PathFinder Insights : Diffusion or Communication Confusion?

Many current marketing communication practices reflect an apparent lack of understanding about the variables at play during the launch of an innovation.

I received a phone call from a large banking group. The obvious attempt by the telemarketer was to persuade me to shift my existing homeloan from my current bank to this other bank. Over the phone she asked me if I would be willing to provide some information so that she could calculate what would be a more beneficial interest rate. Always on the lookout for a better banking deal (as we all are), I agreed and gave her some topline figures. The end result was a lower interest rate to what I currently pay at an increased loan amount. Sounds great does it not? But it was at this stage of the exchange where the communication wheels went flat. She asked me for my commitment, that is, she wanted to draw up a bond application for me. Now I am a person who does not commit to any financial offers and deals over the phone, no matter if the conversation is being taped and therefore is on record (their records – not mine I might add). I therefore suggested that she email me with the gist of her message and the offer and I will evaluate it in my own time and leisure. She was willing, but alas, not able. A few minutes later she called back telling me that she cannot send me anything in writing. Her superiors advised that things may change, such as the interest rate, and they cannot provide me with a written quote.

Let’s have a closer look at what happened here. They approached me, propositioned me with a new idea/service (move my existing loan to a new institution with all the resultant upheaval, form-filling, lawyer-visits, time-expense) and expected a behavioural change from me, all within the span of one phone call? They make a juicy offer, then want my commitment, but are unwilling, even just in principle, to commit to me.

What do we actually expect from people when we present a new idea, brand, product, service or innovation to them? The process people go through is by no means simple, linear or risk free. It is a highly complex, psychologically and socially based multi-systems and multi-looped process. It requires a form of communication that is much more informed about the variables and processes that come into play when we wish to persuade somebody to commit to this rather than to that.

Diffusion is a special type of communication. It is the communication of new ideas, products or practices, that is, the communication of innovations.

We live in an age where there is a phenomenal rate of innovations. In fact, for businesses to remain competitive and differentiated in this age of parity and the utopia of choice, innovation is a key strategic growth driver. New products and services are launched on an almost daily basis, and all come with the strategic intent of gaining a foothold in the marketplace. To offset the R and D and value chain investments, these products and services need to achieve a meaningful position in the minds of potential end-users.

It is a known fact however that for every 10 innovations, 9 never achieve breakthrough. Is it because we do not understand the principles involved in the transfer and adoption of new ideas, products and practices?

• Diffusion communication practices have two key elements that differentiate them from general communication practices:

  • The ‘newness’ of an idea, product or practice means there is a risk (real or perceived) for the end-user. This risk has to be neutralised or minimised. It means that the fundamentals of any innovation have to be meaningful and relevant. Cosmetic changes that often went under the guise of ‘innovation’ will be found out for what they are, merely cosmetic. It also means that the innovation has to provide the evidence that it is worthwhile.
  • The innovation, by its very nature, requires an overt behaviour change on the part of the end-user, rather than just changes or shifts in knowledge or attitude. It is the difference between raising awareness or reinforcing existing attitudes to established brands, versus shifting an end-user from Brand Known to Brand Unknown.

 

Many current marketing communication practices reflect an apparent lack of understanding about the variables at play during the launch of an innovation. And consider this. Is an existing product, idea or service not by definition an ‘innovation’ for any new end-user? If I have never used above mentioned bank before, and have to initiate some major behavioural changes on my part to enter into what appears a situation with a certain amount of risk to it, then it is an innovation to me, the individual. This by definition means new customers for existing products go through the same complex adoption or rejection processes that a social system at large, confronted with a totally new concept e.g. Genetically Modified Foods, would go through.

• Here are some interesting generalisations about the Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers E.M., Shoemaker F.F (1971 2^nd Ed.) Communication of Innovations – A Cross-cultural Approach):

  • Innovations with a high rate of adoption have a low rate of discontinuance (100% empirical support of this generalisation)
  • Earlier adopters have a shorter innovation-decision period than later adopters (84% empirical support)
  • The trial-ability of an innovation, as perceived by people in a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption (69% empirical support)
  • The degree of communication integration in a social system is positively related to the rate of adoption of innovations (100% empirical support)
  • Earlier adopters have a greater ability to deal with abstractions than do later adopters (63% empirical support)
  • Earlier adopters have a more favourable attitude toward change than later adopters (75% empirical support)
  • Earlier adopters have greater exposure to interpersonal communication channels than later adopters (77% empirical support)
  • Change agent success is positively related to the degree to which his programme is compatible with clients’ needs (100% empirical support)
  • Change agent success is positively related to his/her efforts in increasing his clients’ ability to evaluate innovations ( 100% empirical support)
  • Mass media channels are relatively more important at the knowledge function and interpersonal channels are relatively more important at the persuasion function in the innovation-decision process (90% empirical support)