Relationship between consumers' category width and trial of new products: A reappraisal.

Abstract

An earlier study conducted in 1973 by Donnelly, Etzel, and Roeth concluded "an individual's breadth of categorization is related to his purchase of new products [p. 337]." Questions are raised about how the products studied were selected, choice of subjects, and the measure of association used. It is argued that the original conclusion is weakly supported.

Attempting to operationalize product newness: A reply to Ostlund and Tellefsen.

“…Each of these points deserves a reply. Ostlund and Tellefsen (1974), using Robertson's (1971) well-known continuum of new products, have concluded that the products in our study are at best only slightly new (continuous innovations). Though Robertson's work has contributed significantly to thinking and research on new products, his three categories are operationally vague.…”

“…It is surprising to us that Ostlund and Tellefsen (1974) could find a difference on only one dimension (how the products are preserved, or in our terminology, packaging) for the five products in the study. Our observations are quite different.…”

“…Thus, on our four dimensions the two products differ in packaging (can versus box), physical appearance (powder versus semiliquid), user preparation (opening the can and spreading versus adding ingredients and mixing), and manufacturer's technological processing (a semiliquid requires different processing than a powder). Though we feel Ostlund and Tellefsen (1974) were rather conservative in their attempt to match the products and dimensions, our disagreement points to a more important issue. Studies of new products should, whenever possible, incorporate consumers' perceptions of newness rather than researchers'.…”

“…Given the length and difficulty of the Pettigrew (1958) scale, it was felt that the addition of a lengthy list of product evaluation statements would severely lessen respondent cooperation. 761 Ostlund and Tellefsen (1974) ask, "how each factor (dimension) was measured and the direction of the relationship of each factor (dimension) to newness [p. 759]."…”

“…Possibly future new product research should incorporate matched samples, one to develop a set of products and the other to test the research hypotheses. Ostlund and Tellefsen (1974) are concerned about the direction of change: "Must a product offer less required use preparation to be considered new [p. 759]" and "does more 'manufacturer's technological processing' mean more newness [p. 759]."…”