- Email: [email protected]
Styling strategy
Styling Strategy Tom Moulson and George Sproles
ne of the most challenging business problems is to predict or initiate trends in consumers' tastes for styled products. Styling is a dominant factor--indeed, often the determining factor--in major purchases ranging from automobiles and apparel to furniture and home products. Although style must combine with function, quality, price, and availability to produce a sale, its contribution is unique in that it is independent of cost. A successful design need cost no more than an unsuccessful one. Major corporations invest hundreds of millions of dollars in planning and conducting research on style decisions, and the very success or failure of many firms is determined by these decisions. How can manufacturers of styled products analyze and predict consumers' style preferences more effectively? We have conducted desk and field research on this question for a decade in the automotive, appliance, and major apparel industries. In an attempt to answer it, we will review the various theories of innovation diffusion, the role of consumers who may be the earliest adopters of new styles, and the research approaches used not always successfully--to identify those new styles most likely to succeed in the market. Based on insights from this research, we outline a model for facilitating style decisions that balance extreme innovation with the least market risk, in any industry.
O
among marketing practitioners holds that these consumers effectively initiate mass acceptance of new products, and that their refusal to buy and legitimize new products can lead to market failure. Thus, major manufacturers of styled products may literally bet the company on the choices of such consumers. Clearly, there is an urgent need to understand them and the market dynamics they set in motion. A useful beginning lies in what is known as "diffusion-of-innovation." A persuasive case can be made for paying close attention to consumer innovators and opinion leaders---collectively thought of as early adopters--as the initiators and propagators of new trends. The first question to answer, then, is: Who are these people? The answer is not so simple, but there are useful theories. As we shall see, leaders can come from many demographic groups, lifestyles, and psychographic profiles; there is no one-size-fits-all mold for early adopters.
The Class Theory o f Style Acceptance THEORIES ON THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIVE STYLES S
ince the 1960s, marketers have come to accept the view that there are consumer leaders who establish trends of acceptance for new consumer products. The academic literature offers general principles on how humans accept or reject what's new, with greater emphasis on styled consumer products appearing in marketing research. Hundreds of articles focus on consumer innovators, the earliest buyers of new products, and opinion leaders---consumers who personally influence others to buy. A consensus Styling Strategy
It is easy to visualize the upper classes and the wealthy as leaders of new trends and tastes. After all, it takes money to buy new styles of clothes, automobiles, and interior designs. The most established theories of change pinpoint taste-makers in the upper class and conspicuous consumption by not only the upper strata but also the nouveau riche. Continued acceptance is explained by the "trickle-down theory," which proposes that once the upper stratum adopts, the next lower emulates it, and then the next lower, until the style is accepted and purchased throughout all classes. The style is diluted, cheapened, mass-produced,
and sold at a growing discount through this process of diffusion. Eventually the upper strata, realizing the loss in prestige or exclusivity of the now old style, seek something new to replace it, and the cycle begins anew. The process may occur over a matter of months to several years with clothing styles; years to a decade with autos; and perhaps even longer for architecture and interior design. This entire notion of new product acceptance spreading from upper strata to lower, from wealthy to poor, or from celebrities and the publicity-prone to the anonymous man-in-thestreet appears evident in our daily lives and is one explanation of the mechanism of change that is not easily dismissed.
The Mass Theory of Style Acceptance Despite the intuitive appeal and daily examples of class influences, alternative explanations of how new styles are accepted among consumers can also be very persuasive. A mass-market approach to understanding new style acceptance suggests that knowledge of fashions and good taste today is widely distributed among the population--through all social strata, lifestyles, ages, and income groups. If knowledge and involvement with products are widespread (which is plausible, given the power of mass marketing, advertising, the media, specialized publications, our active lifestyles, and our change-oriented culture), then a "mass" mechanism of change influenced by this conglomerate of contemporary culture has to enter our thinking. The mass market theory of style suggests that there are early adopters in all sectors of the population and that mass manufacturing makes new styles widely available at prices most buyers can afford almost immediately. Certainly this instantaneous new style availability happens in apparel, where high-fashion designs are quickly knocked off in low-priced mass lines. Of course, manufacturers of some products cannot copy a hot style so quickly (such as in automobiles), but at least there is some form of mass-market acceptance happening across styled products. Whatever the industry, the mass-market approach suggests that new styles will be adopted immediately in each class, social group, and lifestyle. This theory then goes on to explain that adoption of the new style happens within social classes or groups (not trickling down, as in class approaches), as early adopters go on to influence 46
friends, neighbors, and acquaintances in their immediate social networks. Acceptance then becomes more a p h e n o m e n o n of the mass market and manufacturing process, rather than a process whereby a style is copied from upper classes and the wealthy.
The D6class6 Theory of Style Acceptance Contrasting these two class-related theories of change is what can be called a declasse or subcultural theory of leadership. In today's societal makeup, many subcultures exist, each with special cultural uniqueness, including influences on new styles. Witness these subcultures and their influences: youths (apparel fashions, autos), African-Americans (apparel, textiles), homosexuals (fashion, interior design), American Indians (jewelry, woven products, rugs). These are not stereotypes but groups having legitimate style influences stemming from cultural heritage and artistic talents. They do not influence trends because of their prestige or wealth; they simply have a cultural ideal or novel art that attracts attention from others. When manufacturers recognize the growing popularity of a subcultural style, they copy it, spreading it to the larger population. This diffusion likely takes place by the class or mass processes, thus merging this theory with the classbased theories.
The Collective Theory of Style Acceptance This concept of new style acceptance is derived from the sociological field of collective behavior, which seeks to explain human behavior as large collective acts. Applied to consumer behavior, the theory suggests that new trends are effectively leaderless in the sense that no individual group or market segment is obviously the first adopter or trendsetter. Rather, there is a long-running evolutionary trend in design whereby small changes happen over a period of time in a fixed direction, regardless of consumer tastes. Skirt lengths get shorter or longer by fractions year by year; suit lapels slowly evolve in width; cars become longer, shorter, wider, or rounder over a period of years. There is a set direction of historical evolution in design, often apparent in historical texts on many designed products, and once a trend has been boarded it will likely play out inexorably over time. This may happen regardless of consumers' changing tastes. Thus, although the trend is "leaderless," certain consumers nevertheless step in front of the already moving trend, become early adopters (probably because they are product-involved, change-conscious, or psychologically motivated), and become leaders of a sort. Masses of consumers soon follow, influenced by Business Horizons / September-October 2000
their contact with the surrounding society and the increasing visibility of the style. W h i c h T h e o r y to Accept? All these theories postulate consumer leaders, and all are credible, but how can any of them be validated? More to the point, how can they actually help businesses make the right style decisions? Much research has been conducted in the past half-century--largely unsuccessfully--in an attempt to identify lead consumers in terms of demographics, lifestyle, or psychographics. It may not be surprising that the first answers have begun to emerge in the automotive industry, because nowhere is it more important to understand style acceptance, and nowhere has so much money and effort been expended in an attempt to do so. NEW STYLE ACCEPTANCE IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY ew vehicle design is a complex, lengthy, and expensive process. Designs evolve partly as a result of functional improvements made possible by technology, allowing cars to be more space-efficient, fuel-efficient, and safe. Smaller engines allow the hood to be lower, improving driver visibility; better cooling systems dispense with conventional grilles; halogen lights permit smaller headlamps. Government regulations have an impact, from bumper design to vehicle proportions. Form follows function, and the shapes of cars inevitably undergo change. These factors set up long-term trends akin to the Collective Theory, incremental and directional. Manufacturers exploit these functional trends with discretionary style designs in the pursuit of competitive advantage. In doing so, they face two opposite risks: • not reaching far enough with the new style so that it is considered conservative or uninteresting; and • reaching too far and having the design be perceived as ugly rather than stunningly new and different. Given the lengthy in-market life required to amortize a vehicle program's capital cost, even a small error in this decision can mean major loss of market share and revenue, with long-term pressure on corporate finances and stock prices.
N
The Role o f C o n s u m e r Research in Auto Style D e v e l o p m e n t With an all-new vehicle design costing upwards of $2 billion, a million or so on consumer research to obtain a shape that makes all the difference between a winner and a dog is next to nothing. SWling Strategy
But consumer research, so valuable in many other areas, has long been notoriously unhelpful in forecasting styling success. Consumers' attitudes toward new styles simply cannot be taken at face value because of their inherent conservatism. So deep is the frustration this causes that a new design is often modified in a deadly compromise or carried forward by executive judgment alone. Two respected product geniuses, Lee Iacocca and Robert A. Lutz, reacted in opposite ways to the findings of development consumer research. Iacocca, former chairman of Chrysler and president of Ford before that, pulled back. Of the trend-setting 1965 Mustang, he said, All the buffs said, "What a car! It'll be the greatest car ever built." But when I looked at the guys saying it--the offbeat crowd, the real buffs--I said, "That's for sure not the car we want to build because it can't be a volume car, it's too far out." (.Jamieson and Martin 1964) In contrast, Lutz, former president of Chrysler and an alumnus of Ford, GM, and BMW, pushed ahead. Discussing research on the successful Dodge Ram style, he said, It's a case of passionate fans who can hardly wait to buy it being offset by complete rejecters. In a crowded market, it's those people with the 9s and 10s [in likeability ratings] you want--those whose enthusiasm will cause the product to be noted and sought after. (Lutz 1998) Both executives sensed that consumer samples needed to be sorted out by some factor, but did not know by what, and thus each resorted to intuition. One method of attempting to understand consumers' styling preferences is focus g r o u p s - very useful for uncovering issues and explaining findings. Focus groups enable company executives to get out and see and hear the buying public. They stimulate ideas. They reveal what opinions are held, though not how widely. They are popular with manufacturers because they are relatively cheap, entertaining, and, perhaps not least of all, susceptible to many interpretations. However, they are subject to many biases, lack preci47
Figure 1 The Life Cycle o f a Successful Auto Style Pvoch.tcl htlroduction
Among Late Adopters Early Ad.o..p.!.e.rg......... ] CF
Total M
~
..............~ ...... :
mar ~O,tes
•
~
¢,
~
~
~
~ ' ~ ~
Among ,/~ Late Adopters--
Among Total Market
Among Early Adopters
TIME
sion, and defy quantitative analysis. They can no more evaluate styles than counting cars in a parking lot can determine market share. Style research requires quantification, with large and representative samples of consumers and credible, viewable design alternatives. Central-location clinics are the auto industry's method of choice for this. Typically, full-size mock-ups and contemporary production vehicles are flown or trucked across country--sometimes overseas-to anonymous facilities, where hundreds of carefully screened prospects answer thousands of questions. (Increasingly, digitized images of car shapes are being used in place of full-size models.) No matter how the styles are shown, these fastidiously staged events are often classic cases of suboptimization. Everything about the process is perfect; it's the findings that are usually wrong. The reason clinical research can lead to seriously flawed decisions is that the average consumer's opinions are inherently conservative. Really innovative themes generally earn poor likeability ratings--the cardinal indicator of success. The more innovative a style is, the worse it fares. Consumers seem to be content with what they already have, implying no future for further advances in vehicle design. Simply put, it is impossible for a high-potential future style to do well among consumers--on average. Complicating matters, consumers encounter new styles at different rates across different market segments or geographic areas. This results in varied responses to the same design from clinic to clinic. In the 1980s, it was discovered that people living near ports of entry on the coasts, being more familiar with the rounded shapes of imported vehicles, were more willing to accept 48
aerodynamic style proposals than those inland. Such observations led to the enduring myth that Californians are automotive trendsetters. Though such geographic or segment differences may exist for a time, today they certainly have diminished, if not vanished, owing to mass communication and buyers' widespread familiarity with many styling concepts. Although geographic differences made understanding style preferences more complex at the time, they now provide the key to consumer innovators. It has come to be understood that it is precisely this familiarity effect that underlies the conservatism of the average consumer's attitude to futuristic designs. The problem, then, with consumer research is not that people won't say what they want. They readily cite lower prices, better quality, greater safety, and many other features. They can just as readily describe how satisfied they are with their car, and why. But when it comes to future styles, they just don't know. Opinions are shaped by familiarity, and the introduction of a new style is itself a conditioning event. Once a radically new design is launched, shocked reactions are often neutralized by legitimization when it appears on the street--a process that can happen very quickly.
The Life Cycle o f a Successful Automobile Style Before the introduction of a new style of vehicle, consumers exposed to it in a test environment such as a research clinic will almost invariably register a tepid or negative response, as depicted in F i g u r e 1. This new style has less appeal among the total market sample than contemporary and Business Horizons / September-October 2000
familiar alternatives, which constitute an alMmportant benchmark. But behind this average lies a disparity between the views of late adopters, w h o are shocked, and early adopters, w h o are delighted. The car is subsequently launched, advertised, bought, publicized, reviewed, and seen on the roads. Legitimization then emboldens late adopters, w h o cease to exclude it from consideration. As it matures, the now-familiar style enjoys high and stable appeal, a waning of enthusiasm a m o n g early adopters being offset by cresting acceptance a m o n g late adopters. Finally, the style's appeal declines as early adopters turn to newer styles and late adopters begin to follow them. The diffusion-of-innovation curve thus resembles an airfoil rather than a bell-curve.
Identifying the Early Adopters
only a slight correlation with education, income, and IQ. Nor do early adopters exhibit higherthan-average levels of taste, by any reasonable measure, taste being constant and style cyclical. What does characterize early adopters is a personality quality undetectable by conventional demographic or target-market analysis. Interviews clearly indicate that the propensity to adopt innovative styles in any product category is associated with an expressive self-confidence, with respect to that broad product category, that is distributed evenly across both sexes, all ages, and all demographic groups. Early adopters are, on the surface, no more distinguishable from late adopters than are Democrats from Republicans. As with all attitudes, it is a matter of degree. They are not a class at all, any more than tall people are. There is, however, no evidence of universal early adopters. Consumers who dare to wear the latest fashions may be timid in their choice of automobile; those w h o volubly discuss car styles may fall silent when it comes to apparel, art, or house design.
To understand the dynamics of style acceptance it is necessary to introduce the dimension of adoption propensity (AP): the quantifiable willingness of an individual consumer to adopt new and different styles in preference to the contemporary and familiar. AP is a matter of degree, A MODEL FOR FORECASTING STYLE varying from consumer to consumer. By relating ACCEPTANCE style appeal to consumers' AP over time, one can construct a model of the style acceptance cycle nce the diffusion-of-innovation curve that fits our research data as well as all observportrayed in Figure 1 is accepted, it able facts. What is more important, it can be put follows that pre-introduction data conto work for predictive purposes in the developtain the style's DNA from which its future may be ment phase of a style. predicted. F i g u r e 2 depicts acceptance profiles at Early adopters are identified by interviewing, based on the reasonable assumption Figure 2 that the more willing an indiStyle Acceptance Prof'des at Four Key Stages in the Style's Life Cycle vidual is to accept an unfamiliar style in an interview, the STAGE 1: PRE-INTRODUCTION more willing he will be to accept one in reality. Interviews may be person-to-person or by self-completion, /V structured or unstructured. It ~nd is not our purpose to preContempora~ and alll'¢¢s Style X Familia r Alwrnatives scribe an interviewing methAppeal odology; doing so is well within the competence of the % Consume~" AP average professional researcher. However, the goal is STAGE 3: DECLINE STAGE 4: DEMISE to assign a value to each consumer's comparative willingConternporary and and ness to accept new and differFamiliar Alternatives natives ent styles within the given product category. People with high APs for Style ~ autos do not necessarily have Appeal an above-average interest in the product, in technology, or ~----~ Consumers' AP in aesthetics, although these can be correlates. There is
O
'
Styling Strategy
49
four key stages in a successful style's life, using cross-sections of Figure 1. The curves represent continua that define the relationship between style appeal and AP for hundreds of test consumers. Each continuum connects the mean averages of style-appeal ratings at various consumer APs. It will have a rising curve if the style is perceived as new and different (more appealing to early adopters), and vice versa. Regardless of its shape, the curve may be high or low relative to the benchmark, with implications that will be explained later. The profiles illustrate how consumers' evaluations of the style would progress through its life cycle if it were repeatedly researched. Automotive styles are, in fact, frequently included in successive clinics for a period of years as referents. The light area represents approval of the style relative to the contemporary and familiar alternatives; the dark area represents disapproval. Success of the style is defined as the sum total of its superior appeal (light area) throughout the product's life. Pre-introduction: This stage shows only mediocre style appeal relative to the benchmark, perhaps causing sponsors' concern. However, a strong correlation of the appeal with AP, combined with the height of the curve, signifies high potential in this case. Both factors are important. If the curve is low, correlation of appeal with AP, of itself, will not result in a successful style. Mid-Life: Early adopters buy the car. Late adopters gain confidence and follow, lifting average acceptance and broadening the style's visibility. If the initial curve is steep, only extreme laggards will be left behind and only extreme leaders will have moved on, creating a large (light) area of style acceptance. Decline.. In time, loss of favor among early adopters initiates the style's decline. Average appeal is as high as in Stage One, but the angle
Figure 3 A Model for Predicting a New Style's Market Potential
of the curve is now reversed, meaning that the dark area will begin to overtake the light. Demise.. The end is in sight when even late adopters lose interest. One striking finding emerges. Unless one can separate a style's total-sample appeal into that of consumers with high and low APs, there is no way to tell the difference between a promising Stage 1, in which the light area is growing and the dark area shrinking, and a has-been Stage 3, in which the opposite applies. Large companies have made, and are still making, the mistake of relying on total-sample results. One passenger car was found to have a Stage 3 profile at the time of its launch! Sometimes, suspecting that more is needed, researchers will combine style research data with demographic targeting and image mapping. But these approaches, though often useful for marketing purposes, are of no real predictive value.
What Do We K n o w About the Validity o f This Theory? One might say that this theory's validity is selfevident: Early style adopters are those who show a willingness to adopt new styles. But there is abundant empirical evidence. A passenger car that appeared to be barely acceptable to the average consumer prior to introduction but that had the elements of success described above went on to become a U.S. style leader for many years. A luxury car showing a Stage 1 profile at launch had a Stage 3 profile five years later, near the end of its market life cycle. Contemporary cars at various stages in their life cycles have exhibited acceptance profiles consistent with their life stages. This theory of the rise and fall of successful automobile styles sheds light on the course of all mass-market styles. All successful styles have a cycle, beginning with a shock or market impact, after which they go on to win broad acceptance, become commonplace, and eventually die. There must always be early and late adopters if there are to be adopters at all. However, because there are no universal early adopters, prediction models should use AP in relation to the broad product category under study.
Predicting Market Acceptance
7
~ry and ernatives
50
Much cost, time, and effort go into the development of a new style for any product, and at some point the crucial decision must be made to adopt, modify, or discard it. A good acceptance profile allows this to be done with a high degree of confidence. We have spent the past several years analyzing the diffusion process described above, observing sales patterns, and formulating a logiBusiness Horizons / September-October2000
cal model for approving the production of a new style and forecasting its market acceptance. Based on Stage One pre-introduction data, the model answers the following questions: What is the style's market potential? What is its risk of rejection as too radical? What is its risk of rejection as too commonplace? How long a life can it expect to have? In F i g u r e 3, Point A measures style appeal among the top-scoring 50 percent of consumers in terms of AP, Point B measures style appeal among the total sample, and Point C measures style appeal among the lowest 50 percent in terms of AP. As already noted, the success of a style is defined as its appeal throughout the product's life, or by the sum of the light area throughout all stages. Knowing that the curve will inevitably hinge and rotate clockwise--late adopters following early ones and early adopters eventually losing interest--we can conclude the following: • The style'spotential is represented by A over the b e n c h m a r k . This is the style's appeal to early adopters, the consumers who are by definition eager to adopt new and different styles. If a style fails to appeal to them, it has no future. The more it appeals to them, the greater its ultimate potential. Because late adopters follow early, they will embrace it in the course of time. The more controversial and therefore sensational a high-potential style is, the longer it will take to reach its potential, crest, and decline. This is because later adopters have a large adjustment to make and take longer mulling over the choice, lengthening the product's life cycle. • Market impact is represented by the vertical distance between A a n d C. This gap measures how controversial a style is--the correlation between its appeal and consumers' APs. The greater the correlation, the greater the shock the style will create upon introduction. That shock will benefit the style if it has potential (a large A component) but hasten its demise if it does not. • Low innovation risk is represented by B over the b e n c h m a r k . Point B represents the style's appeal to the average consumer. The higher it is, the lower the risk that the style will be rejected as too radical. If B is equal to the contemporaryand-familiar benchmark, there is no innovation risk. If a style appeals very strongly to early adopters--but to only a few of them--this will mean it is considered unappealing by a large majority of consumers and will never reach critical mass. Its best hope for market success will be as a niche or fad product. • Life cycle length is represented by all three o f the above. The ideal style will make a big market impact upon introduction, achieve wide acceptance among the population, and remain in vogue for a long time. Styling Strategy
Some Common Misconceptions
Observations in the auto industry bear out classical assumptions about the importance of early adopters in style acceptance. They do, however, challenge some notions. • The adoption-of-innovation curve is not bell-shaped, but airfoil-shaped. Early adoption of a new style can be rapid, whereas decline takes much longer. The more successful a new style is, the more explosive will be its initial acceptance and the slower its demise. • There is no such thing as a category o f early adopters. Adoption propensity is a matter of degree, and high AP merely means higher than average. • There are early adopters f o r every styled product, even the most conservative. Because AP is relative, there will always be early adopters. A new style will always cause late adopters to hesitate. Somebody has to go first. • It isn't e n o u g h f o r s t y l e leaders to "like"a style, even wildly so. Early adopters must do so, not just in absolute terms, but relative to contemporary and familiar alternatives, and in such combination of numbers and enthusiasm that they outweigh the negative opinions of late adopters. • Early adopters alone tell us nothing about a style's potential. If early adopters like a style but late adopters like it too, it's just fine for today but has no future. Style appeal must be related to AP. A
11 manufacturers of styled products face the opposing risks of reaching too far with designs that repel buyers as ugly or being too conservative and falling behind the competition. While the role of executive judgment remains paramount because other factors must often be taken into account, the model of forecasting the acceptance of new mass-market styles described here greatly reduces the risk of extreme innovation in increasingly competitive markets. Wherever styled products are targeted on the mass market, this type of pre-market testing should become a normal function of product development. References
Robert A. Lutz, Guts (New York: Wiley, 1998). Edward Jamieson and Everett Martin, "Ford's Young One," Time, April 17, 1964, pp. 92-102. Tom Moulson, "New Dimension Helps Separate Hits, Misses," Automotive News, December 7, 1998, pp. 24J24K. Thomas S. Robertson, Innovative Behavior and Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971).
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1983). George B. Sproles, Fashion: Consumer Behavior Toward Dress (Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Company, 1979). George B. Sproles, "Analyzing Fashion Life Cycles: Principles and Perspectives," Journal of Marketing, Fall 1981, pp. 116-124. George B. Sproles and Leslie Davis Burns, Changing Appearances (New York: Fairchild Publications, 1994).
52
Tom Moulson is a marketing consultant in Newport Beach, California, and former marketing research executive with Nestl~ S.A. and Ford Motor Company. George Sprolesis a marketing consultant in Tucson, Arizona and former professor of retailing and consumer studies at the University of Arizona.
Business Horizons / September-October 2000
ne of the most challenging business problems is to predict or initiate trends in consumers' tastes for styled products. Styling is a dominant factor--indeed, often the determining factor--in major purchases ranging from automobiles and apparel to furniture and home products. Although style must combine with function, quality, price, and availability to produce a sale, its contribution is unique in that it is independent of cost. A successful design need cost no more than an unsuccessful one. Major corporations invest hundreds of millions of dollars in planning and conducting research on style decisions, and the very success or failure of many firms is determined by these decisions. How can manufacturers of styled products analyze and predict consumers' style preferences more effectively? We have conducted desk and field research on this question for a decade in the automotive, appliance, and major apparel industries. In an attempt to answer it, we will review the various theories of innovation diffusion, the role of consumers who may be the earliest adopters of new styles, and the research approaches used not always successfully--to identify those new styles most likely to succeed in the market. Based on insights from this research, we outline a model for facilitating style decisions that balance extreme innovation with the least market risk, in any industry.
O
among marketing practitioners holds that these consumers effectively initiate mass acceptance of new products, and that their refusal to buy and legitimize new products can lead to market failure. Thus, major manufacturers of styled products may literally bet the company on the choices of such consumers. Clearly, there is an urgent need to understand them and the market dynamics they set in motion. A useful beginning lies in what is known as "diffusion-of-innovation." A persuasive case can be made for paying close attention to consumer innovators and opinion leaders---collectively thought of as early adopters--as the initiators and propagators of new trends. The first question to answer, then, is: Who are these people? The answer is not so simple, but there are useful theories. As we shall see, leaders can come from many demographic groups, lifestyles, and psychographic profiles; there is no one-size-fits-all mold for early adopters.
The Class Theory o f Style Acceptance THEORIES ON THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIVE STYLES S
ince the 1960s, marketers have come to accept the view that there are consumer leaders who establish trends of acceptance for new consumer products. The academic literature offers general principles on how humans accept or reject what's new, with greater emphasis on styled consumer products appearing in marketing research. Hundreds of articles focus on consumer innovators, the earliest buyers of new products, and opinion leaders---consumers who personally influence others to buy. A consensus Styling Strategy
It is easy to visualize the upper classes and the wealthy as leaders of new trends and tastes. After all, it takes money to buy new styles of clothes, automobiles, and interior designs. The most established theories of change pinpoint taste-makers in the upper class and conspicuous consumption by not only the upper strata but also the nouveau riche. Continued acceptance is explained by the "trickle-down theory," which proposes that once the upper stratum adopts, the next lower emulates it, and then the next lower, until the style is accepted and purchased throughout all classes. The style is diluted, cheapened, mass-produced,
and sold at a growing discount through this process of diffusion. Eventually the upper strata, realizing the loss in prestige or exclusivity of the now old style, seek something new to replace it, and the cycle begins anew. The process may occur over a matter of months to several years with clothing styles; years to a decade with autos; and perhaps even longer for architecture and interior design. This entire notion of new product acceptance spreading from upper strata to lower, from wealthy to poor, or from celebrities and the publicity-prone to the anonymous man-in-thestreet appears evident in our daily lives and is one explanation of the mechanism of change that is not easily dismissed.
The Mass Theory of Style Acceptance Despite the intuitive appeal and daily examples of class influences, alternative explanations of how new styles are accepted among consumers can also be very persuasive. A mass-market approach to understanding new style acceptance suggests that knowledge of fashions and good taste today is widely distributed among the population--through all social strata, lifestyles, ages, and income groups. If knowledge and involvement with products are widespread (which is plausible, given the power of mass marketing, advertising, the media, specialized publications, our active lifestyles, and our change-oriented culture), then a "mass" mechanism of change influenced by this conglomerate of contemporary culture has to enter our thinking. The mass market theory of style suggests that there are early adopters in all sectors of the population and that mass manufacturing makes new styles widely available at prices most buyers can afford almost immediately. Certainly this instantaneous new style availability happens in apparel, where high-fashion designs are quickly knocked off in low-priced mass lines. Of course, manufacturers of some products cannot copy a hot style so quickly (such as in automobiles), but at least there is some form of mass-market acceptance happening across styled products. Whatever the industry, the mass-market approach suggests that new styles will be adopted immediately in each class, social group, and lifestyle. This theory then goes on to explain that adoption of the new style happens within social classes or groups (not trickling down, as in class approaches), as early adopters go on to influence 46
friends, neighbors, and acquaintances in their immediate social networks. Acceptance then becomes more a p h e n o m e n o n of the mass market and manufacturing process, rather than a process whereby a style is copied from upper classes and the wealthy.
The D6class6 Theory of Style Acceptance Contrasting these two class-related theories of change is what can be called a declasse or subcultural theory of leadership. In today's societal makeup, many subcultures exist, each with special cultural uniqueness, including influences on new styles. Witness these subcultures and their influences: youths (apparel fashions, autos), African-Americans (apparel, textiles), homosexuals (fashion, interior design), American Indians (jewelry, woven products, rugs). These are not stereotypes but groups having legitimate style influences stemming from cultural heritage and artistic talents. They do not influence trends because of their prestige or wealth; they simply have a cultural ideal or novel art that attracts attention from others. When manufacturers recognize the growing popularity of a subcultural style, they copy it, spreading it to the larger population. This diffusion likely takes place by the class or mass processes, thus merging this theory with the classbased theories.
The Collective Theory of Style Acceptance This concept of new style acceptance is derived from the sociological field of collective behavior, which seeks to explain human behavior as large collective acts. Applied to consumer behavior, the theory suggests that new trends are effectively leaderless in the sense that no individual group or market segment is obviously the first adopter or trendsetter. Rather, there is a long-running evolutionary trend in design whereby small changes happen over a period of time in a fixed direction, regardless of consumer tastes. Skirt lengths get shorter or longer by fractions year by year; suit lapels slowly evolve in width; cars become longer, shorter, wider, or rounder over a period of years. There is a set direction of historical evolution in design, often apparent in historical texts on many designed products, and once a trend has been boarded it will likely play out inexorably over time. This may happen regardless of consumers' changing tastes. Thus, although the trend is "leaderless," certain consumers nevertheless step in front of the already moving trend, become early adopters (probably because they are product-involved, change-conscious, or psychologically motivated), and become leaders of a sort. Masses of consumers soon follow, influenced by Business Horizons / September-October 2000
their contact with the surrounding society and the increasing visibility of the style. W h i c h T h e o r y to Accept? All these theories postulate consumer leaders, and all are credible, but how can any of them be validated? More to the point, how can they actually help businesses make the right style decisions? Much research has been conducted in the past half-century--largely unsuccessfully--in an attempt to identify lead consumers in terms of demographics, lifestyle, or psychographics. It may not be surprising that the first answers have begun to emerge in the automotive industry, because nowhere is it more important to understand style acceptance, and nowhere has so much money and effort been expended in an attempt to do so. NEW STYLE ACCEPTANCE IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY ew vehicle design is a complex, lengthy, and expensive process. Designs evolve partly as a result of functional improvements made possible by technology, allowing cars to be more space-efficient, fuel-efficient, and safe. Smaller engines allow the hood to be lower, improving driver visibility; better cooling systems dispense with conventional grilles; halogen lights permit smaller headlamps. Government regulations have an impact, from bumper design to vehicle proportions. Form follows function, and the shapes of cars inevitably undergo change. These factors set up long-term trends akin to the Collective Theory, incremental and directional. Manufacturers exploit these functional trends with discretionary style designs in the pursuit of competitive advantage. In doing so, they face two opposite risks: • not reaching far enough with the new style so that it is considered conservative or uninteresting; and • reaching too far and having the design be perceived as ugly rather than stunningly new and different. Given the lengthy in-market life required to amortize a vehicle program's capital cost, even a small error in this decision can mean major loss of market share and revenue, with long-term pressure on corporate finances and stock prices.
N
The Role o f C o n s u m e r Research in Auto Style D e v e l o p m e n t With an all-new vehicle design costing upwards of $2 billion, a million or so on consumer research to obtain a shape that makes all the difference between a winner and a dog is next to nothing. SWling Strategy
But consumer research, so valuable in many other areas, has long been notoriously unhelpful in forecasting styling success. Consumers' attitudes toward new styles simply cannot be taken at face value because of their inherent conservatism. So deep is the frustration this causes that a new design is often modified in a deadly compromise or carried forward by executive judgment alone. Two respected product geniuses, Lee Iacocca and Robert A. Lutz, reacted in opposite ways to the findings of development consumer research. Iacocca, former chairman of Chrysler and president of Ford before that, pulled back. Of the trend-setting 1965 Mustang, he said, All the buffs said, "What a car! It'll be the greatest car ever built." But when I looked at the guys saying it--the offbeat crowd, the real buffs--I said, "That's for sure not the car we want to build because it can't be a volume car, it's too far out." (.Jamieson and Martin 1964) In contrast, Lutz, former president of Chrysler and an alumnus of Ford, GM, and BMW, pushed ahead. Discussing research on the successful Dodge Ram style, he said, It's a case of passionate fans who can hardly wait to buy it being offset by complete rejecters. In a crowded market, it's those people with the 9s and 10s [in likeability ratings] you want--those whose enthusiasm will cause the product to be noted and sought after. (Lutz 1998) Both executives sensed that consumer samples needed to be sorted out by some factor, but did not know by what, and thus each resorted to intuition. One method of attempting to understand consumers' styling preferences is focus g r o u p s - very useful for uncovering issues and explaining findings. Focus groups enable company executives to get out and see and hear the buying public. They stimulate ideas. They reveal what opinions are held, though not how widely. They are popular with manufacturers because they are relatively cheap, entertaining, and, perhaps not least of all, susceptible to many interpretations. However, they are subject to many biases, lack preci47
Figure 1 The Life Cycle o f a Successful Auto Style Pvoch.tcl htlroduction
Among Late Adopters Early Ad.o..p.!.e.rg......... ] CF
Total M
~
..............~ ...... :
mar ~O,tes
•
~
¢,
~
~
~
~ ' ~ ~
Among ,/~ Late Adopters--
Among Total Market
Among Early Adopters
TIME
sion, and defy quantitative analysis. They can no more evaluate styles than counting cars in a parking lot can determine market share. Style research requires quantification, with large and representative samples of consumers and credible, viewable design alternatives. Central-location clinics are the auto industry's method of choice for this. Typically, full-size mock-ups and contemporary production vehicles are flown or trucked across country--sometimes overseas-to anonymous facilities, where hundreds of carefully screened prospects answer thousands of questions. (Increasingly, digitized images of car shapes are being used in place of full-size models.) No matter how the styles are shown, these fastidiously staged events are often classic cases of suboptimization. Everything about the process is perfect; it's the findings that are usually wrong. The reason clinical research can lead to seriously flawed decisions is that the average consumer's opinions are inherently conservative. Really innovative themes generally earn poor likeability ratings--the cardinal indicator of success. The more innovative a style is, the worse it fares. Consumers seem to be content with what they already have, implying no future for further advances in vehicle design. Simply put, it is impossible for a high-potential future style to do well among consumers--on average. Complicating matters, consumers encounter new styles at different rates across different market segments or geographic areas. This results in varied responses to the same design from clinic to clinic. In the 1980s, it was discovered that people living near ports of entry on the coasts, being more familiar with the rounded shapes of imported vehicles, were more willing to accept 48
aerodynamic style proposals than those inland. Such observations led to the enduring myth that Californians are automotive trendsetters. Though such geographic or segment differences may exist for a time, today they certainly have diminished, if not vanished, owing to mass communication and buyers' widespread familiarity with many styling concepts. Although geographic differences made understanding style preferences more complex at the time, they now provide the key to consumer innovators. It has come to be understood that it is precisely this familiarity effect that underlies the conservatism of the average consumer's attitude to futuristic designs. The problem, then, with consumer research is not that people won't say what they want. They readily cite lower prices, better quality, greater safety, and many other features. They can just as readily describe how satisfied they are with their car, and why. But when it comes to future styles, they just don't know. Opinions are shaped by familiarity, and the introduction of a new style is itself a conditioning event. Once a radically new design is launched, shocked reactions are often neutralized by legitimization when it appears on the street--a process that can happen very quickly.
The Life Cycle o f a Successful Automobile Style Before the introduction of a new style of vehicle, consumers exposed to it in a test environment such as a research clinic will almost invariably register a tepid or negative response, as depicted in F i g u r e 1. This new style has less appeal among the total market sample than contemporary and Business Horizons / September-October 2000
familiar alternatives, which constitute an alMmportant benchmark. But behind this average lies a disparity between the views of late adopters, w h o are shocked, and early adopters, w h o are delighted. The car is subsequently launched, advertised, bought, publicized, reviewed, and seen on the roads. Legitimization then emboldens late adopters, w h o cease to exclude it from consideration. As it matures, the now-familiar style enjoys high and stable appeal, a waning of enthusiasm a m o n g early adopters being offset by cresting acceptance a m o n g late adopters. Finally, the style's appeal declines as early adopters turn to newer styles and late adopters begin to follow them. The diffusion-of-innovation curve thus resembles an airfoil rather than a bell-curve.
Identifying the Early Adopters
only a slight correlation with education, income, and IQ. Nor do early adopters exhibit higherthan-average levels of taste, by any reasonable measure, taste being constant and style cyclical. What does characterize early adopters is a personality quality undetectable by conventional demographic or target-market analysis. Interviews clearly indicate that the propensity to adopt innovative styles in any product category is associated with an expressive self-confidence, with respect to that broad product category, that is distributed evenly across both sexes, all ages, and all demographic groups. Early adopters are, on the surface, no more distinguishable from late adopters than are Democrats from Republicans. As with all attitudes, it is a matter of degree. They are not a class at all, any more than tall people are. There is, however, no evidence of universal early adopters. Consumers who dare to wear the latest fashions may be timid in their choice of automobile; those w h o volubly discuss car styles may fall silent when it comes to apparel, art, or house design.
To understand the dynamics of style acceptance it is necessary to introduce the dimension of adoption propensity (AP): the quantifiable willingness of an individual consumer to adopt new and different styles in preference to the contemporary and familiar. AP is a matter of degree, A MODEL FOR FORECASTING STYLE varying from consumer to consumer. By relating ACCEPTANCE style appeal to consumers' AP over time, one can construct a model of the style acceptance cycle nce the diffusion-of-innovation curve that fits our research data as well as all observportrayed in Figure 1 is accepted, it able facts. What is more important, it can be put follows that pre-introduction data conto work for predictive purposes in the developtain the style's DNA from which its future may be ment phase of a style. predicted. F i g u r e 2 depicts acceptance profiles at Early adopters are identified by interviewing, based on the reasonable assumption Figure 2 that the more willing an indiStyle Acceptance Prof'des at Four Key Stages in the Style's Life Cycle vidual is to accept an unfamiliar style in an interview, the STAGE 1: PRE-INTRODUCTION more willing he will be to accept one in reality. Interviews may be person-to-person or by self-completion, /V structured or unstructured. It ~nd is not our purpose to preContempora~ and alll'¢¢s Style X Familia r Alwrnatives scribe an interviewing methAppeal odology; doing so is well within the competence of the % Consume~" AP average professional researcher. However, the goal is STAGE 3: DECLINE STAGE 4: DEMISE to assign a value to each consumer's comparative willingConternporary and and ness to accept new and differFamiliar Alternatives natives ent styles within the given product category. People with high APs for Style ~ autos do not necessarily have Appeal an above-average interest in the product, in technology, or ~----~ Consumers' AP in aesthetics, although these can be correlates. There is
O
'
Styling Strategy
49
four key stages in a successful style's life, using cross-sections of Figure 1. The curves represent continua that define the relationship between style appeal and AP for hundreds of test consumers. Each continuum connects the mean averages of style-appeal ratings at various consumer APs. It will have a rising curve if the style is perceived as new and different (more appealing to early adopters), and vice versa. Regardless of its shape, the curve may be high or low relative to the benchmark, with implications that will be explained later. The profiles illustrate how consumers' evaluations of the style would progress through its life cycle if it were repeatedly researched. Automotive styles are, in fact, frequently included in successive clinics for a period of years as referents. The light area represents approval of the style relative to the contemporary and familiar alternatives; the dark area represents disapproval. Success of the style is defined as the sum total of its superior appeal (light area) throughout the product's life. Pre-introduction: This stage shows only mediocre style appeal relative to the benchmark, perhaps causing sponsors' concern. However, a strong correlation of the appeal with AP, combined with the height of the curve, signifies high potential in this case. Both factors are important. If the curve is low, correlation of appeal with AP, of itself, will not result in a successful style. Mid-Life: Early adopters buy the car. Late adopters gain confidence and follow, lifting average acceptance and broadening the style's visibility. If the initial curve is steep, only extreme laggards will be left behind and only extreme leaders will have moved on, creating a large (light) area of style acceptance. Decline.. In time, loss of favor among early adopters initiates the style's decline. Average appeal is as high as in Stage One, but the angle
Figure 3 A Model for Predicting a New Style's Market Potential
of the curve is now reversed, meaning that the dark area will begin to overtake the light. Demise.. The end is in sight when even late adopters lose interest. One striking finding emerges. Unless one can separate a style's total-sample appeal into that of consumers with high and low APs, there is no way to tell the difference between a promising Stage 1, in which the light area is growing and the dark area shrinking, and a has-been Stage 3, in which the opposite applies. Large companies have made, and are still making, the mistake of relying on total-sample results. One passenger car was found to have a Stage 3 profile at the time of its launch! Sometimes, suspecting that more is needed, researchers will combine style research data with demographic targeting and image mapping. But these approaches, though often useful for marketing purposes, are of no real predictive value.
What Do We K n o w About the Validity o f This Theory? One might say that this theory's validity is selfevident: Early style adopters are those who show a willingness to adopt new styles. But there is abundant empirical evidence. A passenger car that appeared to be barely acceptable to the average consumer prior to introduction but that had the elements of success described above went on to become a U.S. style leader for many years. A luxury car showing a Stage 1 profile at launch had a Stage 3 profile five years later, near the end of its market life cycle. Contemporary cars at various stages in their life cycles have exhibited acceptance profiles consistent with their life stages. This theory of the rise and fall of successful automobile styles sheds light on the course of all mass-market styles. All successful styles have a cycle, beginning with a shock or market impact, after which they go on to win broad acceptance, become commonplace, and eventually die. There must always be early and late adopters if there are to be adopters at all. However, because there are no universal early adopters, prediction models should use AP in relation to the broad product category under study.
Predicting Market Acceptance
7
~ry and ernatives
50
Much cost, time, and effort go into the development of a new style for any product, and at some point the crucial decision must be made to adopt, modify, or discard it. A good acceptance profile allows this to be done with a high degree of confidence. We have spent the past several years analyzing the diffusion process described above, observing sales patterns, and formulating a logiBusiness Horizons / September-October2000
cal model for approving the production of a new style and forecasting its market acceptance. Based on Stage One pre-introduction data, the model answers the following questions: What is the style's market potential? What is its risk of rejection as too radical? What is its risk of rejection as too commonplace? How long a life can it expect to have? In F i g u r e 3, Point A measures style appeal among the top-scoring 50 percent of consumers in terms of AP, Point B measures style appeal among the total sample, and Point C measures style appeal among the lowest 50 percent in terms of AP. As already noted, the success of a style is defined as its appeal throughout the product's life, or by the sum of the light area throughout all stages. Knowing that the curve will inevitably hinge and rotate clockwise--late adopters following early ones and early adopters eventually losing interest--we can conclude the following: • The style'spotential is represented by A over the b e n c h m a r k . This is the style's appeal to early adopters, the consumers who are by definition eager to adopt new and different styles. If a style fails to appeal to them, it has no future. The more it appeals to them, the greater its ultimate potential. Because late adopters follow early, they will embrace it in the course of time. The more controversial and therefore sensational a high-potential style is, the longer it will take to reach its potential, crest, and decline. This is because later adopters have a large adjustment to make and take longer mulling over the choice, lengthening the product's life cycle. • Market impact is represented by the vertical distance between A a n d C. This gap measures how controversial a style is--the correlation between its appeal and consumers' APs. The greater the correlation, the greater the shock the style will create upon introduction. That shock will benefit the style if it has potential (a large A component) but hasten its demise if it does not. • Low innovation risk is represented by B over the b e n c h m a r k . Point B represents the style's appeal to the average consumer. The higher it is, the lower the risk that the style will be rejected as too radical. If B is equal to the contemporaryand-familiar benchmark, there is no innovation risk. If a style appeals very strongly to early adopters--but to only a few of them--this will mean it is considered unappealing by a large majority of consumers and will never reach critical mass. Its best hope for market success will be as a niche or fad product. • Life cycle length is represented by all three o f the above. The ideal style will make a big market impact upon introduction, achieve wide acceptance among the population, and remain in vogue for a long time. Styling Strategy
Some Common Misconceptions
Observations in the auto industry bear out classical assumptions about the importance of early adopters in style acceptance. They do, however, challenge some notions. • The adoption-of-innovation curve is not bell-shaped, but airfoil-shaped. Early adoption of a new style can be rapid, whereas decline takes much longer. The more successful a new style is, the more explosive will be its initial acceptance and the slower its demise. • There is no such thing as a category o f early adopters. Adoption propensity is a matter of degree, and high AP merely means higher than average. • There are early adopters f o r every styled product, even the most conservative. Because AP is relative, there will always be early adopters. A new style will always cause late adopters to hesitate. Somebody has to go first. • It isn't e n o u g h f o r s t y l e leaders to "like"a style, even wildly so. Early adopters must do so, not just in absolute terms, but relative to contemporary and familiar alternatives, and in such combination of numbers and enthusiasm that they outweigh the negative opinions of late adopters. • Early adopters alone tell us nothing about a style's potential. If early adopters like a style but late adopters like it too, it's just fine for today but has no future. Style appeal must be related to AP. A
11 manufacturers of styled products face the opposing risks of reaching too far with designs that repel buyers as ugly or being too conservative and falling behind the competition. While the role of executive judgment remains paramount because other factors must often be taken into account, the model of forecasting the acceptance of new mass-market styles described here greatly reduces the risk of extreme innovation in increasingly competitive markets. Wherever styled products are targeted on the mass market, this type of pre-market testing should become a normal function of product development. References
Robert A. Lutz, Guts (New York: Wiley, 1998). Edward Jamieson and Everett Martin, "Ford's Young One," Time, April 17, 1964, pp. 92-102. Tom Moulson, "New Dimension Helps Separate Hits, Misses," Automotive News, December 7, 1998, pp. 24J24K. Thomas S. Robertson, Innovative Behavior and Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971).
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1983). George B. Sproles, Fashion: Consumer Behavior Toward Dress (Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Company, 1979). George B. Sproles, "Analyzing Fashion Life Cycles: Principles and Perspectives," Journal of Marketing, Fall 1981, pp. 116-124. George B. Sproles and Leslie Davis Burns, Changing Appearances (New York: Fairchild Publications, 1994).
52
Tom Moulson is a marketing consultant in Newport Beach, California, and former marketing research executive with Nestl~ S.A. and Ford Motor Company. George Sprolesis a marketing consultant in Tucson, Arizona and former professor of retailing and consumer studies at the University of Arizona.
Business Horizons / September-October 2000