Talk:Diffusion of innovations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Anthropology      (Rated Stub-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Yes, expand, but NO, don't merge with Diffusion (Business). Just because a concept is adopted by business does not mean it is a business concept! I realize that it is radical to think that everything is not business these days, but Diffusion of Innovations is at its root a social theory and is now adopted by many disciplines including political science and applied linguistics, to name two. It has much broader applicability than business, and should be referenced in the Diffusions (business) section, but not merged with it. Diffusion of Innovations needs preservation and expansion, not merging.

--74.134.253.192 16:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (January 2007)

fixed a few vandalism instances. --ZachPruckowski 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I plan to expand the section "The S-Curve and technology adoption" using material posted here: [1] with the permission of the page author. --Trleith 18:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely -- this doesn't belong in business. I learned DoI in sociology and use it extensively in mass communication fields... it's not about business, it's about human behavior. Ctobola 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not About Physics!

This article has absolutely nothing to do with physics- why has it been marked to be included in the Physics portal?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.195.137.55 (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] challenge the unreferenced tag

Rogers' book is the classic in the field and it's title is the same as the article title. Please select a more appropriate tag, as Rogers is the source. --69.215.113.206 12:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing memetics category

I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 11:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any Comparison with Planned Shrinkage

Are there any attributes in common with Diffusion of Innovation with the concept of Planned Shrinkage.

71.114.163.55 —Preceding comment was added at 20:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caveats and criticisms

Moved the following section from article to here because it has been more than a year since it was flagged for weasel words and contains no references or examples for the information given. If references are not added it will be deleted. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caveats and criticisms

This article or section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.

Critics ^[who?] of this model have suggested that it is an overly simplified representation of a complex reality.^{[citation needed]}

A number of other phenomena can influence innovation adoption rates, such as -

[edit] Vandalism?

Material below was moved here for comment because it appears to be vandalism. Has no references and no apparent origins in the book by Rogers. Unless references are provided, it will be deleted. Apparently this page has been vandalized previously. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It applies, for example, to the acceptance of new technological products like the wristwatch and the personal computer, foods like tomato sauce and sushi, music styles like opera and bossa nova, dressing styles like the top hat and blue jeans, ideals like democracy or feminism, and so on.

This research topic began in the 1950s at the University of Chicago with funding from television producers who sought a way to measure the effectiveness of broadcast advertising. It soon became apparent that advertised products or services were "innovations" in the culture. The general result of the study was that the most influential channel of influence was not from some broadcast medium, but down an echelon of levels, from a small number of "early adopters" to a larger number of "secondary adopters", and from them to "tertiary adopters", then to "quaternary adopters", etc. There was also lateral influence within each level. Broadcast messages could reinforce the propagation from one adopter level down to the next, but lower levels are unlikely to respond until the level above them has adopted. It found that people were more likely to adopt, or even consider adopting, if people they know and respect have adopted. Imitation is the strongest influence channel. Therefore, the most effective marketing strategy is to first sell to the early adopters, then reinforce the diffusion to each successive level, but not to waste resources on trying to reach any given level before it is ready for it.

The field has been expanded to examine competitive diffusion processes, in which the diffusion of some innovation stimulates an opposing innovation that also diffuses in competition with the first. Examples of this can include competing products, political candidates, religions, etc. It is sometimes useful to characterize the propensity of an innovation to diffuse with a "coefficient of diffusion." Thus, the course of events in Vietnam in the 1950s and 1960s can be described in terms such that the meme of nationalism had a higher coefficient of diffusion than the constitutional republican government.

Competitive diffusion processes have been simulated by various games, such as the Pendulous family of simulated war games, in which control of the most territory on the board is the object of the game, and play consists of encouraging the spread of "forces" that occupy positions.