social support in decision-making. Rogers[181] believes that "impersonal information sources are most important at

the evaluation stage in the adoption process". Crane[182] believes that publicity creates awareness, advertising provides the facts, word-of-mouth channels legitimise choice and personal selling serves to provide further information and facilitates the act of purchase. Robertson[183] has studied consumer usage of information channels in the purchase decision process for three product categories. Marketer controlled channels were most important for awareness, advertising was particularly important for small appliances and food and, to a lesser extent, for clothing. Sales promotion was important for clothing and food, but not for small appliances. Personal selling was generally unimportant for creating awareness. However, the most important sources for all three product categories were non-marketer controlled with social contacts and family being the most important.

Diffusion research has shown that different adopter categories are influenced to different extents by different sources. Innovators and early adopters use the mass media and expert sources outside the system while late adopters and laggards rely more heavily on word-of-mouth channels. Webster[184] believes that for precision in determining the influence of information sources a five by five matrix could be used to plot the five stages of the adoption process against the five adopter categories.

Research studies which measured the impact of the various sources do not attempt to differentiate between the varying impact at different stages of the adoption process, nor do they measure their effectiveness according to adopter category. In their voting

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 25

Table I. Media Impact Ranking

Television Personal contact Sampling Availability in store Magazine advertising

Total Exposure

57-6 18-2 26-3 11-1 5-0

Effective Exposure

17-2 11-1 17-2 4 0 2 0

Note: 57-6 per cent of those purchasing the new product reported exposure to television while only 17-2 per cent of these believed it to be instrumental in the purchasing decision.

study Berelson, Gaudet and McPhee[185] studied the impact of the various sources on voting decisions and found that the mass media (then only radio and press) had little effect when compared with word-of-mouth communications. Personal influence was particularly important for those voters who made up their minds late in the campaign. The Decatur study[186] on personal influence found communications channels to rank as follows:

(1) personal contacts; (2) radio advertising; (3) sales persons; (4) newspaper and magazine advertising. In encouraging brand switching of

household products, Katz and Lazarsfeld[187] found personal influence to be seven times more effective than press advertising.

Haines[188] in a study of non-durable consumer products in the food, and toiletry areas ranked the various media in terms of impact. His results are as shown in Table I.

These results show that both sampling and personal contact are particularly im­portant, and that television exposure has low impact, but generated high levels of awareness. These results cannot realistically be compared with the findings of the Decatur study, as television advertising and self-service did not really exist when that study was undertaken. As many stimuli are working on the consumer at the same time, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of each media at different stages over the adoption process. Robertson[189] studied the effectiveness of various communica­tion sources used by innovators in the adoption of a new household appliance and found that personal contact finally decided the issue in 25 per cent of cases as against the mass media in 3 per cent and sales personnel in 5 per cent of cases. (Sixty-seven per cent made no reply.) Beal and Rogers[190] found interpersonal sources to be the most important in influencing housewives to adopt new fabrics. Atkin[191] showed that 80 per cent of women reporting heavy personal influence changed their patronage to another supermarket while only 48 per cent of those reporting heavy television exposure did so. The data from this study are interpreted differently by Crane[192] who

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

2 6 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

suggests that media sources and word-of-mouth channels are approximately equal in their ability to encourage switching of store patronage.

Though research findings confirm the superiority of the two-step flow as a medium of influence, adopters use personal and impersonal sources with both being employed to provide complementary reinforcement, adding to the increased overall cumulative effectiveness of communications[193]. It is suggested that the effectiveness of com­munication channels will depend on the following factors [194]:

(1) the degree of behavioural or attitudinal change necessary for product adoption; (2) the newness of the product; (3) the level of risk perception; (4) the degree to which existing attitudes for the product category are ego-involved.

This is particularly true for impersonal channels of communication. (5) The degree to which existing behaviour for this product category is group-

sanctioned. Marketer controlled channels are less effective where group norms are rigid and formalised.

Implications of the Two-Step Flow for Marketing If, as research has shown, the personal influence exerted by the opinion leader has the greatest impact on consumer purchasing behaviour, what strategies can the marketer employ to direct the opinion leader to encourage the diffusion of his pro­duct? How, in fact, can we get the opinion leader to act as an unpaid salesman on our behalf? This involves two separate problems. It is first necessary to identify these opinion leaders and then it is necessary to control the type of information passed on by them, presuming that they can be reached. It has been suggested that attempting to identify, reach and control opinion leaders may be as expensive as advertising to the entire potential market[195]. Mass media advertising can stimulate product-related conversations. Klapper[196] believes that "personal influence may be more effective than persuasive mass communications, but at present mass communication seems the most effective means of stimulating personal influence". The information-seeking model outlined by Cox[197] suggests that followers actively seek information. If this is the case then strategies can be designed to encourage these followers to seek out information sources. The mass media may create interest and curiosity and selective advertising to opinion leaders may provide them with the knowledge necessary to satisfy information seekers.

In certain instances it is possible to identify and create opinion leaders. In industrial marketing or small consumer markets it may be possible to identify opinion leaders from sales records. Selecting consumers with appropriate characteristics the company can provide them with the products at cost price in the belief that they will influence fellow group members. The Ford Motor Company loaned their new Mustang to radio disc jockeys, college newspaper editors and airline stewardesses because of their high public contact[198].

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 27

The party plan selling approach, e.g., the Tupperware party, is an attempt to generate product-related discussions. Certain professionals or those whose occupation is related to the product, will rate highly in opinion leadership, and information fed to these will be transmitted, though there is no guarantee that some distortion will not occur.

The fact that the opinion leader has specific media habits and interests in greater depth than ordinary community members may enable us to engage in segmented advertising to this group who will to some extent represent a self-selecting audience. Mancuso[199] describes a novel method of creating opinion leaders in the pop music market. His rock-and-roll technique involved selecting social leaders among the relevant buying public who were invited to join a panel to assist in evaluating new record releases. These social leaders who were class presidents, cheerleaders, sports captains etc., were given free records and additional information about each record and artist, and were encouraged to discuss these records with their high school friends and rate each new record in a monthly questionnaire, results of which were made available the following month. "The total cost of the experiment was less than S5,000. In turn, several records reached the top ten charts in the trial cities. These hit records did not make the top ten selections in any other cities"[200]. Without radio airplay, these records were pulled through the distribution outlets and made into hits. Perhaps it is most interesting that these opinion leaders owned very few records.

Four main strategies are suggested to reach opinion leaders and generate word-of-mouth discussion[201].

(1) Simulating personal influence This can be achieved by projecting the image or profile of the likely consumer and suggesting that this is the type of product his peers will purchase.

(2) Stimulating personal influence Advertising creatively, in the form of humour, teaser campaigns or background music can give advertisements certain attributes which generate conversation. By giving consumers motives for conversation, such as "heightened reality" in the advertisement, inside information on the product, a feeling of exclusivity, or that recommendation is a gift, the receiver can be encouraged to initiate discussions[202].

(3) Monitoring personal influence By finding out what type of information is being transmitted, and which issues or product attributes are being discussed advertising strategy can be adjusted to achieve better results.

(4) Retarding personal influence Where the product is inferior (or likely to be perceived as such) it may be desirable to retard personal influence, by using mass media to gain rapid penetration before personal influence unsells the product.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

28 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

Aaker and Myers[203] suggest that copy media and promotional strategies can be employed to generate personal influence. Other methods of stimulating personal influence are suggested by Kotler[204]. The company can choose salesmen who are similar in characteristics to their prospects, or alternatively use testimonial type advertising. Certain product characteristics may be particularly appropriate for interpersonal conversation and these should be highlighted in mass media advertising.

References 1. Rogers, E. M., Diffusion of Innovations, New York, The Free Press, 1962. 2. Robertson, T. S., Innovative Behaviour and Communication, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971,

p. 32. 3. Churchill, G. A. and Ozanne, U. B., "Adoption and Diffusion Research: A Potential Tool for

improving Technology Transfer", in Day, R. L. and Ness, T. E. (eds.), Marketing Models, Behavioural Science Applications Intext Serials in Marketing, 1971, pp. 249-65.

4. Rogers E. M. and Stanfield J. D., "Adoption and Diffusion of New Products: Emerging Generalization and Hypothesis" in Bass F. M., King, C. W. and Pessemier, E. A. (eds.), Applications of the Sciences to Marketing Management, Wiley Marketing Series, 1968, pp. 235-50.

5. Ibid., p. 250. 6. Robertson, op cit., p. 30. 7. Ibid., p. 34. 8. Ibid., p. 35. 9. Lazer W. and Bell, W. E., "The Concept and Process of Innovation" in Kelley, E. J. and Lazer,

W. (eds.), Marketing Management, 3rd Edition, Irwin, 1967. 10. Veblen, T., The Theory of the Leisure Class, New York, Macmillan Company, 1899. 11. Simmel, G., "Fashion", The American Journal of Sociology, May 1957, pp. 541-558. 12. Nystrom, P. H., The Economics of Fashion, New York, The Ronald Press, 1928. 13. Berg, S. V., "Interdependant Tastes and Fashion Behaviour", A Quarterly Review of Economics

and Business, Summer 1973, pp. 49-57. 14. Stafford J. E., "Reference Theory as a Conceptual Framework for Consumer Decisions", in

Day and Ness, op cit., pp. 112-21. 15. Bourne, F. S., "The Concept of Reference Group Influence", in Kassarjian, H. and Robertson,

T. (eds.), Perspectives in Consumer Behaviour, London, Scott Foresman, 1973. 16. Zetterberg, H., "Compliant Actions" discussed in Wright, D. S. and Taylor, A., Introducing

Psychology: An Experimental Approach, Penguin Modern Psychology Texts, 1971, p. 638. 17. Vankatesan, M., "Consumer Behaviour: Conformity and Independence", in Kassarjian, H. and

Robertson, T., op. cit. 18. Brehm, J. W., A Theory of Psychological Reactance, New York, Academic Press, 1966, chapter 6. 19. Berg, S. V., op cit., p. 54. 20. Robinson, D. E., "The Economics of Fashion Demand", The Quarterly Journal of Economics,

Vol. 75 No. 3,1961, pp. 376. 21. Barber, B. and Lobel, L. S., "Fashion in Women's Clothes and the American Social System",

in Britt, S. H. (ed.), Consumer Behaviour in Theory and in Action, Wiley Marketing Series, 1970, pp. 188-9.

22. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F., Personal Influence, New York, The Free Press, 1955. 23. Midgley, D. and Wills, G., "The Management of Fashion", Cranfield Research Papers in

Marketing and Logistics, 1974/75, Paper 9. 24. King, C. W., "Fashion Adoption: A Rebuttal of the Trickle-Down Theory", in Engel, J. F. (ed.),

Consumer Behaviour—selected Readings, 2nd Edition, Irwin, 1971, pp. 121-36. 25. Aaker, D. A. and Myers, J. G., Advertising Management, Prentice Hall International Series in

Management, 1975, pp. 359-67. 26. Ibid., p. 359.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 29

27. Rogers, E. M., op cit., p. 32. 28. Lazer and Bell, op cit. 29. Webster, F. E., Jr., Diffusion of Innovations: A Literature Review with Special Reference to

Industrial Markets, Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H., September 1967.

30. Krugman, H. E. and Hartley, E. L., "The Learning of Tastes" in Britt, S. H., op. cit. 31. Wasson, C. R., Sturdivant, F. D. and McConaughty, D. H., "The Social Process of Innovation

and Product Acceptance", in Britt, S. H., op. cit., pp. 252-5. 32. Ibid., p. 252. 33a.Webster, F. E., Jr., op cit.

b.Robertson, T. S., op cit., pp. 113-4. 34. Churchill, G, A. and Ozanne, U. B., op cit. 35. Rogers, E. M., op cit. 36. Robertson, T. S., "Social Factors in Innovative Behaviour", in Kassarjian and Robertson, op

cit., pp. 361-270. 37. King, C. W., op cit. 38. Rogers, E. M., op cit. 39. Wasson, Sturdivant and McConaughty, op cit. 40. Rogers, op cit. 41. Robertson, op cit., pp. 84-118. 42. Bass, F. M., King, C. W. and PessemiSr, E. A., op cit. 43. Webster, F. E., Jr., op cit., p. 20. 44. Robertson, T. S. in Kassarjian and Robertson, op cit. 45. Ibid. 46. Robertson, T. S., op cit in[2], p. 107. 47. Ibid.,, pp. 102-3. 48. Arndt, J., "Role of Product-related conversations in the Diffusion of a New Food Product",

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, August 1967, pp. 291-5. 49. Pessemier, E. A., Burger, P. C. and Tigert, D. J., "Can New Product Buyers be identified?" in

Britt, S. H. (ed.), op cit., pp. 323-30. 50. Lazar and Bell, op cit. 51. Coleman, J., Katz, E. and Menzel, H., "The Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians",

Sociometry, Vol. 20, December 1957, pp. 253-70. 52. Pessemier, E. A., Burger, P. C. and Tigert, D. J., op cit. 53. Lazer, W. and Bell, W. E., "The Communications Process and Innovation", Journal of Advertis­

ing Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, September 1966, pp. 2-7. 54. Robertson, T. S., "Purchase Sequence Responses: Innovators versus Non-Innovators", in

Holloway, Millelstaed and Vantekasan (eds.), Consumer Behaviour, Contemporary Research in action, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971, pp. 375-85.

55. King, C. W., "Communicating with the Innovator in the Fashion Adoption Process", in Bennett, P. D. (ed.), Marketing and Economic Development, Proceedings of 1965 Conference of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, AMA, pp. 425-39.

56. Robertson, op cit., in[2], p. 112. 57. Rogers, E. M., op cit., p. 168. 58. Robertson, op cit., in[36]. 59. Bohlen, J. M., Coughernour, C. M., Lionberger, H. F., Moe, E. and Rogers, E. M., "Adopters

of New Farm Ideas", in Kassarjian and Robertson, op cit., pp. 351-61. 60. Rogers, E. M., op cit. in[l], p. 168. 61. Bohlen, J. M., et al., op cit. 62. Rogers, E. M., op cit., in[l], p. 168. 63. Ibid. 64. Op cit., in[2].

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

30 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

65. Uhl, K., Andrus, R. and Poulsen, L., "How are Laggards different? An empirical enquiry", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, February 1970, pp. 51-4.

66. Bohlen, J. M., et al, op cit. 67. Op cit., in[l]. 68. Crane, E., Marketing Communications, 2nd Edition, Wiley Marketing Series, 1972, p. 49. 69. Lionberger, H. F., Adoption of New Ideas and Practices, Iowa State University Press, 1960. 70. Crane, E., op cit. 71. Bohlen, J. M., et al, op cit. 72. Op cit., in[2], pp. 191-2. 73. Op cit., in[4]. 74. Levitt, T., "Exploit the Product Life Cycle", Harvard Business Review, November/December

1965, pp. 81-94. 75. Wasson, C. R., "What is 'new' about a new product?", in Britt, S. H., op cit., pp. 311-3. 76. Cox, D. F. and Rich, S. U., "Perceived risk and Consumer Decision Making: The Case of

Telephone Shopping", in Day and Ness, op cit., pp. 266-82. 77. Cunningham, S. M., "Perceived Risk as a Factor in the Diffusion of New Product Information

in Science", in Haas, R. M. (ed.), Technology and Marketing, Fall Conference Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, AMA, 1966, pp. 698-721.

78. Roselius, T., "Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods", in Kassarjian and Robertson, op cit., p. 55.

79. Cunningham, S. M., "Perceived Risk and Brand Loyalty", in Cox, D. F. (ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Harvard University, 1967.

80. Roselius, op cit. 81. Bauer, R. A., "Consumer Behaviour as Risk-Taking", in Enis, B. M. and Cox, K. K. (eds.),

Marketing Classics, Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1970, pp. 119-27. 82. Crane, E., op cit., p. 49. 83. Cunningham, S. M., op cit. 84. Sheth, J. N., "Word of Mouth in Low-Risk Innovations", Journal of Advertising Research,

Vol. 11, June 1971, pp. 15-8. 85. Briggs, L., A study of Information Diffusion in nine marketing, Graduate School of Business

Administration, Berkeley, University of California, 1971, Discussed op cit., in[103]. 86. Bauer, R. A., op cit. 87. Op cit., in[2], pp. 122-3. 88. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H., The People's Choice, 2nd Edition, Columbia

University Press, 1948. 89. Cox, D. F., "Clues for Advertising Strategists", in Britt, S. H., op cit., p. 419. 90. Schramm, W., "How Communication Works", in Britt, S. H. and Boyd, H. W. (eds.), Marketing

Management and Administrative Action, 2nd Edition, New York, McGraw Hill Company, 1968, pp. 637-58.

91. Rogers, E. M., Modernization among Peasants, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, p. 222.

92. Cox, D. F., "The audience as communicators", in Day and Ness, op cit., pp. 217-31. 93. Cox, D. F., "Risk-Handling in Consumer Behaviour", in Cox, D. F. (ed.), Risk Taking and

Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Harvard Business School, 1967, pp. 287-317. 94. Arndt, J., "Perceived Risk, Sociometric Integration and Word of Mouth Adoption of a New

Food Product", ibid. 95. Cox, D. F., op cit., in[92]. 96. Bauer, R. A., "Games People and Audiences Play", in Robertson, op cit., in[2], p. 126. 97. Ibid., pp. 126-7. 98. Aaker, D. A. and Myers, J. G., op cit., p. 372. 99. Robertson, op cit., in[2], pp. 127-35.

100. Klapper, J. T., The Effects of Mass Communication, New York, The Free Press, 1960, p. 8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 31

101. Blumer, H., "Sociological Analysis of Fashion", Proceedings of 24th Conference of College Teachers of Textiles and'CIothing 1968, p. 6, discussed in Levy, S. J. and Czepiel, J. A., Marketing and Aesthetics, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, 1974, p. 338.

102. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F., op cit., pl 138. 103. Myers, J. G., "Patterns of Interpersonal Influence in the Adoption of New Products", in Hass,

R. M. (ed.), Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1966, pp. 750-7. 104. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H., op cit. 105. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F., op cit. 106. Merton, R. K., "Patterns of Influence: A Study of Interpersonal Influence and Communicators

Behaviour in a Local Community", in Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Stanton, F. N. (eds.), Communica­tions Research 1948/9, New York, Harper Brothers, 1949, pp. 180-219.

107. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. and Menzol, H., Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study, The Bobbs-Merril Company Inc., 1966. See also[51].

108. Whyte, W. H., Jr., "The Web of Word of Mouth", Fortune, Vol. 50, November 1954, pp. 140-3, 204-12.

109. Robertson, T. S., op cit., in[54]. 110. King, C. W., op cit. in[24]. 111. Op cit., in[2], pp. 122-3. 112. Dichter, E., "How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works", Harvard Business Review, November/

December 1966, pp. 131-44. 113. Wasson, Sturdivant and McConaughty, op cit. 114. Cox, D. F., op cit., in[92]. 115. Arndt, J., op cit. 116. Myers, J. G., op cit., in[103]. 117. Dichter, E., op cit. 118. Crane, E., op cit., pp. 362. 119. Engel, J. F., Kegerreis, R. J. and Blackwell, R. D., "Word-of-Mouth Communication by the

Innovator", in Britt, S. H., op cit., pp. 190-3. 120. Katz, E., "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An up-to-date Report on an Hypothesis",

Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 21, Spring 1957, pp. 61-78. 121. Ibid. 122. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. and Menzol, H., op cit. 123. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F., op cit. 124. Rogers, E. M., op cit., in[l], p. 237. 125. Darden, W. A. and Reynolds, F. D., "Predicting Opinion Leadership for Men's Apparel

Fashions", Journal of Marketing Research, August 1972. 126. Summers, J. O., "The Identity of Women's Clothing Fashion Opinion Leaders", Journal of

Marketing Research, May 1970. 127. Midgley, D. and Wills, G., op cit. 28. Mancuso, J. R., "Why not Create Opinion Leaders for New Product Introductions?", Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 33, July 1969, pp. 20-5.-129. Wasson, C. R., Sturdivant, F. D. and McConaughty, D. H., op cit. 130. Rogers, E. and Cantano, D. G. "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership" Public Opinion

Quarterly, Vol. 26, Fall 1962, pp. 435-41. 131. Klapper, J. T., op cit.,p. 460. 132. Op cit., in[25, 71, 114, 132 and 133]. 133. Aaker, D. A. and Myers, J. G., op cit. 134. Katz, E., op cit., in[120]. 135. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F. and McPhee, W. N., Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation

in a Presidential Election, University of Chicago Press, 1954, p. 110. 136. Crane, E., op cit., p. 362. 137. Op cit., in[2], p. 179. 138. Ibid., p. 177.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

2 | European Journal of Marketing 14, 1

139. Summers, J. O., "Generalised Change Agents and Innovativeness", Journal of Marketing Research, August 1971.

140. Op cit.,in[2], pp. 177-8. 141. Pessemier, E. A., Burger, P. C. and Tigert, D. J., op cit. 142. King, C. W., op cit. 143. Engel, J. F., Kegerreis, R. J. and Blackwell, R. D., op cit. 144. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F„ op cit. 145. Silk, A. J., "Overlap amongst Self-Designated Opinion Leaders: A study of Selected Dental

Products and Services", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, August 1966, pp. 255-9. 146. Robertson, T. S. and Myers, J. H., "Personality Correlates of Opinion Leadership and Innova­

tive Buying Behaviour", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, May 1969, pp. 164-8. 147. King, C. W., Jr. and Summers, J. O., "Overlap of Opinion Leadership Across Consumer

Product Categories", in Day and Ness (eds.), op cit. 148. Montgomery, D. B. and Silk, A. J., "Clusters of Consumer Interests and Opinion Leaders'

Spheres of Influence", Journal of Marketing Research, August 1971, pp. 317-21. 149. Marcus, A. S. and Bauer, R. A., "Yes! There are generalized Opinion Leaders", Public Opinion

Quarterly, Vol. 28, Winter 1964, pp. 628-32. 150. Myers, J. H. and Robertson, T. S., "Dimensions of Opinion Leadership", quoted by Robertson.

op cit., in[2], pp. 181. 151. King, C. W. and Summers, J. O., op cit. 152. Katz, E., op cit., in[120]. 153. Nicosia, F. M., "Opinion Leadership and the Flow of Communication, some problems and

prospects" in Smith, L. G.(ed.), Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1964, pp. 340-58.

154. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. and Menzol, H., op cit. 155. Summers, J. O., "The Identity of the Women's Fashion Transmitter", quoted by Robertson,

op cit., in[2], p. 183. 156a.Ibid.

b.Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F., op cit., pp. 309-20. c.Katz, E., op cit., in[120], p. 75.

157a.Kotler, P., Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, 1972, p. 633.

b.Cox, D. F., in Day and Ness, op cit. 158. Ibid. 159. Op cit., in[2], p. 192. 160. Cox, D. F., op cit., in[93]. 161. Arndt, J., "Word-of-Mouth Advertising and Perceived Risk", in Kassarjian, H. and Robertson,

T. (eds.), op cit. 162. "Risk Handling in Drug Adoption: the Role of Company Preference", Public Opinion Quarterly,

Vol. 25, Winter 1961. 163. Cunningham, S. M., op cit. 164. Ibid. 165. Cox, D. F., in Day and Ness, op cit. 166. Arndt, J., op cit. 167. Cunningham, S. M., "Perceived Risk as a Factor in Informal Consumer Communications",

in Cox, D. F. (ed.), op cit., in[79]. 168. Cunningham, S. M., op cit., in[77]. 169. Bauer, R. A., op cit. 170. Briggs, L., op cit. 171. Sheth, J. N., op cit. 172. Kotler, P., op cit., pp. 632-8. 173. Cox, D. F., in Day and Ness, op cit. 174. Lancaster, G. R. and White, M., "Industrial Diffusion, Adoption and Communication",

European Journal of Marketing, November 1976, p. 299.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Innovation and Opinion Leadership | 33

175. Crane, E., op cit., pp. 349-56. 176. Ibid., pp. 350-2. 177. Op cit., in[2], p. 157. 178a.Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. and Menzol, H., op cit.

b.Also Katz, E., op cit., in[120], p. 72. 179. Ibid. 180. Ibid., p. 77. 181. Op cit., in[l], p. 99. 182. Crane, E., op cit., p. 352. 183. Robertson, op cit., in[2], Table 6.3, p. 156. 184. Webster, F. E., Jr., op cit., pp. 16-7. 185. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H., op cit. 186. Op cit., in[22], p.176. 187. Ibid. 188. Haines, G. R., "A Study of Why People Purchase New Products", in Cox, K. K. (ed.), Analytical

Viewpoints in Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, 1968, pp. 167-76. 189. Op cit., in[54]. 190. Beal, G. M. and Rogers, E. M., "Informational Sources in the Adoption Process of New

Fabrics", Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 49,1957, pp. 630-40. See also Cox, D. F., op cit., in Day and Ness, op cit., p. 220.

191. Atkin, K. L., "Advertising and Store Patronage", Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 2 December 1966, pp. 18-23. Statistics derived by Cox, D. F., op cit., in [92], p. 220.

192. Crane, E., op cit., p. 362. 193. Cox, D. F., "Clues for Advertising Strategists", Advertising Management Series, Harvard

Business Review: Reprints, No. 21020, pp. 98-116. 194. Robertson, op cit., in[2], pp. 160-3. 195. Ibid., p. 211. 196. Klapper, J. T., op cit., p. 72. 197. Op cit., in[92]. 198. Robertson, op cit., in[2], p. 212. 199. Mancuso, J. R., op cit. 200. Ibid., p. 22. 201. Op cit., in[2], pp. 213-23. 202. Dichter, E., op cit. 203. Aaker, D. A. and Myers, J. G., op cit., pp. 377-81. 204. Kotler, P., op cit., p. 635.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Federico Frattini, Mattia Bianchi, Alfredo De Massis, Uros Sikimic. 2014. The Role of EarlyAdopters in the Diffusion of New Products: Differences between Platform and NonplatformInnovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31:3, 466-488. [CrossRef]

2. Tsogtbaatar Byambaa, Craig Janes, Tim Takaro, Kitty Corbett. 2014. Putting Health ImpactAssessment into practice through the lenses of diffusion of innovations theory: a review.Environment, Development and Sustainability . [CrossRef]

3. Assistant Prof. Thomas Brashear-Alejandro, Dr Sergio Biggemann, Hannu Sakari Makkonen,Wesley J. Johnston. 2014. Innovation adoption and diffusion in business-to-business marketing.Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 29:4, 324-331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Ning Nan, Robert Zmud, Emre Yetgin. 2014. A complex adaptive systems perspective of innovationdiffusion: an integrated theory and validated virtual laboratory. Computational and MathematicalOrganization Theory 20:1, 52-88. [CrossRef]

5. Federico Frattini, Claudio Dell'Era, Andrea Rangone. 2013. Launch Decisions and the Early MarketSurvival of Innovations: An Empirical Analysis of the Italian Mobile Value-Added Services (VAS)Industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30, 174-187. [CrossRef]

6. Joachim Henkel, Jörn Block. 2013. Peer influence in network markets: a theoretical and empiricalanalysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 23:5, 925-953. [CrossRef]

7. Claudio Dell’Era, Federico Frattini, Antonio Ghezzi. 2013. The role of the adoption network in theearly market survival of innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management 16:1, 118-140.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Shari R. Veil. 2012. Adoption Barriers in a High-Risk Agricultural Environment. InternationalJournal of Technology and Human Interaction 6:2, 30-46. [CrossRef]

9. Shari R. Veil. 2012. Adoption Barriers in a High-Risk Agricultural Environment. InternationalJournal of Technology and Human Interaction 6:1, 69-85. [CrossRef]

10. NIKOLAY K. VITANOV, MARCEL AUSLOOS, GIULIA ROTUNDO. 2012. DISCRETEMODEL OF IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE ACCOUNTING FOR MIGRATION. Advances inComplex Systems 15:supp01, 1250049. [CrossRef]

11. Vittorio Chiesa, Federico Frattini. 2011. Commercializing Technological Innovation: Learningfrom Failures in High-Tech Markets*. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28:4, 437-454.[CrossRef]

12. Christine Chou, Kuo-Pin Yang. 2011. The interaction effect of strategic orientations on new productperformance in the high-tech industry: A nonlinear model. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange 78:1, 63-74. [CrossRef]

13. Kuo-Pin Yang, Yu-Ching Chiao, Chih-Chung Kuo. 2010. The Relationship Between R&DInvestment and Firm Profitability Under a Three-Stage Sigmoid Curve Model: Evidence From anEmerging Economy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 57:1, 103-117. [CrossRef]

14. Noel Dennis, Gretchen Larsen, Michael Macaulay, Emma Hazelwood, Rob Lawson, Rob Aitken.2009. An essential guide to audience development. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 27:6, 789-804.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

15. A. Celeste Farr, Natalie Ames. 2008. Using Diffusion of Innovation Theory to Encourage theDevelopment of a Children's Health Collaborative: A Formative Evaluation. Journal of HealthCommunication 13:4, 375-388. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

16. Martin Schreier, Stefan Oberhauser, Reinhard Prügl. 2007. Lead users and the adoption and diffusionof new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities. Marketing Letters 18:1-2, 15-30.[CrossRef]

17. Laurent Bertrandias, Ronald E. Goldsmith. 2006. Some psychological motivations for fashionopinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: AnInternational Journal 10:1, 25-40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

18. Arch G. Woodside, Wim Biemans, Arch G. Woodside, Wim G. Biemans. 2005. Modelinginnovation, manufacturing, diffusion and adoption/rejection processes. Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing 20:7, 380-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

19. Walfried Lassar, Chris Manolis, J. A. F. Nicholls. 2005. Antecedents to Online Purchasing–AnExploratory Comparison of Anglo versus Hispanic Consumers in the United States. Journal ofInternet Commerce 4:1, 27-61. [CrossRef]

20. HoJung Choo, Jae‐Eun Chung, Dawn Thorndike Pysarchik. 2004. Antecedents to new food productpurchasing behavior among innovator groups in India. European Journal of Marketing 38:5/6,608-625. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

21. Maria Saaksjarvi. 2003. Consumer adoption of technological innovations. European Journal ofInnovation Management 6:2, 90-100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

22. Utpal M. Dholakia. 2001. A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer riskperception. European Journal of Marketing 35:11/12, 1340-1362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

23. Pamela D. Morrison, John H. Roberts, David F. Midgley. 2000. Opinion Leadership AmongstLeading Edge Users. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 8:1, 5-14. [CrossRef]

24. Patrick Y.K Chau, Kai Lung Hui. 1998. Identifying early adopters of new IT products: A case ofWindows 95. Information & Management 33:5, 225-230. [CrossRef]

25. Usha Chowdhary, Lois Dickey. 1988. Fashion Opinion Leadership and Media Exposure amongCollege Women in India. Home Economics Research Journal 16:3, 183-194. [CrossRef]

26. Shari R. VeilAdoption Barriers in a High-Risk Agricultural Environment 31-47. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F O

TA

GO

At 0

8:23

22

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)