Edited by Foxit Reader

Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008

For Evaluation Only.

An executive summary
for managers and
Barriers to the adoption of
executives can be found really-new products and the role
at the end of this article
of surrogate buyers
Praveen Aggarwal
Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Minnesota-Duluth,
Minnesota, USA
Taihoon Cha
Lecturer in the Division of Marketing and Tourism Management,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
David Wilemon
Professor of Marketing and Innovation Management, School of
Management, Syracuse University, New York, USA

Given the increasing role of technology in innovation, and the potential of new
technologies to give rise to radical innovations, it is not surprising that
marketing researchers are realizing the importance of examining issues related
to really-new products. For example, the Marketing Science Institute listed
“really-new products” as one of its top-priority research topics for 1996-1998.
RNPs represent The concept of “really-new products” (RNPs) is of fairly recent origin.
“quantum leaps” Urban et al. (1996) define RNPs as “products which revolutionize product
categories or define new categories” and which “shift market structures,
represent new technologies, require consumer learning, and induce behavior
changes” (p. 47). As such, RNPs represent “quantum leaps” compared to
previously marketed technologies and products which may warrant major
changes in marketing and/or consumption systems. Examples include
cellular phones, compact discs, pocket calculators, and HDTV.
There are two perspectives from which RNPs can be examined: that of the
provider and that of the consumer. From the providers’ perspective, topics of
inquiry are likely to include the creation or discovery of RNPs, and their
screening, evaluation, and factors contributing to successful
commercialization (see, Archilladelis et al., 1990; Lee and Na, 1994; Tidd,
1995). From the consumers’ perspective, topics include consumers’
perception of the newness of a product, information processing, consumer
learning and choice processes. The second has the potential for providing
rich, significant insights for successfully introducing RNPs, and is the
perspective taken in this paper.
The role of surrogate Of special interest are issues related to the unique nature of RNPs and how
buyers in the adoption the defining characteristics of RNPs may function to impede consumer
process adoption. After examining these issues, we turn to the role of surrogate
buyers in the adoption process and examine how they can help overcome
barriers and facilitate the adoption of RNPs.

RNP characteristics and consumer adoption

The five characteristics which define RNPs are drawn from Urban et al.’s
(1996) definition of the concept. Each characteristic and its impact on the
consumer adoption process, is examined below:

The authors would like to thank Nora Misiolek’s contributions to our manuscript.
Her editorial suggestions helped us create a more precise and focused manuscript.
We also appreciate the support of the Snyder Innovation Management Center at
Syracuse University for its support.

358 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998, pp. 358-371 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0736-3761

RNPs either revolutionize
or define product
categories
Novices may be resistant
toward adopting RNPs
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998
Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
For Evaluation Only.
RNPs define new product categories
RNPs either revolutionize existing product categories or define new product
categories. An example of the former would be the electronic typewriter,
while an example of the latter would be desktop computers. In cases in
which the RNP is so different from existing products (in terms of features
offered or benefits derived) that a new product category is created, providers
as well as consumers may fail to grasp its significance. When some IBM
managers predicted that personal computers would never be widely used
(Chposky and Leonsis, 1988, p. 107), they were viewing personal computers
from the perspective of an existing product category (fast computing
devices). This perceptual limitation contributed to the failure to recognize
the potential uses to which computers could be put in a home or office
setting as a means of fast and reliable communications, word processing,
entertainment, record keeping, and information retrieval. These new uses
created a completely new product category with significant growth potential.
The incongruity between RNPs and their associated product categories is
likely to affect the way in which consumers evaluate them (Fiske, 1982;
Sujan, 1985). It has been demonstrated that an inverted U-shape relationship
exists between the level of incongruity between a product and its associated
product category and favorable product evaluations (Meyers-Levy and
Tybout, 1989). When the level of incongruity is very high (as is the case for
RNPs), consumers are likely to evaluate products unfavorably. As a
consequence, RNPs are likely to enter the market at an inherent
disadvantage in terms of favorable evaluations from potential consumers,
and are likely to be viewed with doubt and skepticism when first introduced.
Level of incongruity may also affect the manner in which the information
related to decision making is gathered and processed. When faced with
extreme incongruity, consumers tend to limit the extent of their information
search. Instead of seeking out more information, they resort to alternative
internal strategies such as subtyping or activating an alternative product
category (Ozanne et al., 1992). Research also has demonstrated that in
situations characterized by a high level of incongruity, novices (i.e. those
unfamiliar with the product or product category) are more likely to use
category-based (rather than piecemeal or attribute-based) processing than the
experts (Sujan, 1985). Since category-based processing is likely to increase
the level of incongruity, novices may be more resistant toward adopting
RNPs as compared to experts.
RNPs represent new technologies
Most RNPs are either manufactured using a new technology (e.g. vacuum
packaging of consumer perishables) or offer new technologies to the consumer
(e.g. use of electromagnetic waves to heat and cook food in a microwave
oven). From a consumer’s perspective, this poses two potential problems:
(1) incompatibility; and
(2) high perceived risk.
Rogers (1983) identifies two potential sources of incompatibility:
(1) as would be expected, incompatibility with previously introduced
products; and
(2) incompatibility with consumer needs and expectations (Rogers, 1983).
Electric cars are an example of a RNP which is both incompatible with
previously introduced products and consumer needs and expectations.
359
 Electric cars are by their nature incompatible with previously introduced
products (gasoline-powered cars) in that they utilize an alternative fuel
source which requires installation of a special converter-charger in the
consumer’s home or garage for operation. The adopters of this new product
have to invest an additional $2,000 to install the converter-charger before
they can use the product. Incompatibility with consumer needs and
expectations may arise from the time required to “refuel” electric cars versus
gasoline-powered cars and expected mileage before next refueling. Based on
experience with gasoline-powered vehicles, consumers have come to expect
to spend no more than several minutes refueling at a service station and to be
able to drive a considerable distance (200 miles or more in many cases)
before refueling is required. In contrast, the batteries that power electric cars
require recharging every 60 miles or so, and recharging may take several
hours. While incompatibility with previously introduced products is to be
expected given the nature of RNPs, both types of incompatibility can impede
consumer adoption.
Newer products may be Newer technologies and products may be perceived by consumers as more
perceived as more risky risky. Research has shown that the perceived risk is a critical determinant of
a consumer’s willingness to buy a new product (Shimp and Bearden, 1982).
Of relevance to our discussion of RNPs are two complementary
conceptualizations of perceived risk. The first distinguishes between
performance and financial risk (Grewal et al., 1994). Performance risk is the
possibility that the product will malfunction or fail to deliver the desired
benefits. Financial risk refers to the “potential monetary outlay associated
with the initial purchase price as well as the subsequent maintenance costs of
the product” (p. 146).
It stands to reason that because RNPs have no history of use, consumers
associate higher levels of performance risk with adoption. Limited data on
actual product performance and limited experience with the product or
product category are likely to cause consumers to experience greater
uncertainty and risk. Similarly, new technologies are typically introduced in
the market at high prices. Thus, at introduction, the initial financial outlay
required for consumer adoption will in all likelihood be high. For example,
when pocket calculators were first introduced, they sold for more than 50
times their current price (the price in 1972 was about $250 (Rogers, 1983)).
Thus, even though pocket calculators represented a revolutionary new
technology, the financial risk involved in their adoption was huge. This
would have seriously limited the number of potential buyers purchasing this
RNP. Similarly, electric cars also are an example of an RNP whose adoption
entails both performance and financial risk. Consumer experience with the
product is negligible, leading to expectations of high performance risk, and
initial outlay considerable at over $30,000 (Visnic, 1996), entailing
substantial financial risk.
Many RNPs define new A second conceptualization of perceived risk is provided by Dowling and
product categories Staelin (1994). They suggest perceived risk consists of two subcategories:
product-category risk, and product-specific risk. Product-category risk is the
risk “inherent in purchasing any particular product in a specific product
category” while product-specific risk is the risk associated with “the
particular product being considered in the product class” (p. 120).
Consumers would be expected to perceive the adoption of RNPs high risk
since many RNPs define new product categories. As such, an RNP may be
the only representative in its product category. Consequently, all perceived
product-category and product-specific risk would center on the RNP.

360 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998


A common goal creates
the conditions to work
together
The CD was an RNP that
set new standards
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998
Returning to the example of electric cars, were only one make and model
available to consumers for purchase, that product would subsume all
product-category and product-specific risk associated with electric cars since
it would be both product and category. Consumers would have no basis for
differentiation among alternatives in the category, and the risk associated
with the particular make and model would define product-category risk.
RNPs shift market structures
Introduction of RNPs can alter market structure in a number of ways. RNPs
may require new alliances and partnerships between different market players
which could potentially change the competitive structure of the marketplace.
RNP providers also may have to develop complementary infrastructures to
support the adoption and use of RNPs. Our example of electric cars
illustrates this point fairly well. Introduction of an RNP (like the electric car)
significantly alters the market structure. One of the key factors that is
currently limiting the usefulness of electric cars is the battery as it discharges
rather quickly and is very bulky. A more efficient battery would help all the
car manufacturers. Thus, it is in their common interest to develop a more
efficient battery. This common goal has brought the three big competing
automakers together and they are now jointly sponsoring the US Advanced
Battery Consortium (USABC) which has the support of the Department of
Energy and the utility-supported Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
Together they are investing $260 million in battery research over a five-year
period (O’Connor, 1993). Thus, we see that a common goal (the success of
an RNP) creates the conditions for competitors and adversaries to work
together.
Another aspect of the issue of shift in market structure, and one which is
more relevant from a consumer perspective, is that the transition from the
old market structure to a new one may take some time. The consumer may
face difficulties in this transition which may act as a barrier to the adoption
of an RNP. For example, to support the recharging of electric cars,
companies are planning to build a large network of recharging stations. A
study conducted in Adelaide, South Australia, and reported by Payton
(1995), indicated that the battery-recharging stations have to be as easily
accessible as gasoline stations, to ensure the electric car’s success.
Obviously, such a network takes time to build, and the early adopters of the
electric car would be at a disadvantage in terms of easy availability of
recharging stations. This partial development of the market structure in the
initial phase of an RNP launch is likely to hamper the adoption process.
Introduction of the compact disc (CD) also illustrates how an RNP can shift
market structures. At the time of its introduction, the CD was an RNP that
set new standards in audio reproduction. It displaced vinyl records and to
some degree audiocassette tapes (killing the eight-track which was dying a
slow death already), causing the former to become obsolete and changing
production and distribution in the audio entertainment industry. It also
provided the impetus for the development of new audio playback equipment
and ancillary industries providing supplementary equipment such as
changers, auto audio equipment, and portable playback devices. Retail
outlets and suppliers were forced to change layout and distribution.
Alliances were formed between hardware and software providers, often
between a manufacturer like Sony and NV Philips Polygram Records to
ensure an adequate supply of software. In early days following widespread
introduction, a frequent consumer complaint was lack of adequate software –
361
 many record manufacturers were not quick enough to release or re-release
material in the new format.

RNPs require consumer learning

RNPs require active learning and sometimes significant cognitive
investment on the part of consumers. On the one hand, consumers learn
about RNPs in the sense that they become aware, through information
channels, of the product and its benefits, and often engage in active search to
acquire more information to supplement that which they have already
acquired. On the other, consumers learn about RNPs through trial. Trial
involves actual use of the product and can occur either prior to adoption (e.g.
test driving an automobile or using a demonstration racquet at a tennis club)
or following adoption (e.g. learning a new software package).
Learning is active Because learning is active and requires the acquisition and processing of
product-related information, it is hindered in situations in which information
pertaining to the RNP is not available to the consumer or in which it is
difficult to comprehend. In either case, assimilation and internalization of
information pertaining to the RNP on the part of the consumer is difficult
(Scammon, 1977). Inaccessibility, for whatever reason, impedes consumers’
ability to learn about RNPs, which reduces chances of adoption.
Conversely, in an age of information and “innovation overload” (Herbig and
Kramer, 1994) in which new products are continuously being introduced,
many RNP providers are extremely conscious of the need to provide
consumers with as much information as possible about their product. Rather
than stimulate learning, excessive information by its sheer quantity and
variety may prove an impediment to learning (Malhotra, 1982), creating
barriers to the adoption of RNPs.
Although not readily apparent, post-adoption trial is a significant issue for
consumer learning about RNPs. With RNPs which require significant
cognitive investment in post-adoption learning, consumers may be resistant
to adopt subsequent RNPs despite potential benefits due to the investment
which they have made in the existing product. Personal computers and
software packages are examples of RNPs which fit this profile.

RNPs induce behavior changes

Adopters must be Adopters of RNPs often require significant modifications in behavior.
convinced Consider, for example, the behavioral changes required in adopting an RNP
like a videophone. First, mobility is restricted because users are required to
face the camera while engaging in a conversation. Second, spontaneity is
reduced on the part of both the caller and the receiver who might feel the
need to “prepare” prior to engaging in conversation. Also, freedom to
engage in other activities while chatting with friends is curtailed.
There are several obstacles which RNP providers must overcome to induce
behavioral change. First, an information exchange relationship with potential
adopters must be established in order to inform and educate them about the
new product. Second, a positive attitude (intent) towards the offering must
be created. And finally, intent must be converted to actual purchase
behavior. In the case of RNP providers, overcoming these obstacles is more
difficult because adopters must be convinced that the benefits derived from
the product far outweigh the discomfort associated with post-purchase
modifications in behavior. As an illustration, it would not be too difficult to
sell the benefits of a four-wheel drive (a minor innovation) over a two-wheel
drive. But to convince a person to buy an electric car (an RNP) over a

362 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998

 gasoline-powered car would be extremely difficult as the behavioral change
associated with such a switch is significant. Table I summarizes the
differences between the adoption of an RNP and the adoption of other
innovative products

Surrogate buyers, RNP characteristics, and stages of adoption

Examples of surrogate Surrogate buyers are “agents retained by a customer to guide, direct, and/or
buyers transact market place activities” (Solomon, 1986, p. 208). These experts
perform various activities on behalf of their clients such as collecting and
filtering product-related information, determining the consideration set,
weighing alternatives, making recommendations customized to the client’s
needs and desires, and conducting transactions on behalf of clients.
Examples of surrogate buyers are interior decorators, wine stewards,
physicians, stockbrokers, and wardrobe consultants. They differ from the
opinion leaders in that that they usually get paid for their advice, have a
more formal relationship with the client, and are heterophilous to them.
A stages-of-adoption model adapted for the RNP scenario from Kotler and
Armstrong (1996, p. 167) provides the framework for examining how
surrogate buyers might help overcome barriers to adoption derived from

Really-new products Other innovative products

1. RNPs are radically different from previous 1. Within-category comparisons are

innovations, making comparisons difficult.
Ex: Compare videophone to what?
2. Usually set the standards against which
future innovations are measured.
Ex: GM’s “Impact” will set the
standards for future electric cars
3. Consumers may have to invest
considerable efforts to learn to use
the RNP
Ex: Learning efforts involved in using
new software
4. Adoption of an RNP may require changes 4. Usually, the existing infrastructure can
in existing infrastructure
Ex: For recharging electric cars, a 220
volt power source as well as repair
facilities are required
5. Adoption of an RNP may be perceived as 5. Adoption may not be perceived as
very risky since performance evidence
is lacking
Ex: Adopting an electric car is risky as
data on its performance is not available
6. Adoption of an RNP may make you
“stand out in the crowd”
Ex: The first electric cars on the road
will attract considerable attention
more feasible and more accurate
Ex: Compare a 486 computer against
a 386 one
2. Are measured against standards set
by previous innovations in the
category
Ex: Performance of anti-lock brakes
can easily be compared against
standard brakes
3. Low to moderate amount of learning
is involved
Ex: Switching from one version of
software to its next upgrade
support the innovation
Ex: The switch from leaded to
unleaded gas did not require major
changes in gas stations.
risky as consumers have some prior
experience/exposure to something
similar
Ex.: After using Windows 3.0, users
are not likely to find buying the 3.1
version risky
6. Adoption may not be that
conspicuously different
Ex: Switching from a V6 to V8
engine won’t attract much attention

Table I. Differences in the adoption of RNPs and other innovative products

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998 363

 characteristics of RNPs identified in the previous section. The stages through
which the consumer passes before adopting an innovation are:
Awareness → Interest → Evaluation → Adoption
Barriers linked to these stages of adoption are presented in Table II. In the
next section, we examine how surrogate buyers can overcome barriers to
adoption of the RNP at each stage of the adoption process. A summary of
these relationships is provided in Table III.

Characteristics of Possible barriers Stage of adoption

really-new products to adoption affected by the barrier

1. Define new product 1.a. Cross-category (rather than Evaluation

categories intra-category) comparisons
b. In the absence of established Interest
standards, difficult to
communicate relative
advantages
2. Represent new 2.a. Requires greater learning Awareness
technologies effort
b. Possibility of incompatibility Interest
with existing infrastructure/
way of living
c. Higher perceived risk Interest
3. Shift market structure 3.a. Resistance from channel Purchase
members
b. Lack of fully developed Purchase
(new) market structure
4. Induce behavior change 4.a. Resistance to change Interest
b. Risk of “standing out in Purchase
the crowd”
5. Require consumer 5.a. Could result in information Evaluation
learning overload
b. Lack of information- Evaluation
processing expertise
c. Information not readily Awareness
available

Table II. Characteristics of really-new products: barriers to adoption

Stages in adoption Surrogate buyer’s role in overcoming barriers

Awareness Introduce buyers to really-new products

Explain unique attributes of really-new products
Interest Sift all relevant information
Educate on product usage
Increase salience of benefits of really-new products
Evaluation Generate positive attitudes/interests in really-new products
Make relevant cross-category comparisons
Suggest relative advantages of really-new products
Provide expert advice to assure a match between buyer’s
needs and really-new products’ attributes
Purchase Help make a choice
Facilitate the purchase act
Provide access to providers of really-new products

Table III. Role of surrogate buyers in overcoming adoption barriers

364 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998

 Awareness
A major stumbling block in the adoption of RNPs is that information about
their existence and their unique characteristics are not easily or readily
available. Inaccessibility or lack of information may cause the provider of an
RNP to miss a large segment of potential adopters. A lack of awareness on
the part of potential adopters may be misinterpreted as an aversion to
adopting an RNP. Wernerfelt (1991) calls this “inertial loyalty”, consumers’
perceived or presumed loyalty to the previous innovation (or available
product) which is largely due to consumer inertia resulting from lack of
awareness or search. If consumers are made aware of the RNP, there is
significant potential that they will become adopters.
Surrogate buyers are likely actively to seek out new products in their areas
of expertise (Gupta and Rogers, 1991). In fact, this can be a powerful source
of competitive advantage for surrogate buyers causing them to be perceived
as more competent (and hence increasing patronage) by their clients. For
example, if a really-new surgical technique for some common ailment is
invented, it would be in the professional interest of surgeons working in the
area to know about (and possibly adopt) it. Although consumers (patients)
are unaware of the innovation, surgeons (surrogate buyers) can help
overcome this disadvantage and stimulate interest if not adoption. Surrogate
buyers, aware of the RNP, can communicate its attributes and benefits to
consumers lacking specialized knowledge or expertise in a language that
they understand, enhancing possibility of adoption.

Interest
RNPs are perceived as Lack of knowledge and inability to appreciate the relevance of attributes and
risky benefits of an RNP, cause many consumers not to actively seek information
related to RNPs. It has been shown that RNPs are generally perceived as
risky and as having little relative advantage to consumers due to consumers’
inability to understand the product (Barczak et al., 1992). However, if a
surrogate buyer is involved in the adoption decision, (s)he will collect and
process the information on behalf of the consumer. Since surrogate buyers
are experts in their areas, they are efficient information processors and are
therefore less likely to experience information overload (Alba and
Hutchinson, 1987; Sternberg, 1986). Therefore, it is easier for them to
process information on RNPs and communicate it to the consumer in order
to create interest in an RNP. Surrogate buyers can first gauge the level of
interest and product knowledge of potential adopters and provide them with
appropriate information to encourage further interest in the adoption of the
RNP.

Evaluation
Since RNPs define or significantly modify existing product categories, one
of the most difficult tasks facing a consumer when adopting an RNP is
finding ways to evaluate it meaningfully. Often RNPs possess new and
complex features which do not communicate obvious credible advantages
over existing products. The consumer may not know what a particular
attribute is (e.g. a zip drive, its relevance, how to evaluate potential benefits)
or the optimal level of the attribute to have (e.g. do I need a 4MB RAM or
16MB?). This potentially increases the functional, social, financial, and/or
personal risks associated with the adoption of an RNP.
As experts, surrogate buyers possess the knowledge to evaluate RNPs based
on their consumers’ needs and expectations and then customize

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998 365

 recommendations about adoption. Cognitive investment in learning,
processing, and evaluation is reduced to a manageable level for the
consumer. In addition, surrogate buyers often have access to specialized
media not readily available to consumers (e.g. trade publications and
professional journals, trade shows at which RNPs may be introduced). This
access to specialized RNP-related information gives surrogates an advantage
in effectively and comprehensively evaluating RNPs and conveying
potentially not-so-obvious benefits and information to potential adopters.
Recommendation may Surrogate buyers may also act as a “superordinate group” (Fisher and Price,
act as product 1992), since their recommendation to adopt may in itself act as a form of
endorsement product endorsement. Implicit in a recommendation is an understanding that
the surrogate buyer has evaluated the RNP and found it to be worthy of
recommendation. In this way, surrogate buyers are in a unique position to
sell the needs rather than the newness of an RNP (Lunsford and Burnett,
1992).

Adoption
Perceived risk and uncertainty pose considerable barriers to adoption, even
in situations in which the consumer has evaluated and considered adopting
an RNP. Favorable attitudes may not be converted to actual purchases
without the “final push”. Surrogate buyers can play a significant role in
providing that extra impetus. Accountability in making recommendations
may reduce consumer uncertainty in that they have both “expert
endorsement” and an avenue for formal recourse should the product not
meet their expectations. Another barrier to adoption is limited availability of
the RNP. In the early stages of the product life cycle following market
introduction, market structure may not be fully developed, limiting
availability and accessibility of RNPs. In these instances, surrogate buyers
can facilitate the adoption process by providing access to sellers/providers of
RNPs.
Adoption of an RNP at times involves major behavioral and lifestyle
changes. Although an RNP offers significant relative advantages over
existing products, if consumers are not willing to make required lifestyle or
behavioral changes that adoption entails, the RNP has a rather slim chance
of commercial success. It also is possible for consumers to fail to realize
behavioral changes required at the time of adoption. For example, Vermont
offered its residents a really-new electricity plan. Under this plan, residents
were to be charged differential rates depending on what time of day (TOD)
they consumed electricity. Rates were higher during peak consumption
periods and lower during off-peak periods. Adoption of this plan required
making behavioral changes in order to take advantage of the differential rate
structure. The TOD households changed the time they did laundry, prepared
meals, and used water heaters. Households that elected to adopt the TOD
rates without being aware of required behavioral changes quickly became
disillusioned with the new rate plan and rejected it (Antil, 1988).
Design change may not Surrogate buyers can be extremely helpful in such situations. Not only can
be an option they determine if a potential adopter can make required changes, they also
can help prepare adopters for changes. Antil (1988) illustrates this with the
example of liquid detergents. When first introduced, liquid detergents were
perceived as high-priced. The amount of liquid used rather than the price,
however, was the real issue. Based on their years of experience with
powdered detergents, consumers were using more liquid than required. The
adoption rate increased significantly once manufacturers started providing

366 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998


Benchmarks should be
provided
Surrogates are attuned
to the “market pulse”
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998
an easy-to-use measuring cap. For RNPs where a product design change
may not be an option, surrogate buyers can help facilitate behavioral change
by providing information and educating the consumer regarding product
usage, and through post-purchase support and follow-up.
Managerial implications
There are a number of implications for managers responsible for
commercializing RNPs. In the past, RNPs have not been treated separately
from other innovations. As was seen in Table I, the adoption process of
RNPs is significantly different from that of other innovative products. The
unique characteristics of RNPs provide opportunities as well as challenges to
managers who are responsible for directing their successful launch.
Because RNPs define or significantly modify existing product categories,
managers of RNPs should educate potential adopter population about the
features and advantages of their offerings. When doing so, non-technical and
easy-to-understand language should be used to enhance consumer
comprehension. Since these products may be fulfilling some needs of which
consumers may not yet be aware (as was the case when computers were first
introduced), managers must bring these latent needs to a conscious level.
Benchmarks against which the performance of RNPs can be measured
should also be provided.
However, in circumstances in which consumers rely extensively on
recommendation of surrogate buyers, the adoption process becomes two-
staged (Aggarwal and Cha, 1997). In the first stage, surrogates must “adopt”
the RNP; in the second, members of the user-population adopt the product
based on the recommendation of the surrogate. In this situation, RNP
providers must provide surrogates with sufficient information regarding
potential product benefits so as to induce surrogates to recommend the RNP
to potential adopters. As such, the relationship between RNP providers and
surrogates assumes paramount importance. RNP providers must inform and
educate surrogates about new-product introductions and effectively
communicate to them the relative advantages of new over existing products.
RNP providers may benefit from the “thin market” approach (Lifton and
Lifton, 1989) whereby surrogates are involved in RNP development and
commercialization from a very early stage. As surrogates are considered to
be attuned to the “market pulse”, their input during product development can
significantly increase the likelihood of an RNP’s adoption and commercial
success. At the same time, providers must also ensure that favorable
attitudes toward their RNPs exist among end-users both prior to and
following adoption. Post-purchase dissatisfaction among end-users could
result in negative feedback to surrogates who then may decide to “unadopt”
the RNP (Jones and Ritz, 1991).
In situations in which an RNP requires additional infrastructure for effective
use, managers should ensure that the required infrastructure is in place prior
to product launch. Lack of infrastructure support could result in the failure of
even relatively promising RNPs. For example, one of the reasons cited for
the early demise of the Sinclair C5 electric car is the lack of sufficient
number of battery-charging stations before the product was launched
(Payton, 1995).
As the perceived risk in RNP purchase is usually very high, managers must
provide reassurance to consumers in order to reduce anxiety. Uncertainty
about product performance can seriously hamper the rate of adoption of
367
 RNPs. Risk-averse consumers are likely to delay adoption. They may do so
to reduce their prior uncertainties (in a Bayesian sense) using information
generated by early adopters (Oren and Schwartz, 1988).
RNP providers can accelerate the adoption process by reducing uncertainty.
Use of surrogates as source of expert advice is one means by which to do so.
For product categories that do not have surrogates as intermediaries,
consumers could be allowed to try the product before committing to
purchase. This would both reduce perceived risk and expose the buyer to the
unique features of the RNP. Risk could also be reduced by providing a post-
purchase return/refund guarantee in case the product fails to meet consumer
expectations.
Surrogate buyers can help to overcome many barriers to RNP adoption.
Managers should explore the possibility of enlisting surrogate buyers’
support to diffuse their products through consumer adoption. For product
categories in which surrogate buyers serve as channel intermediaries, RNP
managers should recognize the need to sell their products to surrogate buyers
as well as to consumers.

Summary and conclusion

The unique The adoption of really-new products is systematically different from that of
characteristics of RNPs most other innovative products. This paper has examined the unique
characteristics of RNPs and the way in which these characteristics can
hinder the adoption process. RNP characteristics influence different stages of
adoption and surrogate buyers can help overcome many of the obstacles
associated with adoption. Implications for managers responsible for the
success of really-new products in the marketplace are also discussed.

References and further reading

Aggarwal, P. and Cha, T. (1997), “Surrogate buyer and the new product adoption process: a
conceptualization and managerial framework”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 391-400.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 13 March, pp. 411-54.
Antil, J.H. (1988), “New product or service adoption: when does it happen?”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 5 Spring, pp. 5-16.
Archilladelis, B., Schwarzkopf, A. and Cines, M. (1990), “The dynamics of technological
innovation: the case of the chemical industry”, Research Policy, Vol. 19, February,
pp. 1-34.
Barczak, G.J., Bello, D.C. and Wallace, E.S. (1992), “The role of consumer shows in new
product adoption”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9, Spring, pp. 55-67.
Chposky, J. and Leonsis, T. (1988), Blue Magic: The People, Power, and Politics behind the
IBM Personal Computer, Facts on File Publications, New York, NY.
Dowling, G.R. and Staelin, R. (1994), “A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, June, pp. 119-34.
Fisher, R.J. and Price, L.L. (1992), “An investigation into the social context of early adoption
behavior”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 19, December, pp. 477-86.
Fiske, S.T, (1982), “Social cognition and affect”, in Harvey, J. (Ed.), Cognition, Social
Behavior, and the Environment, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 55-78.
Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J. and Marmostein, H. (1994), “The moderating effects of message
framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21, June, pp. 145-53.
Gupta, A.K. and Rogers, E.M. (1991), “Internal marketing: integrating R&D and marketing
within the organization”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8, Summer, pp. 5-18.
Herbig, P.A. and Kramer, H. (1994), “The effect of information overload on the innovation
choice process: innovation overload”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 45-54.

368 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998

 Jones, J.M. and Ritz, C.J. (1991), “Incorporating distribution into new product diffusion
models”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8, pp. 91-112.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1996), Principles of Marketing, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lee, M. and Na, D. (1994), “Determinants of technical success in product development when
innovative radicalness is considered”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 11, January, pp. 62-8.
Lifton, D.E. and Lifton, L.R. (1989), “Applying the Japanese ‘thin market’ strategy to
industrial new product development”, International Journal of Technological
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 177-88.
Lunsford, D.A. and Burnett, M.S. (1992), “Marketing product innovations to the elderly:
understanding the barriers to adoption”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9, Fall,
pp. 53-63.
Malhotra, N.K. (1982), “Information load and consumer decision making”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 8, March, pp. 419-30.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A.M. (1989), “Schema congruity as a basis for product
evaluation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, June, pp. 39-94.
O’Connor, L. (1993), “Energizing the batteries for electric cars”, Mechanical Engineering,
Vol. 115, July, pp. 73-5.
Oren, S.S. and Schwartz, R.G. (1988), “Diffusion of new products in risk-sensitive markets”,
Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 7, October-December, pp. 273-87.
Ozanne, J.L., Brucks, M. and Grewal, D. (1992), “A study of information search behavior
during the categorization of new product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18,
March, pp. 452-63.
Payton, T.H. (1995), “The electric car – some problems of driver attitudes and product fit”,
Journal of the Marketing Research Society, Vol. 30, January, pp. 73-85.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Scammon, D.L. (1977), “Information overload and consumers”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 4, December, pp. 148-55.
Shimp, T.A. and Bearden, W.O. (1982), “Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on
consumers’ risk perceptions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, June, pp. 38-46.
Solomon, M.R. (1986), “The missing link: surrogate consumers in the marketing chain”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 208-18.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986), “Inside intelligence”, American Scientist, Vol. 74, March-April,
pp. 137-43.
Sujan, M. (1985), “Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer
judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, June, pp. 31-46.
Tidd, J. (1995), “Development of novel products through intraorganizational and
interorganizational networks: the case of home automation”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 12 September, pp. 307-22.
Urban, G.L., Weinberg, B.D. and Hauser, J.R. (1996), “Premarket forecasting of really-new
products”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, January, pp. 47-60.
Visnic, B. (1996), “GM’s big event”, Ward’s Auto World, Vol. 32, August, p. 51.
Wernerfelt, B. (1991), “Brand loyalty and market equilibrium”, Marketing Science, Vol. 10,
Summer, pp. 229-45.

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998 369

 This summary has been
provided to allow
managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of
the content of this
article. Those with a
particular interest in the
topic covered may then
read the article in toto to
take advantage of the
more comprehensive
description of the
research undertaken and
its results to get the full
benefit of the material
present
370
Executive summary and implications for managers and
executives
Surrogate buyers – the future of consumer marketing?
We read often of how the rate of technology innovation has accelerated,
driven by the improvements in computing technology and dramatic changes
in telecommunications. In such a situation, organizations actively seek out
the “really new” rather than hoping it will arrive in the manner of Newton’s
apple.
The technology-driven developments in products and services worry
consumers. On the one hand the consumer feels excluded by the mysteries of
technology while on the other that consumer fails to see how such-and-such
an innovation might provide benefits.
For many people the pace of life and the rate at which products change
leads to the use of an intermediary expert: someone who understands that
particular area, can advise as to the right solutions and locate the best
possible products for delivering the desired benefits. The “surrogate buyers”
now play a major role in the purchase of computers, computer software,
financial services, interior design, gardening and much else besides. A
whole new service industry has arisen, providing consumers with protection
from information overload and time consuming product search.
When my wife wanted to “do the kitchen”, her initial aim was to find
someone to “project manage the whole thing” since she didn’t have the time
or desire to undertake such a job herself. Finding the products that fitted
requirements, making sure all the work was done (in the right order) and
ensuring that quality and price were right.
Aggarwal, Cha and Wilemon discuss this intermediary role in the context of
the RNP. As they make clear RNPs need a very different type of launch than
mere improvements or extensions since consumer resistance is far greater
especially given the nature of the changes required to adopt an RNP. For
these organizations promoting RNPs these surrogate buyers represent a key
audience:
• Almost by definition surrogate buyers will be early adopters of RNPs. It
is in the surrogate buyer’s business interest to avail themselves of the
knowledge and experience needed to provide the best solutions to their
clients. Such people will seek out new information and ideas rather than
wait for them to emerge fully fledged on to the market.
• The surrogate buyer will have the knowledge, time and capacity to
gather and evaluate information about RNPs. This ability to handle new
information (and especially that information concerning mould-
breaking new developments) sets the surrogate buyer apart from the
ordinary consumer.
• Since the surrogate buyer will be solution driven, their understanding of
RNPs matters more than for the ordinary consumer. Specialised
knowledge also allows these buyers to appreciate and understand the
full implications of an RNP far more quickly than the average consumer.
• Surrogate buyers represent a distinct audience that can be easily
targeted by the organization promoting the RNP. Aggarwal et al. note
the existence of specialised magazines and directories allowing simple
and direct communications to a key audience.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998
 • Surrogate buyers represent an opportunity to create de facto
endorsement of the RNP. Since the surrogate buyer is, by definition, an
expert, their opinion can be critical to the rapid adoption of the RNP.
• Surrogate buyers are an important secondary distribution channel for
the RNP since they make it their business to know where to obtain the
RNP – something not all consumers have the time or inclination to do.
If the trend of consumers using intermediaries for buying many products and
services continues then the marketing of products – and especially RNPs – to
surrogate buyers will take on a bigger role. In business-to-business
marketing the specifier, intermediary or consultant is a recognized figure
and, as a result, receives considerable attention where the launch of new
products is concerned. Consumer marketers in many sectors must begin to
learn how to target and relate to an audience of growing importance.
To do this consumer marketers should:
• Create a relationship-marketing programme for target surrogate buyers.
• Contact to inform as much as to sell.
• Involve the surrogate buyers in feedback on the likely uptake of the RNP.
• Use surrogate marketers as a source of information for the new product
development effort.
As consumer spending power rises we should anticipate more specialized
services emerging to act as intermediaries between the consumer and the
seller. Consumers will place greater credence on the advice and information
coming from this “unbiased” source than they will on the organizations
direct to consumer communications. And, via the Internet, we will see the
surrogate buyer extend into an ever-wider area of ordinary life. We should
anticipate intermediaries in car buying, choosing schools or colleges, gift
shopping and even the weekly trip to the supermarket. Ironically, one area
where RNPs are rampant is in the provision of intermediary advice and
service – the surrogate buyer itself.
(A précis of the article “Barriers to the adoption of really-new products and
the role of surrogate buyers”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for MCB
University Press.)

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 4 1998 371