Drivers of technology substitution : successive generations of high tech products

Principal Topic High technology consumer products such as notebooks, digital cameras and DVD players are not introduced into a vacuum. Consumer experience with related earlier generation technologies, such as PCs, film cameras and VCRs, and the installed base of these products strongly impacts the market diffusion of the new generation products. Yet technology substitution has received only sparse attention in the diffusion of innovation literature. Research for consumer durables has been dominated by studies of (first purchase) adoption (c.f. Bass 1969) which do not explicitly consider the presence of an existing product/technology. More recently, considerable attention has also been given to replacement purchases (c.f. Kamakura and Balasubramanian 1987). Only a handful of papers explicitly deal with the diffusion of technology/product substitutes (e.g. Norton and Bass, 1987: Bass and Bass, 2004). They propose diffusion-type aggregate-level sales models that are used to forecast the overall sales for successive generations. Lacking household data, these aggregate models are unable to give insights into the decisions by individual households - whether to adopt generation II, and if so, when and why. This paper makes two contributions. It is the first large-scale empirical study that collects household data for successive generations of technologies in an effort to understand the drivers of adoption. Second, in comparision to traditional analysis that evaluates technology substitution as an ''adoption of innovation'' type process, we propose that from a consumer's perspective, technology substitution combines elements of both adoption (adopting the new generation technology) and replacement (replacing the generation I product with generation II). Based on this proposition, we develop and test a number of hypotheses. Methodology/Key Propositions In some cases, successive generations are clear ''substitutes'' for the earlier generation, in that they have almost identical functionality. For example, successive generations of PCs Pentium I to II to III or flat screen TV substituting for colour TV. More commonly, however, the new technology (generation II) is a ''partial substitute'' for existing technology (generation I). For example, digital cameras substitute for film-based cameras in the sense that they perform the same core function of taking photographs. They have some additional attributes of easier copying and sharing of images. However, the attribute of image quality is inferior. In cases of partial substitution, some consumers will purchase generation II products as substitutes for their generation I product, while other consumers will purchase generation II products as additional products to be used as well as their generation I product. We propose that substitute generation II purchases combine elements of both adoption and replacement, but additional generation II purchases are solely adoption-driven process. Extensive research on innovation adoption has consistently shown consumer innovativeness is the most important consumer characteristic that drives adoption timing (Goldsmith et al. 1995; Gielens and Steenkamp 2007). Hence, we expect consumer innovativeness also to influence both additional and substitute generation II purchases. Hypothesis 1a) More innovative households will make additional generation II purchases earlier. 1 b) More innovative households will make substitute generation II purchases earlier. 1 c) Consumer innovativeness will have a stronger impact on additional generation II purchases than on substitute generation II purchases. As outlined above, substitute generation II purchases act, in part like a replacement purchase for the generation I product. Prior research (Bayus 1991; Grewal et al 2004) identified product age as the most dominant factor influencing replacements. Hence, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 2: Households with older generation I products will make substitute generation II purchases earlier. Our survey of 8,077 households investigates their adoption of two new generation products: notebooks as a technology change to PCs, and DVD players as a technology shift from VCRs. We employ Cox hazard modelling to study factors influencing the timing of a household's adoption of generation II products. We determine whether this is an additional or substitute purchase by asking whether the generation I product is still used. A separate hazard model is conducted for additional and substitute purchases. Consumer Innovativeness is measured as domain innovativeness adapted from the scales of Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) and Flynn et al. (1996). The age of the generation I product is calculated based on the most recent household purchase of that product. Control variables include age, size and income of household, and age and education of primary decision-maker. Results and Implications Our preliminary results confirm both our hypotheses. Consumer innovativeness has a strong influence on both additional purchases (exp = 1.11) and substitute purchases (exp = 1.09). Exp is interpreted as the increased probability of purchase for an increase of 1.0 on a 7-point innovativeness scale. Also consistent with our hypotheses, the age of the generation I product has a dramatic influence for substitute purchases of VCR/DVD (exp = 2.92) and a strong influence for PCs/notebooks (exp = 1.30). Exp is interpreted as the increased probability of purchase for an increase of 10 years in the age of the generation I product. Yet, also as hypothesised, there was no influence on additional purchases. The results lead to two key implications. First, there is a clear distinction between additional and substitute purchases of generation II products, each with different drivers. Treating these as a single process will mask the true drivers of adoption. For substitute purchases, product age is a key driver. Hence, implications for marketers of high technology products can utilise data on generation I product age (e.g. from warranty or loyalty programs) to target customers who are more likely to make a purchase.

Drivers of adoption for successive generation of high-tech products

To understand the diffusion of high technology products such as PCs, digital cameras and DVD players it is necessary to consider the dynamics of successive generations of technology. From the consumer’s perspective, these technology changes may manifest themselves as either a new generation product substituting for the old (for instance digital cameras) or as multiple generations of a single product (for example PCs). To date, research has been confined to aggregate level sales models. These models consider the demand relationship between one generation of a product and a successor generation. However, they do not give insights into the disaggregate-level decisions by individual households – whether to adopt the newer generation, and if so, when. This paper makes two contributions. It is the first large scale empirical study to collect household data for successive generations of technologies in an effort to understand the drivers of adoption. Second, in contrast to traditional analysis in diffusion research that conceptualizes technology substitution as an “adoption of innovation” type process, we propose that from a consumer’s perspective, technology substitution combines elements of both adoption (adopting the new generation technology) and replacement (replacing generation I product with generation II). Key Propositions In some cases, successive generations are clear “substitutes” for the earlier generation (e.g. PCs Pentium I to II to III ). More commonly the new generation II technology is a “partial substitute” for existing generation I technology (e.g. DVD players and VCRs). Some consumers will purchase generation II products as substitutes for their generation I product, while other consumers will purchase generation II products as additional products to be used as well as their generation I product. We propose that substitute generation II purchases combine elements of both adoption and replacement, but additional generation II purchases are solely adoption-driven process. Moreover, drawing on adoption theory consumer innovativeness is the most important consumer characteristic for adoption timing of new products. Hence, we hypothesize consumer innovativeness to influence the timing of both additional and substitute generation II purchases but to have a stronger impact on additional generation II purchases. We further propose that substitute generation II purchases act partially as a replacement purchase for the generation I product. Thus, we hypothesize that households with older generation I products will make substitute generation II purchases earlier. Methods We employ Cox hazard modeling to study factors influencing the timing of a household’s adoption of generation II products. A separate hazard model is conducted for additional and substitute purchases. The age of the generation I product is calculated based on the most recent household purchase of that product. Control variables include size and income of household, age and education of decision-maker. Results and Implications Our preliminary results confirm both our hypotheses. Consumer innovativeness has a strong influence on both additional purchases and substitute purchases. Also consistent with our hypotheses, the age of the generation I product has a dramatic influence for substitute purchases of VCR/DVD players and a strong influence for PCs/notebooks. Yet, also as hypothesized, there was no influence on additional purchases. This implies that there is a clear distinction between additional and substitute purchases of generation II products, each with different drivers. For substitute purchases, product age is a key driver. Therefore marketers of high technology products can utilize data on generation I product age (e.g. from warranty or loyalty programs) to target customers who are more likely to make a purchase.

'Nothing exists for one cause' : putting biology back into evolution

The opening phrase of the title is from Charles Darwin’s notebooks (Schweber 1977). It is a double reminder, firstly that mainstream evolutionary theory is not just about describing nature but is particularly looking for mechanisms or ‘causes’, and secondly, that there will usually be several causes affecting any particular outcome. The second part of the title is our concern at the almost universal rejection of the idea that biological mechanisms are sufficient for macroevolutionary changes, thus rejecting a cornerstone of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Our primary aim here is to consider ways of making it easier to develop and to test hypotheses about evolution. Formalizing hypotheses can help generate tests. In an absolute sense, some of the discussion by scientists about evolution is little better than the lack of reasoning used by those advocating intelligent design. Our discussion here is in a Popperian framework where science is defined by that area of study where it is possible, in principle, to find evidence against hypotheses – they are in principle falsifiable. However, with time, the boundaries of science keep expanding. In the past, some aspects of evolution were outside the current boundaries of falsifiable science, but increasingly new techniques and ideas are expanding the boundaries of science and it is appropriate to re-examine some topics. It often appears that over the last few decades there has been an increasingly strong assumption to look first (and only) for a physical cause. This decision is virtually never formally discussed, just an assumption is made that some physical factor ‘drives’ evolution. It is necessary to examine our assumptions much more carefully. What is meant by physical factors ‘driving’ evolution, or what is an ‘explosive radiation’. Our discussion focuses on two of the six mass extinctions, the fifth being events in the Late Cretaceous, and the sixth starting at least 50,000 years ago (and is ongoing). Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary; the rise of birds and mammals. We have had a long-term interest (Cooper and Penny 1997) in designing tests to help evaluate whether the processes of microevolution are sufficient to explain macroevolution. The real challenge is to formulate hypotheses in a testable way. For example the numbers of lineages of birds and mammals that survive from the Cretaceous to the present is one test. Our first estimate was 22 for birds, and current work is tending to increase this value. This still does not consider lineages that survived into the Tertiary, and then went extinct later. Our initial suggestion was probably too narrow in that it lumped four models from Penny and Phillips (2004) into one model. This reduction is too simplistic in that we need to know about survival and ecological and morphological divergences during the Late Cretaceous, and whether Crown groups of avian or mammalian orders may have existed back into the Cretaceous. More recently (Penny and Phillips 2004) we have formalized hypotheses about dinosaurs and pterosaurs, with the prediction that interactions between mammals (and groundfeeding birds) and dinosaurs would be most likely to affect the smallest dinosaurs, and similarly interactions between birds and pterosaurs would particularly affect the smaller pterosaurs. There is now evidence for both classes of interactions, with the smallest dinosaurs and pterosaurs declining first, as predicted. Thus, testable models are now possible. Mass extinction number six: human impacts. On a broad scale, there is a good correlation between time of human arrival, and increased extinctions (Hurles et al. 2003; Martin 2005; Figure 1). However, it is necessary to distinguish different time scales (Penny 2005) and on a finer scale there are still large numbers of possibilities. In Hurles et al. (2003) we mentioned habitat modification (including the use of Geogenes III July 2006 31 fire), introduced plants and animals (including kiore) in addition to direct predation (the ‘overkill’ hypothesis). We need also to consider prey switching that occurs in early human societies, as evidenced by the results of Wragg (1995) on the middens of different ages on Henderson Island in the Pitcairn group. In addition, the presence of human-wary or humanadapted animals will affect the distribution in the subfossil record. A better understanding of human impacts world-wide, in conjunction with pre-scientific knowledge will make it easier to discuss the issues by removing ‘blame’. While continued spontaneous generation was accepted universally, there was the expectation that animals continued to reappear. New Zealand is one of the very best locations in the world to study many of these issues. Apart from the marine fossil record, some human impact events are extremely recent and the remains less disrupted by time.