136 The Marketing Book
marketing campaigns which, following the
conventional wisdom and textbook prescrip-
tions have been aimed principally at innovators
and ignored the fact that initial adopters and
use-initiators may be adaptors, have contrib-
uted to the high failure rates of new consumer
products. But the crucial question now is the
likely implications of adaptive–innovative cog-
nitive styles for future marketing campaigns.
The following propositions follow from the
evidence presented above and a considerable
body of research over three decades on con-
sumers’ cognitive styles.
Product considerations
We have noted the importance of a consumer’s
category width – the extent to which he or she
perceives an innovation to differ from the norm
established by existing products or practices –
in determining his or her framework for deci-
sion making. So-called ‘broad categorizers’ are
more willing than ‘narrow categorizers’ to
consider and adopt new brands or products
that diverge from the norm. Category width
influences the amount of risk the prospective
consumer perceives in buying and using an
innovation (Venkatesan, 1973). Broad categor-
izers are also more likely to adopt radical or
discontinuous new products, even though they
might be dissatisfied with them, and narrow
categorizers are more likely to reduce the
possibility of making a mistake by confining
their attention to incrementally new items. The
implication is that adaptors, who are likely to
be narrow categorizers, will try to avoid mis-
takes in their product purchasing even at the
cost of losing out on some positive opportun-
ities. They prefer to operate within the structure
they have established and are reluctant to
change. It seems therefore that, in their decision
making, adaptors will usually tend to be
conservative, and that they are more likely than
innovators to be attracted to continuous new
products. Innovators, categorizing widely, are
less likely to perceive great differences even in
discontinuous new products.
Compared with innovators, adaptors are
usually more intolerant of change and disrup-
tion, unwilling to accept ambiguity, more dog-
matic and inflexible. Unless they are highly
involved, therefore, they are less likely to
embrace new products. When adaptors lack
involvement, their lack of experience of new
products further reinforces their unwillingness
to explore. By being willing to risk making
mistakes, innovators are more eager to take
advantage of the potential gains from explora-
tion. As a rule, they will try more new products,
apparently oblivious of the risk of buying an
unsatisfactory item. In the process of decision
making, highly-involved innovators can be
expected to use more of the information avail-
able to them than do the less involved, whether
adaptors or innovators. But, since they perceive
products as more alike than do adaptors, they
have less chance than they of becoming brand
loyal.Marketing communications
Adaptors and innovators are also likely to react
in quite different ways to marketing commu-
nications, particularly mass advertising, regard-
less of their level of involvement. Innovators’
broader category width, tendency to become
rapidly bored with familiar products and behav-
iours, and capacity to work within several
frames of analysis suggests that they would
respond more positively than adaptors to two-
sided appeals. That is, innovators may prefer
messages based on pro and con arguments and
become easily bored with repetitive messages
that are consistent with their current beliefs. Yet
adaptors are more likely to respond favourably
to uncomplicated one-sided messages, con-
sistent with their current attitudes and habits.
This is not due to their having a lower level of
cognitive ability (adaptors and innovators do
not differ in terms of intelligence or cognitive
complexity), but simply to their preferred style
of decision making and problem solving. Adap-
tors are also more likely to respond positively to
credible sources of information which are