skip spoerke - innovations assignment

Running Head: Insect Shield® clothing

Innovations Assignment: Rate of Diffusion of Insect Shield® Clothing

Skip Spoerke

MKT-345-05134: Consumer Behavior

Professor Karen Stone

Fall 2015

December 5, 2015

Author Note

I certify that I am the author of this assignment. Any assistance I received in its preparation is

fully acknowledged and disclosed within this document. I certify that I have not received help

from any unauthorized persons.

I have cited any and all sources, both print and electronic, from which I have used data, ideas,

or words, either quoted or paraphrased. My cited sources are indicated within this document

using APA citation style. I also certify that this assignment was prepared by me especially for

the course as listed above.

1

Insect Shield® clothing

Table of Contents

Section One: Product........................................................................................................................3

1.1 Product Selected.....................................................................................................................3

1.2 Need/Want Satisfied...............................................................................................................3

Section Two: Competition................................................................................................................3

2.1 Direct Competition.................................................................................................................3

2.2 Indirect Competition...............................................................................................................4

Section Three: Amount of Change in User’s Behavior....................................................................4

3.1 Effect on Rate of Adoption.....................................................................................................4

Section Four: Relative Advantage....................................................................................................5


Section Five: Observability of the Relative Advantage....................................................................6


Section Six: Complexity...................................................................................................................6


Section Seven: Compatibility...........................................................................................................7


Section Eight: Trialability.................................................................................................................7


Section Nine: Overall Conclusion of the Rate of Diffusion/Adoption.............................................8

References.........................................................................................................................................9

2


Section One: Product

1.1 Product Selected

In 2001, Insect Shield, LLC was founded to develop, manufacture, and distribute Insect

Shield® Insect Repellent Apparel. Within a year, all cadet uniforms at West Point Military

Academy had been processed with Insect Shield® to combat a rise in Lyme disease cases on the

campus. Insect Shield® reduced the number of West Point Lyme disease cases to zero

("Company background," n.d., pars. 2-3).

Registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, Insect

Shield® apparel and gear are effective, odorless protection against mosquitoes, ticks, ants, flies,

chiggers, and midges. It achieves this through specific processing of material impregnated with

the insect repellent permethrin ("What is insect shield?" n.d., pars. 1, 3).

1.2 Need/Want Satisfied

Insect Shield's® highly visible, insect repellent impregnated, and flame-resistant apparel

and gear for youth, laborers, and professionals provides long-lasting physical safety while in

insect-borne disease-risk parts of the world (Anonymous, 2011, pars. 2-3).

Section Two: Competition

2.1 Direct Competition

Whereas insect-repellent apparel is viewed by consumers in developed countries—like

the United States—as a luxury item, it plays a crucial role in the health and survival of people in

developing countries. Sportswear brands and outdoor clothing companies have found an

expanding market thanks to mosquitoes migrating north over the past several years. Columbia

Sportswear, Craghoppers, and Burlington, for example, have successfully developed direct

competition repellent fabric technology to Insect Shield® (Just-style.com, 2012, pars. 7-9).

3


2.2 Indirect Competition

Common throughout the world is indirect competition insect repellents, such as netting,

chemicals—including repellents that contain DEET or IR3535, and plant-based repellents—

including citronella and natural oils. Mosquito nets, for example, are deployed with aid workers

in many countries to prevent and control the spread of malaria (Just-style.com, 2012, para. 10).

One study conducted at the University of Florida examined sixteen chemical and natural

repellents to measure the effectiveness of each. The study determined that DEET-based repellents

provided complete protection for the longest period ranging from eighty-eight minutes for

repellents with 4.75% DEET to more than three-hundred minutes for repellents with 23.8%

DEET. DEET, however, can dissolve watch crystals, frames of glasses, and certain synthetic

fabrics; it can also be washed off with water or sweat and is less effective in warmer

temperatures (Fradin & Day, 2002, pp. 13-18).

Section Three: Amount of Change in User’s Behavior

Insect Shield® is a dynamically continuous innovation. Apparel and gear developed with

Insect Shield® do not alter established behaviors, as most users likely choose to wear clothing

and carry gear in environments where Insect Shield® is effective. The apparel and gear

impregnated with insect repellent are, however, significant modifications to the apparel and gear

currently familiar to users, which will especially cause some disruption to established purchasing

behavior (Schiffman & Wisenblit, 2015, p. 348).

3.1 Effect on Rate of Adoption

The amount of change in user's behavior will slow down the adoption of Insect Shield®.

Despite being a dynamically continuous innovation that could replace apparel and gear, the

disruption to established purchasing behavior is enough to prevent rapid adoption of the product.

4


Section Four: Relative Advantage

Many chemical and plant-based repellents produce an odor and oily residue. Permethrin

—used in Insect Shield® apparel and gear—is an odorless and invisible man-made version of an

insect repellent that occurs naturally in chrysanthemums (NewsRx.com & NewsRx.net, 2003).

The best topical repellents, containing 23.8% DEET, only provided complete protection

for three-hundred-one minutes (Fradin & Day, 2002, p. 14). Insect Shield® technology provides

complete protection for the entire expected life of the garment—seventy launderings ("What is

insect shield?" n.d., para. 5).

Insect Shield® was the first insect repellent apparel to be approved and registered by the

United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, which required extensive data proving

the effectiveness of the product. Insect Shield® technology has been proven effective for

multiple species and varieties of insects, including insects that carry dangerous diseases ("What

is insect shield?" n.d., pars. 1, 3). Evidence shows that topical insect repellents, such as those

studied at the University of Florida, are ineffective at preventing and controlling certain

dangerous diseases (Wilson, Chen-Hussey, Logan, & Lindsay, 2014, p. 452).


The relative advantage of Insect Shield® will help speed up adoption of the product. That

claim is supported by the facts that, unlike the direct and indirect competition, Insect Shield® is

odorless and invisible, lasts the entire life of the garment, and is proven to be successful for

complete protection. The rate of adoption will increase as consumers become educated about the

advantages of Insect Shield®.

5


Section Five: Observability of the Relative Advantage

While the relative advantage of Insect Shield® demonstrates significant improvements

over the competition, the observability of the relative advantage remains very poor. Because of

the technology behind the apparel and gear, consumers will not see, feel, or smell anything

different about the product. The only way consumers will know that there is an insect repellent

involved is when the insects don’t bite, which means the observability of the relative advantage

by prospective consumers is extremely low (NewsRx.com & NewsRx.net, 2003, para. 5).


Because the observability of the relative advantage is extremely low, the rate of adoption

will be slowed. To speed up the rate of adoption, Insect Shield® apparel and gear would need to

differentiate itself in some way from other outdoor apparel and gear.

Section Six: Complexity

Insect Shield® apparel and gear cannot be dry-cleaned, but should be washed with home

laundry. The product may also be bleached, pressed, and starched without concern of losing its

ability to repel insects ("FAQ's," n.d., para. 14). After the Insect Shield® technology has worn

out of the apparel or gear, the product can safely be thrown in the trash; there are no special

disposal requirements ("FAQ's," n.d., para. 13). Simple product care instructions make

preparations, maintenance, and disposal easy for the consumer and keeps complexity at a

minimum.


When it comes to basic necessities, like clothing, consumers prefer simplicity over

complexity. Insect Shield® apparel and gear is complex to manufacture, but the consumer does

6


not need to do anything special; therefore, the rate of adoption based on the complexity of Insect

Shield® products should speed up.

Section Seven: Compatibility

Whether hiking, camping, golfing, fishing, hunting, working, or doing anything else in

the great outdoors, Insect Shield® apparel and gear is being used daily around the world to

protect people from insect bites that may transmit dangerous diseases ("Company background,"

n.d., para. 17). Insect Shield® is odorless, invisible, and lasts for the life of the garment, which

eliminates the need to carry a can or bottle of topical insect repellent when spending time

outdoors. The product targets outdoor-enthusiast consumers and outdoor-working consumers,

which are the ideal consumers since the product is intended to provide protection from insect

bites.


The compatibility of Insect Shield® to the consumers that spend a significant amount of

time outdoors will speed up the rate of adoption among those consumers because the product

will ultimately offer improved safety and enjoyment being outdoors.

Section Eight: Trialability

Just as the observability of the relative advantage remains very poor, the trialability of

Insect Shield® is also very poor for the same reasons. Consumers will not see, feel, or smell

anything different about the product in the store. Until the product is purchased, the consumer

does not know how well Insect Shield® works to protect against insect bites.


The lack of trialability will slow down adoption of Insect Shield®. Many consumers

don’t want unnecessary risk in purchase decisions, and no trialability increases the risk.

7


Section Nine: Overall Conclusion of the Rate of Diffusion/Adoption

Because Insect Shield® is a dynamically continuous innovation and insect repellent

impregnated apparel is a significant modification to the apparel expectations of consumers,

diffusion will be moderate. Trialability and observability of the relative advantage are, however,

detrimental to the rate of diffusion. Both, trialability and observability of the relative advantage,

are highly influential in the purchase decision and neither factor is being met with Insect

Shield®; therefore, overall diffusion will be slow. Many consumers will wait until enough

innovators have tried and recommend the product before feeling confident that they are not

risking too much by also trying it.

8


References

Anonymous. (2011). Insect Shield work wear enhances safety. Mining Engineering, 63(2), 72.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/docview/853757424?pq-

origsite=summon&accountid=3783

Fradin, M. S., & Day, J. F. (2002). Comparative efficacy of insect repellents against mosquito

bites. New England Journal of Medicine N Engl J Med, 347(1), 13-18.

doi:10.1056/nejmoa011699. Retrieved December 2, 2015, from

http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/223937459?

accountid=3783

Insect Shield International, LLC. (n.d.). Company background. Retrieved December 1, 2015,

from http://www.insectshield.com/AboutUs/CompanyBackground.aspx

Insect Shield International, LLC. (n.d.). FAQ's. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from

http://www.insectshield.com/ourTechnology/FAQs.aspx

Insect Shield International, LLC. (n.d.). What is insect shield? Retrieved December 1, 2015,

from http://www.insectshield.com/ourTechnology/

Just-style.com. (2012, November 22). WORLD: Heated and insect repellent apparel growth

markets. Retrieved December 2, 2015, from

http://bi.galegroup.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/essentials/article/GALE%7CA309546582?

u=nhc_main

NewsRx.com & NewsRx.net. (2003). Mosquito-borne disease; insect-repellent apparel registered

by EPA. TB & Outbreaks Weekly, 32. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?

url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/209836960?accountid=3783

9


Schiffman, L. G., & Wisenblit, J. (2015). Consumer Behavior (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education.

Wilson, A. L., Chen-Hussey, V., Logan, J. G., & Lindsay, S. W. (2014). Are topical insect

repellents effective against malaria in endemic populations? A systematic review and

meta-analysis. Malaria Journal, 13(1), 446-454. doi:10.1186/1475-2875-13-446

10

skip spoerke - innovations assignment

Documents