2.1. Innovator and Conservative Examples

Now, if we take the perception of the most innovative and the conservative, if you see an example now, here a person A who have a group of 5 friends and he is the one who have actually taken the risk of starting it. And then, whereas in the person D, he is still in a conservative but his; all his surroundings still relying on his own ways of thinking though his network have started erupting, he takes time to think about it, so that is where we talk about who is more innovative, the one who immediately you know takes that risk to test it and the person B and person C again they comes in you know here again, in this case, it is also looked at how other people have already adopted and either this person have influenced others, so that gradually changes.

This chunk discusses the distinction between innovators and conservatives through a simple example involving four individuals (A, B, C, and D). Person A is characterized as an innovator because he is willing to take risks and try new ideas. In contrast, Person D is seen as more conservative, preferring to stick with familiar ways despite being surrounded by a changing environment. Individuals B and C fall somewhere in between, reflecting how people's behaviors can influence each other over time.

Think of a group of friends where one person (A) is quick to adopt the latest smartphone, while another friend (D) is hesitant, preferring their old model. Friend B might change their mind after seeing A's new phone, while C is undecided. This situation shows how being in a social circle can affect each person’s decision-making regarding innovation.

There is also the second argument of it is how in time, how the exposure and the threshold you know how it varies, in time 1, like you have that there are 2 reference points which we are referring in this small example, one is A and one is B. And A has again the 5 friends and B has 5 friends and they have their own networks and this we can see by this diagram, we can see it is a kind of a community network. And this A has an exposure of 60% around him who are using these tanks and B has none so, we call at time phase 2, so by looking at his case now, A has adopted that and B still has not.

This chunk describes how exposure to innovation within a social network can influence adoption behavior over time. It introduces two individuals, A and B, each having their own set of friends. The example illustrates that A has a significant proportion of peers (60%) who have adopted a specific innovation, while B has none. As a result, A adopts the innovation earlier due to greater exposure, while B remains hesitant. Over time, these differences in exposure can impact the broader community's acceptance of new ideas.

Consider a new health trend, like a specific diet. If you have a friend (A) whose close friends are all following this diet, they may feel encouraged to try it due to majority support. Conversely, if another person (B) has friends who are not interested in dieting, they might not adopt the diet themselves. This example highlights how surrounding influences can drive or hinder individual decisions based on community dynamics.

But when you look at the time 5, now A have adopted and it also which has spread it to the largest community but now B has adopted. There are 2 ways of looking at it; we can still call the A who have taken a risk in a very initial state, how we have adopted. And we call; we can call him at an innovative at you know, in a whole community sector, he is the one who started that is innovative at a macro level and B could be looked in a more of a conservative level but in the other sense, if you look at it in the B, even at time 5, his none of 4 of his friends have not still adopted but he is one who has taken a step forward.

In this chunk, it emphasizes the variability of innovation adoption over time and at different scales. At time 5, A is recognized as an innovator on a larger scale because many in their community have followed suit. Meanwhile, B is portrayed as conservative, yet by finally adopting the innovation, they show a willingness to change. This complexity illustrates that innovation is not simply about who adopts first, but the context and timing of these decisions are equally significant.

Imagine the launch of a new social media platform. At first, early users (A) gain popularity and influence others, leading to widespread adoption. Later, a previously skeptical user (B) joins but still feels less bold compared to those who adopted earlier. Even though they are behind, their eventual adoption still contributes to the platform's growth and influence within their personal network.

So, there are different perceptions of looking at that from the time factor and the scale factor of it. Now, till now what we discussed is the innovations at what level, who are these innovators okay and what are the characteristics of these innovators; an external influence that is where these innovators we call are the pioneers who take this information further and diffuse it further.

This chunk argues that the perception of innovation adoption is multifaceted, influenced by both timing and social scale. It summarizes previous discussions on who innovators are, their characteristics, and their role as pioneers in spreading new ideas. Innovators are recognized for taking the lead and catalyzing the diffusion of innovation throughout their communities.

Think of celebrities endorsing products. They serve as innovators by using their influence to promote new items to their followers. As their followers adopt these products, the innovation spreads faster within their communities, demonstrating how perceptions of innovation can shift based on the behavior of early adopters versus late adopters.

--