31 August 2023
The diffusion of innovation curve - and its impact on go-to-market
Diffusion of Innovation models the adoption of a new technology, concept, fashion, or product noting some people adopt earlier than others, but most people will not adopt until they see others go first. The implications are that speed to market and efficiency can be improved by first targeting the earlier adopters (if it is possible to identify them and selectively target).
The type of messaging, targeting, and promotion strategy needed to sell to early adopters is usually quite different to what's needed to sell to people in the later stages of the adoption cycle.
This can be critical in B2B markets where there is high value in establishing reference sites and/or case studies.
The rate of adoption is described by the following curve...

The Product Lifecycle diffusion curve is a fundamental marketing concept; consumers or customers vary in their risk appetite and propensity to adopt a new product or innovation.
The implications for any go-to-market process are profound; targeting needs to match the mindset of people depnding where they sit on the curve or risk severely impeding the rate of market penetration (sales growth). Or worse, risk product failure.
As the names on the curve suggest (INNOVATORS through to LAGGARDS) the people at the start of the curve try the product first before those at the end of the curve. The question is why? What makes them different?
A key principle of Diffusion of Innovation is that the majority of people need to see others using the product FIRST before they will try it.
The marketing approach needs to be calibrated to the different types of people in the innovation curve.
Crossing the chasm - the path to mass market adoption
The diffusion of innovation model is based on eventually achieving 100% penetration of the potential adopters - not the whole market, and not the total population.
When launching a new product or innovation, the critical step is moving from those that adopt the new product first (or new innovation) and into the middle majority which comprise roughly 2/3rds of the potential adopters. The EARLY MAJORITY and LATE MAJORITY (in the middle of the curve) are known as the mass-market.
This step from the INNOVATORS and EARLY ADOPTERS into the mass market was dubbed "Crossing the Chasm" first proposed in a book of the same name by Geoffrey Moore published in 1991.
In order to achieve product-market fit, we must start with the early adopters. If you can’t find EARLY ADOPTERS it is unlikely that you will ever achieve product-market fit.
As Geoffrey Moore put it "To light a billion-dollar bonfire. You don’t hold your match under a big log, you light the kindling first."
Noting that not every market is worth a billion dollars, but you get the idea.
Origins of the diffusion of innovation theory

Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross 1943: "Non-economic influencers on farmer’s economic decisions."
The diffusion of innovation theory was first proposed by Everett Rogers based on the ground work of Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross in 1943 who studied the adoption of Hybrid Corn seed in two Iowa (United States) communities (Stanton and Jefferson in Iowa). A seed manufacturer had developed a new breed of corn (an Innovation) that had significant superiority over the standard corn seed being used by farmers at the time.
'Hybrid Corn' increased yields by on average 20%. It was a no-brainer.
But it took 13 years to achieve 100% adoption. Ryan and Gross were curious to find out why, and posed the question "what was the difference between farmers who were first to adopt and those who were last?" They interviewed 259 farmers in two Iowa communities.
The core concept of the study was "non-economic factors on economic decisions." The study proponents had hypothesized that since the new seed would clearly deliver significant improvement in yields (and therefore farmer's income) that the decision about when and if to try the new seed must have been based on more that just economic factors.
A purely rational decision (yields increase by 20%) would lead the less schooled to wonder why all farmers didn't adopt the new seed next season. However, for ALL FARMERS to adopt next season, the following would have to be true...
- They all knew about hybrid corn
- They all believed the +20% yield claim ("what's the catch?")
- It wasn't just the seed salesman telling them, they had someone who had tried it and they trusted, endorsing.
- They weren't constrained by loyalty to their existing seed sales person (a competitor who didn't sell hybrid corn)
- They were rationale human beings
- They could afford to take the risk ("what if it fails? I could be wiped out.")
- Something else; the world is full of unknowable unknowns.
In 1954 Everett Rogers (who grew-up on an Iowa farm nearby), came across the study (and other diffusion studies based on adoption of Weed Spray and a medical study on the take-up of a new antibiotic called Tetracycline). This work was incorporated into his own dissertation study thus leading to a general model of diffusion. At the time the model was not seen as a marketing specific topic, and to this day is applied to a wide range of innovation ranging from teaching gay men how to practice safe-sex (to slow the spread of aids in the 80's) to the inculcation of political ideas.
Everett Rogers published his first book "Diffusion of Innovations" in 1962 that was the beginning of a "general model of Innovation." Since then, there have been literally thousands of books published on the topic. Diffusion research continues with roughly 120 new publications every year.
Understanding the diffusion of innovation curve
The diffusion curve is not an infallible smooth curve that plays out exactly, but a good model...
It's not a sales volume curve: The first mistake people make when looking at the diffusion of innovation curve is to think that it is modelling sales volumes, that as the curve rolls off at the top, sales decline with the downward slope. This is not the case. It's an adoption curve. That is, it shows the rate at which new customers are becoming users of the product. Therefore, for products that commonly experience repeat purchases, sales volumes will be cumulative.
It's not applicable to the total population: The rate of adoption only applies to people who become users. 100% market share in any product category is highly unlikely. The curve excludes non-adopters.
The curve is a hypothetical model: of the underlying principal (rate of adoption) but rarely will the rate of adoption track a smooth curve. During the product lifecycle, a competitor may enter the market, or change the competitive dynamics. Similarly, the company may alter its tactics. The economy may change. However, the curve is a baseline driver; despite various modifiers, sales growth will roughly track the shape of the curve.
Case by case: In general, people who adopt early compared to those who take their time exhibit that behavior consistently; it's a personality thing. However, you can't always make this assumption. Innovations need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Somebody may immediately see the benefits of a new technology applicable to their industry and adopt straight away, but couldn't care less about buying the latest iPhone.
Diffusion of innovation - categories of people in a social system
Innovation adoption theory refers to people (described by the model) as being part of a social group. In marketing, we call these social groups "target markets" and "market segments". However, innovation theory has broader application, hence the use of the term "social group" (like the corn farmers in the foundation research). Here are the defining features of the various categories in a social group with respect to their propensity to adopt an innovation.
Innovators: are the first to adopt new ideas or products, not only because they are intrigued by novelty, but because it is a core part of their identity. They are more likely to take risks and enjoy being at the forefront of new developments. Their willingness to share their experiences makes them crucial for introducing new ideas and products to the broader population. Early success in launching a new product often hinges on presenting it to these innovators. The challenge is identifying them and selectively communicating to them. However, relying solely on innovators is insufficient for long-term success, as they represent only about 2.5% of the potential market.
Early adopters: are also open to new ideas but for different reasons. Unlike innovators, who are driven by a fascination with novelty, early adopters recognize the competitive advantages that new innovations can provide. Their endorsement of an innovation is crucial for "crossing the chasm," the point at which an innovation transitions from trendsetters to the broader population.
This point cannot be stressed enough: the early adopters are the first to see the application of the innovation to the problem they are seeking to solve.
Their mindset and motivation is different to the innovators; they don't want to be FIRST for its own sake, they desire the advantage that the new innovation provides and the benefits that it will deliver. The emotional disposition is less vanity and more practicality. What makes them different is they are the first to understand the true value of the innovation and are willing to take the risk because the potential rewards to them are tangible.
This makes them incredibly important to the launch of new innovations because the Early Adopters become the example that encourages the middle majority to adopt. The greatest leverage occurs when the middle majority start to perceive they are losing traction to the early adopters and believe it is because they are not using the new innovation. The job of the marketer is to guide them toward having this belief.
The next two groups are critical for the success of new innovations. Roughly 2/3 of the population fall into the middle majority. This is the mass market where volume sales are generated from.
The early majority: take time to make decisions. They will only adopt an innovation when they are convinced of the value proposition. They shy away from being first, and only feel comfortable when they see enough other people already using the product. They wait for the new status quo to be established and tend to make pragmatic decisions.
Late majority: are more resistant to change but are responsive to peer pressure. They want new innovations to be thoroughly tested and widely used before they risk trying.
Laggards: the last group to adopt new products or innovations. They are both highly resistant to change and are hard to reach with marketing campaigns often having minimal exposure to media. They will wait until new innovations or products are completely mainstream before they will adopt. In some cases, they never do. As a general principle, they only adopt innovations when it becomes a necessity (e.g. the old technology is no longer being manufactured).
Non-Adopters: A proportion of a social group may NEVER adopt an innovation. It is important to note that the percentages in the above adoption curve refer to the total number who eventually adopt rather than the total population of a social group. What makes NON-ADOPTERS special is, unlike the rest of the population, non-adopters could benefit from the innovation but never adopt. Failure to adopt may be due to not knowing about the innovation, not putting the effort into understanding it (not engaged - distracted by other things), not understanding it even when they tried, not seeing the value, can’t afford it, or something better comes along. This can be due to failures in the communication process, complexities within the social group, poor product concept or value proposition, or efforts by competitors.
Factors that affect the speed and spread of diffusion of innovation
For the marketer looking to leverage or influence the diffusion of innovation, understanding the factors that help or impede the innovation process is important.
- Observability: the degree to which others can observe the application of the innovation and perceive the benefits is important. Clearly, Early Adopters have good reason to keep under wraps their successful adoption of a new innovation if it is delivering a significant competitive advantage. This becomes a challenge for marketers seeking to case-study early users of their new widget or innovation. An increasing trend for technology innovators is customers agreeing to trial new technology and eventual adoption under Non Disclosure Agreements. However, mostly this isn't the case and marketers can speed-up observation by others by showcasing the early users. Often, highly successful competitors find it difficult not to be noticed. People will ask the question "how are they doing it?"
- Obviousness: There can be a difference between people's perceptions and the reality. Some innovations are complex and while they may deliver a real advantage sometimes this is hidden within the complexity - it's not obvious. Making it obvious is the task of the marketer. With technical innovations best practice is not to have the inventor, engineers, or scientists involved too deeply in developing the communications program for launching the innovation. They are likely to start down in the weeds or skew the story toward demonstrating how smart they are. The communications should lead with the primary hook "Widget X reduced operating costs by 18%."
- Level of innovation: The extent to which the innovation is truly innovative and better than existing products or methods will impact the likelihood of adoption. If the INNOVATION is a substitute for existing products or methods this advantage must be considerable for users to consider switching.
- Universality: The adoption curve assumes that all users of the innovation will benefit equally from the innovation. This may not be true, for example the EARLY ADOPTERS (the one's who are the first to see the practical advantages of an innovation) may have different circumstances and a different mindset than the MIDDLE MAJORITY. THE EARLY ADOPTERS typically have a greater incentive to gain advantage and are looking for a step change business improvement. However, the MIDDLE MAJORITY may only perceive the INNOVATION as capable of delivering modest gains. THE MIDDLE MAJORITY by their nature might be more risk adverse and more accepting of the status quo.
- Ease and efficiency of communication: Some market segments are easier to reach with communications cost efficiently than others. At the launch of the innovation the diffusion of innovation theory holds that promoting to the INNOVATORS and EARLY ADOPTERS as the primary task is important. However, this means first identifying who they are and working out a means of selectively targeting them.
- Socialization of information within the group: The middle majority are characterized by needing to see others using an innovation first before they try it. But what if that observation is impaired? Some target markets (such as professions) more readily socialize and share new ideas. Other groups are more isolationist and even secretive daring not share ideas with those with whom they compete. If your target market is less connected that means the marketer must put more work into communications. Innovation theory talks about the structure of the target market. Highly structured and close knit groups (for example teenagers) may have a faster flow of information between members of that group, whereas more disparate members of a target market such as tradespeople are less in contact with each other.
- Risk of adoption: The perceived risk of adopting the innovation, and the potential adverse consequences should it turn out to be a dud, will affect adoption rates. This is another reason why finding EARLY ADOPTERS is critical so they can provide testimony to its positive benefits.
- Difficulty of adopting the new innovation: Some products or services are easier to try out. New technologies often come with a steep learning curve requiring more than just a purchase decision. They may also require a steep learning curve and/or a long development cycle. This will obviously slow the rate of adoption.
- Maturity of eco-system support: Related to "Difficulty of adopting", many innovations fit within an existing well developed ecosystem where people skilled in similar technologies exist, or existing software platforms, and distribution networks can be leveraged. A good example of this is the rise of IBM based PCs. When Microsoft launched Windows it built-on existing IBM based PC's and offered Windows as an upgrade path from already installed DOS operating systems (for purists, this is a simplification but establishes the point). Similarly, hardware innovations such as graphics cards could slot into existing motherboards. If a new innovation is so radical that no existing installed base can be leveraged and people who are capable of applying the technology need to be educated from scratch, the market adoption will be challenging, expensive, and slow. ASX listed company Brainchip currently launching its neuromorphic chip technology (Akida) designed for highly efficient processing of AI workloads is experiencing considerable headwinds because despite being (for some use cases) a superior technology, there are few people skilled in developing AI software for their processor and the neuromorphic processor needs to be designed into a new integrated circuit which then is designed into the final application or product. At least 5 years is required before first revenues.
- Resistance to change: Most people are naturally resistant to change. There are several psychological and emotional factors: Fear of the unknown, Comfort with routine, Loss aversion (we tend to focus more on what we might lose than what we might gain), Cognitive biases (the status quo bias makes us irrationally prefer for things to stay the same). Thus a new innovation may be presented to a social group and they produce what appear to be very valid reasons why the innovation is flawed or won't work for them when really they are simply expressing irrational resistance to change.
- Threat to the status quo: Some truly disruptive innovations are resisted because they will indeed cause great change and people would prefer to ignore it and hope it goes away. Two classic examples are the invention of the quartz time base digital movement which was rejected by the Swiss watch industry because it would lead to massive job losses AND the invention of digital photography which was rejected by Kodak because it would decimate their highly profitable film manufacturing and processing business. In both cases they had the opportunity to be first to market (because both innovations were invented by insiders) but chose instead to suffer the very decimation they were hoping to avoid by allowing outsiders to adopt the innovation first.
- By itself INNOVATION may not be enough: Marketing theory holds that all aspects of the Marketing Mix (Product, Price, Distribution, and Promotion) need to be considered when developing competitive advantage. INNOVATION only impacts the Product Strategy. Failure with Price, Distribution, or Promotion can hold back the successful launch of an Innovation. A critical decision when launching a new innovation is the decision around what price to launch at, and the overall pricing strategy. Penetration Pricing may be needed to encourage more rapid adoption. More than one product has failed to gain acceptance because the owners overestimated the degree to which the market would be impressed, and launched at a premium price believing that people would be prepared to pay "to have the best."