Follower Tendency

The general need to either conform to the in-group (follower) or diverge from the out-group (trendsetter) is a fixed personality characteristic that strongly affects purchase decisions. Trendsetters with a high need for differentiation focus on their own uniqueness. In particular, when trendsetters consider the large mass market the out-group, it leads them to more unconventional, innovative choices and the avoidance of commonly purchased brands and products. In contrast to these trendsetters, followers rely on their social environment and make purchases that reflect their need to conform to their environment. Followers define the mass market as their in-group and will not risk social acceptance by buying a very new and different product.

Underestimating the follower tendency is one reason why Google Glass failed. NPD professionals often underestimate the tendency of their target audience to conform to subjective social standards. Google Glass just differed too much from the norm. The follower tendency is especially present among female and among younger consumers.

When facing “How I am” constraints, managers, and marketers have to make sure that the innovation fits consumers' self-identity. Individuals with a follower tendency want to be part of the in-group, and they make conventional mass product choices. Therefore, companies addressing customers with a follower tendency should adhere to four rules.

1. Avoid emphasizing uniqueness. Companies should develop one recognizable product version that attracts a large in-group. Ideally, the innovation shares the look and feel of previous versions or substitutes to enable consumers to continue to conform to their in-group.
2. Innovations should make clear to what in-group the consumer is conforming. Consumers put more weight on information about identity when they are reminded about it. For example, Motorola released the smartwatch Moto 360 that has a round shape and looks like a traditional watch. Wearing a watch is an important part of identity expression. As many consumers want to remain in their in-group as owners of traditional watches, they tend to buy a Motorola rather than a nontraditional-looking squared smartwatch such as the Apple Watch. Similarly, for the new PlayStation 4, Sony uses the slogan “This Is for the Players,” which clearly defines the in-group as players.
3. New products should communicate popularity and the fact that many other consumers have already adopted the innovation (e.g. best-sellers). If consumers perceive the innovation and the company as an element of their in-group, they will also act in favor of it and defend it.
4. Companies should define the boundaries of the out-group. Apple, for example, manages the differentiation between in-group and out-group well. In 2006, Apple launched the “Get a Mac” campaign. In the campaign, a young and hip spokesman claimed “I'm a Mac,” while a middle-aged formal spokesman represented his opponent, the PC. In a dispute that followed, the Mac compared its features and capabilities against the worse-performing PC. By making the Mac identity salient and establishing a sense of unity, consumers identified with the young and hip in-group. Apple is so successful at establishing the “we are what we buy” connection that people even place Apple stickers on other products (e.g. cars) to express their belonging to the Apple in-group.

Prevention Focus

All individuals seek to obtain gains and to avoid losses. However, individuals differ in their approach to these goals. Some strive for positive outcomes more and focus on their aspirations and accomplishments (promotion focus), whereas others seek to avoid negative outcomes by focusing on responsibilities and safety issues (prevention focus) (Wang and Lee 2006). For example, some people work out to become the fastest and fittest (i.e. promotion focus), whereas others work out to avoid gaining weight (i.e. prevention focus). Prevention-focused consumers are less likely to purchase the newest high-tech products because they have more salient performance concerns about new technologies. Research shows that older individuals are especially subject to a strong prevention focus. This might explain why e-cigarette use is higher among young consumers. E-cigarettes are a new technology, and the risks and benefits are uncertain. Additionally, advertisements by large companies are dominantly promotion-focused (e.g. “Take Back Your Freedom” from blu brand e-cigarettes), which mainly attract youths. Messages are more successful when they fit the consumer's goal orientation. For example, a promotion-focused message would address social approval (e.g. gaining acknowledgment through the use of innovative technologies), while a prevention-focused message would focus on the fact that continuing to smoke traditionally would result in social disapproval (e.g. losing friends).

Consumers with a prevention focus prefer the status quo; they are safety-oriented and frequently have performance concerns. Companies should consider these needs by following four rules:

1. Prevention-focused consumers prefer utility-oriented products to pleasure-oriented products.

   Utilitarian products offer functional benefits and solve problems. In contrast, hedonic products are meant to create pleasure and entertainment. When facing prevention-focused consumers, companies should focus on developing utilitarian products.

2. Prevention-focused consumers are interested in feasibility and concrete, risk-minimizing features instead of abstract emotional value. Hence, companies should emphasize functional features instead of design or social aspects. For example, in the case of electric cars, Tesla tried to address consumer concerns and introduced a resale warranty for its electric cars. Tesla ensures customers who buy the Model S a resale value after three years that is higher than any sedans from companies such as BMW or Jaguar. Similarly, several diesel car manufacturers are trying to address the risk that European cities might ban diesel cars due to their emissions by offering a three-year money-back guarantee.
3. The utilitarian safety focus is also important for marketing. Aspects that are compatible with the goals of consumers are more convincing and relevant to them and should be communicated. For example, the automobile producer Volkswagen used safety-oriented slogans such as “You cannot have your eyes everywhere. But your car can” in Germany to promote a new pedestrian detection system. In addition, the controversial electronic cigarette might cause the same risks as traditional cigarettes, and e-cigarette manufacturers sometimes try to address these consumer concerns. For example, the e-cigarette company Steamz uses the following slogan to address the safety orientation of consumers: “If you can't stop smoking, cancer will. But, smoke with Steamz E Cigarette, cancer will not.”
4. A final marketing strategy is to describe the product as already established (“More than 10 000 consumers have relied for years on the product.”) in order to reduce uncertainties and the perception of risks.

Attribute Association

Another personality trait determines if consumers recognize objectively independent product attributes as being independent or related. Examples where one product attribute influences the perception of another are found across a variety of product categories. Examples include: high price means high quality; a medicine's bad taste implies that it is effective; organic products have fewer calories; healthier food is less tasty. In general, attribute association is useful to consumers because consumers rarely have complete information. Attribute associations require low cognitive effort but are also rarely based on scientific truth. However, a consumer's personality determines the degree of belief in such attribute associations. In some cases, the associations can be so strong that people even rely on them when presented with objective, contrary information.

Consumers' attribute association can directly affect the success of new products. For example, a strong belief in the price-quality relationship or in bargain hunting as a low-status behavior prevents many consumers from buying at discounters such as Walmart. The webpage “People at Walmart” shows consumers with embarrassing clothes at Walmart and strengthens the negative image of the store. Lidl and Target are examples of European and US discounters that are aware of the negative influence of such beliefs. They offer a “Deluxe” line (Lidl) and a high-end meat line “Sutton & Dodge” (Target) to suggest the higher quality and status of their products. Strong beliefs regarding attribute associations are a challenge not only to innovative firms but also to general well-being. For example, the association of natural and traditional as being good and artificial as being bad can lead to the rejection of new vaccinations or to the reliance on natural healing when conventional medicine would be more effective. In general, researchers believe that attribute association develops in childhood. Therefore, adolescents are less likely to held traditional attribute associations than adults.

If well understood by companies, attribute associations can benefit new products. Companies can use the following four strategies.

1. Activate the association and subsequently promote the associated product attribute. For example, in one research study where participants were primed with quality (“Remember that price is a first indicator of quality”), the subsequent product evaluation was much more positive when the product was described as having a high versus a low price (Deval et al., 2013). Hence, when launching high-priced innovations, priming activates the price-quality relationship and higher quality becomes a justifiable reason for a higher price.
2. Address attribute associations during development, and adjust products to the “positive” bias dimension. For example, a common attribute association is that whatever is unhealthy tastes good and whatever is healthy does not. The medicine manufacturer Buckley successfully relies on this common belief and offers a bad-tasting cough mixture accompanied with slogans such as “It tastes awful. And it works,” “People swear by it. And at it,” or “Wait until your cold gets a taste of this.” These slogans all rely on the belief that without pain there is no gain and that an effective medicine has to taste awful.
3. Avoid consumers with a high reliance on attribute association. Consumers with high knowledge of a product category are less likely to rely on attribute association mechanism because they have other criteria and rules to evaluate a product. If possible, companies should develop innovations in a product category where the target consumer group is high in expertise and a great deal of information is available and used.
4. Marketers can try to dissolve the attribute association and ask consumers to consider the opposite. For example, consumers have the naive belief that healthy food has fewer calories. In one study, consumers estimated that sandwiches from Subway (i.e. the healthy provider) had up to 35% fewer calories than sandwiches from McDonald's (i.e. the unhealthy provider). However, when researchers asked consumers to consider the opposite (i.e. consumers should question the validity of the health claim or consider evidence inconsistent with the health claim), the attribute association was eliminated. Marketers can launch educational campaigns that critically question claims and common beliefs (Chandon and Wansink, 2007).

Pigeonhole Thinking

A disposition to pigeonhole thinking instead of systematic information processing can constrain consumers in buying new products. Although our preferences differ, and we might enjoy acquiring information actively in one domain (e.g. searching for a bargain flight for our next holiday) but hate it in another (e.g. searching for tax law paragraphs in order to maximize a tax return), individuals differ by disposition in how thoroughly they search for and process information in general. Individuals who enjoy effortful cognitive activities seek out more information and process the information more systematically. They are more open and curious about new information and innovations. Others have a lower need for systematic thinking and rely on pigeonhole thinking. Pigeonhole thinkers use simple decision rules that make judgments faster and more efficiently as they involve less effortful in-depth thinking (e.g. buying the familiar brand instead of an unknown brand).

Financial products, for example, are often too complex for consumers and financial investment innovations often fail. The broker platform Ayondo Markets uses consumers' lack of systematic information processing in its favor. Ayondo Markets offers social trading where customers simply follow selected top traders, and the investment transactions are copied automatically to the customers' accounts. In addition, the consumer heuristic to buy known brands often comes into play when companies engage in rebranding. When a well-known company changes its name and logos, it risks losing brand awareness. For instance, this was the case when the US retailer Overstock.com attempted to rename its brand O.co. Consumers could hardly identify the brand, and Overstock.com returned to its old name only a few months later. Research shows that a low need for cognition is related to a lower educational level. In addition, men tend to be more likely to engage in pigeonhole thinking than women.

Consumers prone to pigeonhole thinking rely on simple shortcuts, and companies face the risk that these consumers do not thoroughly understand the innovation's benefits. However, individuals who form an attitude on the basis of pigeonhole thinking are easier to influence in favor of the innovation than individuals with a well-grounded attitude. Companies should follow three rules.

1. Clearly communicate the benefit of an innovation in very few key points. Easy-to-capture (nonverbal) communication measures such as visual or audio appeals are helpful.
2. Use counterintuitive messages to capture the attention of pigeonhole thinkers. Interesting inconsistent information can stimulate thinking because people stop trusting their heuristics when something is completely new. Pepsi succeeded in applying this strategy when it started the “Pepsi Challenge” in the 1970s. The Pepsi Challenge aimed to take over some market share of Coca-Cola. In a blind test, consumers compared Pepsi and Coke and, surprisingly, consumers preferred Pepsi to Coca-Cola. Pepsi aggressively marketed these inconsistent results, and although Pepsi does not beat Coca-Cola in market share, it is now the second largest carbonated soft drink producer.
3. Design innovations in a way that usage is easy and does not involve high cognitive effort, because pigeonhole thinkers do not consider usage instructions thoroughly. For example, the cookbook Picture Cook: See. Make. Eat. by Katie Shelly uses drawings instead of written information to explain how the different ingredients are mixed. Similarly, the media company BuzzFeed launched the video series “Tasty” for social media channels, which uses time-lapse short films to show how food is prepared.

Clarity Seeking

Clarity seeking (i.e. the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as undesirable) hinders the purchase of innovations because innovations are always accompanied by ambiguity. Whereas pigeonhole thinking can impede innovation awareness, clarity seeking can hinder the development of positive attitudes to new products. Ambiguous situations are unfamiliar, complex, and sometimes contradictory. For example, a traditional mobile phone user who is confronted with a smartphone for the first time might experience the situation as highly ambiguous because he or she is not familiar with how it operates, and therefore it is unclear whether the phone fulfills the job it is supposed to. In this case, clarity-seeking customers would probably refrain from purchasing the innovation. When individuals have a high clarity-seeking tendency, they try to avoid everything that is unfamiliar, more complex, and contradictory, leading them to reject most innovations.

Research shows some initial evidence that men are more clarity seeking than women. Individuals want to solve ambiguity quickly, and, therefore, they rely on information that is quickly accessible without studying the innovation in detail. Hence, companies should not leave consumers with unresolved ambiguity. For example, in 2000, Heinz launched the EZ Squirt bottles, which included ketchup in different colors, such as purple, blue, or green. The ketchup bottles were a nice gimmick for children and were an initial success. However, in the long term, parents could not get comfortable with nonred ketchup and the product was withdrawn from the market in 2006.

The best strategy for firms in dealing with clarity-seeking customers is to reduce the novelty perception of the innovation.

1. Make sure that the innovation fulfills the expectations consumers have toward the product with regard to its look and feel as well as functionality. When Amazon launched the Kindle e-book reader in 2007, many other e-book readers had already failed on the market. One reason for the success of the Kindle reader is that, in contrast to previous e-book readers, it fulfills all expectations of the product category of books. The Amazon Kindle mimics book letters with a special E Ink technology, but most important, it is a stand-alone device that, in contrast to its predecessors, does not need a computer connection.
2. Try to avoid implementing features of the innovation that are in strong contrast to the expected product category norms. Since the color brown is a major characteristic of cola and red is a major characteristic of ketchup, both Crystal Pepsi (the transparent cola) and Heinz EZ Squirt (the colorful ketchup) did not fulfill category norms. When innovations are incongruent, consumers often do not understand their benefits, as they cannot rely on existing product category knowledge.
3. Utilize a benefit rationale to help consumers understand the innovation's reason for being. For example, instead of communicating uniqueness and modernity, which is no benefit per se, Crystal Pepsi could have communicated that the transparent cola does not have artificial color additives. Apple is a company that deliberately introduces radical innovations but rarely fails. For example, Apple decided to remove the headphone jacks from the new iPhone 7. However, consumers accept these changes because Apple provides them with a vision of progress: The removal paves the way for the future of wireless Bluetooth earphones.

Low Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is the individual's assessment of his or her ability to perform a task. Consumers who have low self-efficacy have less confidence in their ability to use an innovation. If consumers think they do not have the ability to handle the change and learning processes associated with an innovation, they will continue using the alternative they can already operate or choose an alternative that seems less difficult. Although empirical evidence is not always clear, men seem to have higher self-efficacy than women. In addition, self-efficacy usually increases with age (up to a certain point) and is higher for people with a higher education. Hence, female consumers as well as very young or very old consumers generally have lower self-efficacy and should be considered in particular when designing and marketing complex products.

Low user self-efficacy was the reason Microsoft launched the operating system Microsoft Bob in 1995. Microsoft Bob was designed to have an easier interface than the Windows 95 operating system. Instead of a desktop, the user navigates in a room where known objects correspond to programs (e.g. a wall calendar to a calendar program and pen and paper to a word processor program). However, Microsoft Bob was not more intuitive for users but rather confusing. For example, the virtual room also contained several decorative items that lacked function. Although the idea of physical analogies was great, the actual realization to address consumers low in self-efficacy failed.

Low self-efficacy discourages consumers from purchasing and using innovations. Companies can address low self-efficacy in four ways.

1. Undertake extensive usability testing throughout the product development process to identify issues that decrease the ease of use of products and might lead customers to feel incapable of using the product. Usability is so important that specific consulting agencies, such as Designaffairs, specialize in human-machine interfaces and advise companies on how to design new products so that the user experience is particularly smooth and pleasant.
2. Aid consumers in imagining how they would use the innovation with a mental simulation of the usage process. This is the easiest way to boost self-efficacy. Very new products require learning, as usage differs from previous products. For example, companies can show customers how to use their innovation easily in advertisements. The website builder Wix.com shows within seconds how easy it is to create one's own website with only a few clicks by using templates, drag-and-drop features, and customizations without any HTML codes.
3. Strengthen consumers' confidence in their abilities by verbally persuading them of their skills. For example, the DIY store chain Hornbach in Germany launched the campaign “Women at Work” that includes workshops for women as well as humorous advertisements. In a parody of a women's magazine showing the slogan “Colors of Hornbach,” a model presented her colorful wounds from handicraft activities (such as a blue thumbnail) instead of colorful clothes. Hornbach announced that it succeeded in engaging more than 10 000 women for handicraft activities in workshops in 2015.
4. Involve users in the actual manufacturing process (i.e. coproduction) to increase their self-efficacy as they are guided in using the innovation and can gather knowledge. As a result of extensive testing and a focus on visual instructions, for example, IKEA makes it easy for consumers to build their furniture at home using premanufactured components.

Trait Anxiety

Individuals with high trait anxiety are more prone to anxiety and are more likely to focus their attention on threat-related information but also on sources of safety that help them cope with the threat. For example, in the context of car purchases, individuals with high trait anxiety focus on the availability of airbags or other safety features, in contrast to driving pleasure or design. Trait anxiety impedes the adoption of innovations, as individuals mainly focus on the risks instead of the benefits. Additionally, usage of the innovation is a potential source of stress for consumers with trait anxiety, which they try to avoid. For example, research shows that consumers with high trait anxiety are less satisfied with self-service technologies and less prone to repeated usage (Meuter et al., 2003).

The more radical the innovation, the more trait anxiety blocks adoption. For example, research shows that consumers fear the risks of gene technology and exhibit much higher levels of concern about genetically modified food than regular food (Laros and Steenkamp, 2004). To stop the diffusion of genetically modified food, consumers founded the “March against Monsanto,” repeating protests across cities all over the world. As consumers' trait anxiety can affect firms very negatively, it is valuable to know which consumers are likely to have this constraint. Women generally score higher on trait anxiety than men. In addition, aging tends to increase emotional stability; therefore, trait anxiety will decrease with age. Hence, product categories that are targeted at young and middle-aged women in particular (e.g. health and food) could be at risk of being constrained by consumers' trait anxiety.

Consumers with high trait anxiety experience stress intensively and focus on threats as well as safety issues. Companies can use the next four strategies to better address consumers with trait anxiety.

1. Identify sources of stress (e.g. usage complexity and unpleasant design) early in NPD.

   To identify stress triggers, companies can invite consumers with high trait anxiety to test the innovation and monitor which features or usage actions lead to stress (e.g. with the think-aloud method).

2. Reduce stress triggers and include stress relievers.

   For example, the design consultancy company mPath developed a tool that combines electronic sensors to measure skin conductance and observations to identify stress triggers. LEGO used this tool during innovation development. LEGO developed a tablet app for LEGO Technic that included animated instructions about how the LEGO pieces should fit together. With the stress-detecting tool, mPath identified that adding animation to the virtual page overwhelmed the children. Stress was also triggered when children realized that they had made a mistake and had to go back to the instructions. Including checkpoints during the building process would ensure that a step was completed correctly before moving on to the next one.

3. Use fear appeals in marketing.

   For example, in South Africa, a seat belt ad was launched to enhance compliance with using seat belts. The emotional campaign named “First Kiss” describes the romance of a young couple who met at a party but who never experienced their first kiss because they died in a car accident on the way home from the party. Six weeks after the launch of the ad, seat belt compliance increased by 11%.

4. Address threat concerns directly, for example, with specific statistics that show how reliable the product is.

   People with high trait anxiety are less likely to rely on their emotions when instructed to make determinations on the basis of facts. Hence, ads that recommend that consumers rely on safety statistics can reduce the influence of anxiety on the decision.

Emotional Reliance

Emotions are part of our everyday lives, but some of us rely more heavily on emotions than others when making decisions and tend to experience emotions with a higher intensity. Using emotional cues, such as sounds or colors, is sometimes easier and faster and can be more efficient than in-depth thinking. However, emotional reliance stands in the way of openly considering other sources of information about new products and services. Emotional reliance is thus a type of decision heuristic because individuals use cues to judge an innovation. However, in contrast to pigeonhole thinking, individuals high in emotional reliance can process information systematically but in the end weight emotional aspects more. Emotions influence consumer judgment and decision making more strongly than other aspects, such as factual information. In general, older people use heuristics more often and focus more on emotional information than younger people. In addition, women have been reported to be more emotional than men.

In general, if consumers have a negative feeling about an innovation, they judge risks as high and benefits low. For example, during the mad cow disease crisis, consumers generally avoided products containing beef, although the likelihood of falling ill was very low for humans. How consumers actually evaluated beef products depended very much on the specific terminology used in the news media. In one study, participants exposed to the phrase “mad cow diseases” relied on emotions in their subsequent decision to consume meat. When the phrases “bovine spongiform encephalitis” or “Creutzfeld-Jacob disease” were used, participants relied instead on objective risk judgments in subsequent purchase behavior (Sinaceur et al., 2005). Emotional reliance was also at work during the product recall of the new Samsung smartphone Galaxy Note 7 in 2016. The probability of an overheated battery catching fire was very low, but since consumers overestimated the risks, Samsung had to recall the entire product line.

Individuals high in emotional reliance assign a higher importance to information that is in line with their emotions. Companies can use the following strategies to stimulate desirable emotions toward the new product.

1. Adhere to design principles that promote positive emotions.

   For example, harmony and balance in design objects are perceived as pleasant. Moreover, communicating the right product category can also influence emotions toward an innovation. Smartwatches, for example, when considered as part of the product category of technical devices, might induce negative emotions among consumers such as anxiety related to technology. However, when understood as part of the category of watches, they might induce passion in consumers who are fond of watches.

2. Consider the specific emotions that are elicited after purchase and during usage.

   Those emotions depend on consumers' previous expectations, usage difficulty, and perceived benefits of usage. The usage experience starts after the purchase with unpacking the new product. “Unboxing” as a joyful event has even become a trend with people recording videos of unpacking new products and uploading the videos on YouTube. Apple, for example, tests potential package designs over and over to optimize the positive experience. The thoughtful packaging design is simple, the components are accurately arranged, and opening is easy.

3. Trigger positive emotions to tempt consumers to engage in (impulsive) buying behavior.

   For example, Coca-Cola directly primes positive emotions with slogans such as “Open happiness” or “Taste the feeling,” which are supported with happy music. Audi uses its logo of four overlapping circles cleverly to promote that “Jooooy finally has meaning.”

4. Communicate guilt or shame for not using the innovation, as consumers with high emotional reliance are also persuaded by negative emotions.

   For example, the company Juicy Juice shows a picture of a bike-riding child and says “You check his helmet. You check his training wheels. Shouldn't you check the label on his juice?” Another controversially discussed ad is the “Are you beach body ready?” ad by Protein World, which shows a woman with a perfect body. The ad tries to stimulate guilt and shame for not have lost enough weight before the summer comes. Although body-shaming campaigners protested against the ad, the emotion elicitation was successful as the ad increased sales enormously.

References

1. Chandon, P. and Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research 34 (3): 301–314.
2. Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., and Posavac, S. S. (2013). How naïve theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research 39 (6): 1185–1201.
3. Jhang, J. H., Grant, S. J., and Campbell, M. C. (2012). Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity. Journal of Marketing Research 49 (2): 247–259.
4. Laros, F. J. and Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2004). Importance of fear in the case of genetically modified food. Psychology & Marketing 21 (11): 889–908.
5. McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality 9 (4): 231–252.
6. Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., and Roundtree, R. (2003). The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. Journal of Business Research 56 (11): 899–906.
7. Sinaceur, M., Heath, C., and Cole, S. (2005). Emotional and deliberative reactions to a public crisis mad cow disease in France. Psychological Science 16 (3): 247–254.
8. Wang, J. and Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research 43 (1): 28–38.