After all, diffusion as a concept was meant to explain how technology moved around the globe, from culture to culture, not for understanding consumer products in a capitalist context. Time for us to re-theorize it a bit.

It strikes me that saying innovations stream from early adopters to late adopters doesn't explain anything at all. It says some folks start doing (or buying) something first, then others do likewise. Where's the theory in that? The question is why are some things adopted at all. You have an answer in the negative case, here, when some drivers seem to be in a huff(ington) thus provoking an anti-adoption response.

The important point for me in your post (and subsequent comments) should not be a new one, if we are doing our jobs as anthropologists in the world of goods. That point is, for the umpteenth time, that people write new and often unexpected meanings on things as they move thorugh exchange systems. This should be basic. It seems, however, that most marketers still see a direct and "natural" relationship between the intended meaning (or, if you like, function or use) of a product and what consumers actually do and understand.

Maybe its when meanings get hooked on to larger and more fixed brand menaings that products start having trouble. I'm thinking here of the Cobalt by GM. It may be tunable, fast, and cheap, but its still not a Honda. Its still an American car by GM. And everyone seems to know what THAT means.

Time for me to go read some Simmel and find the theory in it! Nice post, Grant.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/02/BAGPCNTJKT1.DTL

Cars like the Prius which possess the (still valid) stickers are commanding a premium for this reason. A little bit like the old joke that a person is just a zygote's way of making another zygote.

There is another level to be explored here when you supposedly buy a car to help the planet, but really use it to fly down the HOV lanes. (And believe me, as someone with the transponder in my small-but-non-prius car, you DO feel smug bypassing all those people stewing in the smog).

Buying a Prius early (purchased in 2000, delivered in 2001) was for some of us an obvious way to reduce our contribution to air pollution. The fact that our gas consumption plummeted was a bonus.

The Toyota ad campaigns that followed several years later (featuring the Prius green leaf) were of interest in an after-thought kind of way, and felt affirming.

I developed a low-level fondness for my car because it was quiet and small; and I enjoyed the in-group signaling (thumbs up, waves, big grins) that Prius drivers engaged in for the first few years. That reminded me of being a little girl driving with my father in one of the first group of Volkswagons in Canada and watching other VW drivers signal us.

From 2001 on, depending on what city I was in, there were lots of Prius or none. That was always interesting and made me wonder whether it was a factor of distribution/supply or consciousness – or both. I sold my Prius when I moved to DC this year because now I walk everywhere or take the metro. Don't miss it. Flex car provides transportation when I need to get out of town.

Maybe that's moving onto the next big thing; hadn't considered that.

I find it hard to believe that someone with so little understanding of normal human emotions could have gone so far so fast in the motor industry.

Do these early-adopters move on to "the next big thing" or do they form attachments to the item over time, slowly building a relationship with it and keeping it around as a result?

Humans seem to be hard-wired to anthropomorphize the objects in their lives, and having interacted with several Prius owners recently, they all seem to have projected certain personality traits onto their vehicles, and their cars are now seen as extensions of their own personalities. Most (all 3 of them) see themselves handing the Prius down to their children, much like a sentimental toy or book from their youth. How do these relationships and attachments factor into the long-term adoption of a product/service?

Thanks again for an intriguing post …

p.s., this response breaks from my new policy of replying to ontributors directly (by email) instead of here.