Thread by @DellAnnaLuca

THE ADOPTION CURVE

1/ Users adopt a product for different reasons.

Some adopt it because it works for them, others because it works for others.

This has far-reaching implications.

2/ Let's call innovators the users who adopt a new product just because using it would allow them to do things in a new way.
Let's call early adopters those who adopt a new product because it's good for them

Let's call the majority those who do because it's good for others.

3/ And let's call laggards those who won't adopt a new product unless coerced.

All groups of users are rational in their choice of time for adoption.

Let's see why.

4/ Innovators are independent. They can afford social / career risks in their quest for new lucrative opportunities. Their risk profile nudges them to take risks. For them, it's rational to try something new because it might give them a hedge, even if it might not work.

5/ The early adopters are dependent upon their output.

They get consequences if they fail, but they also get rewards if they succeed. Think about a brilliant employee with enough career capital.

Their risk profile nudges them to take calculated risks.

6/ Therefore, the early adopters go second, after the innovators tested the new product / technology and determined the costs and rewards of using it.

Whereas innovators try a new product / tech because it's new, the early adopters try it because it works.

7/ Users in the "majority" group are dependent upon their reputation to survive. Their output is not enough to keep them afloat.

Because of their risk profile, users in the majority adopt a new product only when it's reputationally safe to do so.

8/ This happens after the early adopters adopted the technology, because:

- The product being adopted provides plausibility ("others use it")

- A new technology only becomes reliable and easy to use after enough people adopt it.

9/ Whereas early adopters, because of their risk profile, needed innovators to go first (to prove that the product works),

the majority needs early adopters to go before them because they need social plausibility and product reliability (from "it works" to "it always works").

10/ Laggards come last.

Because they do not have any historical evidence of any ability of theirs to adapt to anything new, they resist any change, even if it would objectively be beneficial.

Because of their risk profile, as *subjectively perceived*, laggards resist any change

11/ Now, an important point. People are not innovators / early adopters / majority / laggards depending on their personality.

They fall in one of the these categories depending on their risk profile.

Personality is a confabulation of someone's risk profile.

12/ (Wait! Isn't personality partially genetically inherited?

IMHO, people inherit traits which influence individual probability of success in a given endeavor and individual sensitivity to its rewards. This, in turn, influences individual risk profiles.)

13/ The Adoption Curve applies to the adoption of:
- Products
- Technologies
- Ways of doing things
- Ideas
- People (eg a new singer)

Therefore, if your craft involves in any way the promotion of a new idea/product/person (incl yourself), you need to understand the following:

14/ Because people have different risk profiles,
they need different reasons to adopt a new idea / technology,
most of which require full adoption by a previous group,

Adoption must be driven step-by-step, climbing the adoption curve from innovators to early adopters to majority

15/ Any promotion trying to engage with multiple adoption groups at the same time is bound to fail.

The majority needs the early adopters to have fully adopted the product.
The early adopters need the innovators to have done it.

You need to engage the groups in the right order.

16/ (Clarification: the first image of the thread is qualitative only. There is no fixed ratio between the groups. The chart comes from another presentation of mine. The percentages should be disregarded.)