In four experimental studies, the authors investigate the effect of innovation locus—whether the innovation is integrated with the base product (the core locus) or offered as a detachable accessory (the peripheral locus)—on consumers’ adoption intentions. The findings show that offering a really new innovation (RNI) as a detachable peripheral component leads to higher adoption intentions than integrating the same innovation into the core. Innovation locus, however, does not have an effect on incrementally new innovations. The positive effect of peripheral locus (relative to core locus) for RNIs occurs through four mechanisms: (1) reduced schema incongruity, (2) lower risk perceptions, (3) increased benefit understanding, and (4) greater perceived usage flexibility associated with the new product. The authors demonstrate these effects by using stimuli from four product categories and including both attitudinal and behavioral measures of innovation adoption. The findings have implications for product design strategies for RNIs.
ABI Research (2012), “More than One in Five US Households Have a TV Connected to the Internet,” press release, (accessed March 30, 2015), [available at https://www.abiresearch.com/press/?page=41].
2.
BaldwinCarliss Y., and ClarkKim B. (1997), “Managing in an Age of Modularity,”Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84–93.
3.
BertiniMarco, OfekElie, and ArielyDan (2009), “The Impact of Add-On Features on Consumer Product Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 17–28.
4.
BowmanDouglas, and GatignonHubert (1995), “Determinants of Competitor Response Time to a New Product Introduction,”Journal of Marketing Research, 32(February), 42–53.
5.
CampbellMargaret C., and GoodsteinRonald C. (2001), “The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Evaluations of Product Incongruity: Preferences for the Norm,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 439–49.
6.
ChandyRajesh K., and TellisGerard J. (1998), “Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35(November), 474–87.
7.
GarciaRosanna, and CalantoneRoger (2002), “A Critical Look at Technological Innovation Typology and Innovativeness Terminology: A Literature Review,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–32.
8.
GatignonHubert, and RobertsonThomas S. (1985), “A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849–67.
9.
GatignonHubert, TushmanMichael L., SmithWendy, and AndersonPhilip (2002), “A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics,”Management Science, 48(9), 1103–22.
10.
GillTripat (2008), “Convergent Products: What Functionalities Add More Value to the Base?”Journal of Marketing, 72(March), 46–62.
11.
GolderPeter N., and TellisGerard J. (1993), “Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend?”Journal of Marketing Research, 30(May), 158–70.
12.
GoodmanJoseph, and IrmakCaglar (2013), “Having Versus Consuming: Failure to Estimate Usage Frequency Makes Consumers Prefer Multifeature Products,”Journal of Marketing Research, 50(February), 44–54.
13.
HauserJohn, TellisGerard J., and GriffinAbbie (2006), “Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for Marketing,”Marketing Science, 25(6), 687–717.
14.
HayesAndrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach.New York: The Guilford Press.
15.
HerzensteinMichal, PosavacSteven S., and Joško BrakusJ. (2007), “Adoption of New and Really New Products: The Effects of Self-Regulation Systems and Risk Salience,”Journal of Marketing Research, 44(May), 251–60.
16.
HoefflerSteve (2003), “Measuring Preferences for Really New Products,”Journal of Marketing Research, 40(November), 406–420.
17.
HuffmanCynthia, and HoustonMichael J. (1993), “Goal-Oriented Experiences and the Development of Knowledge,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 190–207.
18.
HuntShelby D., and MorganRobert M. (1996), “The Resource-Advantage Theory of Competition: Dynamics, Path Dependencies, and Evolutionary Dimensions,”Journal of Marketing, 60(October), 107–114.
JacobyJacob, and KaplanLeon B. (1972), “The Components of Perceived Risk,” in Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, VenkatesanM., ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 382–93.
21.
JhangJi Hoon, GrantSusan J., and CampbellMargaret C. (2012), “Get It? Got It. Good! Enhancing New Product Acceptance by Facilitating Resolution of Extreme Incongruity,”Journal of Marketing Research, 49(April), 247–59.
22.
MaZhenfeng, YangZhiyong, and MouraliMehdi (2014), “Consumer Adoption of New Products: Independent Versus Interdependent Self-Perspectives,”Journal of Marketing, 78(March), 101–117.
23.
MarkoffJohn (2010), “Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic,”The New York Times, (October 9), A1.
24.
MeyerRobert J., ZhaoShenghui, and HanJin K (2008), “Biases in Valuation vs. Usage of Innovative Product Features,”Marketing Science, 27(6), 1132–36.
25.
Meyers-LevyJoan, and TyboutAlice M. (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54.
26.
MoreauC. Page, LehmannDonald R., and MarkmanArthur B. (2001), “Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New Products,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38(February), 14–29.
27.
MullerDominique, JuddCharles M., and YzerbytVincent Y. (2005), “When Moderation Is Mediated and Mediation Is Moderated,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–63.
28.
NoseworthyTheodore J., and TrudelRemi (2011), “Looks Interesting, but What Does It Do? Evaluation of Incongruent Product Form Depends on Positioning,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48(December), 1008–1019.
29.
OrtonJ. Douglas, and WeickKarl E. (1990), “Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization,”Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.
30.
OstlundLyman E. (1974), “Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of Innovativeness,”Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 23–29.
31.
RamSundaresan, and ShethJagdish N. (1989), “Consumer Resistance to Innovations: The Marketing Problem and Its Solutions,”Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(Spring), 5–14.
32.
RoehrichGilles (2004), “Consumer Innovativeness: Concepts and Measurements,”Journal of Consumer Research, 57(6), 671–77.
33.
RogersEverett (2003), Diffusion of Innovations.New York: Simon & Schuster.
34.
SanchezRon, and MahoneyJoseph T. (1996), “Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design,”Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 63–76.
35.
ShimpTerence A., and BeardenWilliam O. (1982), “Warranty and Other Extrinsic Cue Effects on Consumers’ Risk Perceptions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 38–46.
StoneRobert, and GronhaugKjell (1993), “Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the Marketing Discipline,”European Journal of Marketing, 27(3), 39–50.
38.
SujanMita, and BettmanJames R. (1989), “The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(November), 454–67.
39.
ThompsonDebora Viana, HamiltonRebecca W., and RustRoland T. (2005), “Feature Fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good Thing,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48(November), 431–42.
40.
ThompsonDebora Viana, and NortonMichael I. (2011), “The Social Utility of Feature Creep,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48(June), 555–65.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
