User involvement in radical innovation: are consumers conservative?

Abstract

Purpose Consumers are sometimes unexpectedly resistant toward radically innovative product concepts, and it is often argued that this is due to their difficulties in understanding the novel products. Thus, marketing research has focused on new ways to make consumers familiar with new product concepts. The purpose of this study is to present the argument that educating consumers may not solve all problems, and may sometimes even address the wrong question. Design/methodology/approach The authors' previous research on consumer responses to new product concepts for the purchasing and consumption of food is drawn upon to explore the reasons for consumers' acceptance of and resistance to radical product innovations. Findings Ignorance about radical product concepts is not the sole reason for consumers' resistance to novelties. In many cases, consumers understand the product concepts fairly well. Their lack of enthusiasm stems from other reasons, including the innovation's instrumentalism, its impact on consumers' autonomy, as well as its organizational complexity and systemic effects. Practical implications The findings suggest that companies introducing new product innovations may need to take consumers' resistance more seriously. They might need to reconsider the acceptability of new product innovations, and integrate these considerations at earlier stages of the innovation cycle. A more open‐ended approach to concept testing is suggested, encouraging users to evaluate concepts more critically. Concept testing should not be used as a pass/fail screen, but as an opportunity to learn more about potential impacts of the innovation on everyday life and society. Originality/value The paper reconsiders resistance to innovations, and demonstrates the value of consumer research for product development.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 133 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.