Diffusion agency establishment: The case of friendly ice cream and public-sector diffusion processes

https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(79)90025-9Get rights and content

Abstract

Examining diffusion processes from the perspective of the market and infrastructure context focuses attention on the decisions made by suppliers or distributors of a new innovation. Public sector innovations have a market and infrastructure context but initial understanding of this context is simplified by using a private sector innovation: Friendly Ice Cream, a product and marketing concept sponsored by a single propagator entity. The location and timing of diffusion agency establishments (shops) supports the importance of logistical factors and capital availability but reveals the minimal importance of increases in urban population for an innovation with low thresholds of profitability.

References (16)

  • E.M. Rogers et al.

    Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach

    (1971)
  • T.S. Robertson

    Innovative Behavior and Communication

    (1971)
  • J. Walker

    The adoption of innovations by the American States

    Am. Pol. Sci. R.

    (1969)
  • V. Gray

    Innovation in the states: a diffusion study

    Am. Pol. Sci. R.

    (1973)
  • L.A. Brown

    The market and infrastructure context of adoption: a spatial perspective on the diffusion of innovation

    Economic Geography

    (1975)
  • B.P. Shapiro

    Marketing for nonprofit organizations

    Harvard Business Rev.

    (1973)
  • Z. Griliches

    Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change

    Econometrica

    (1957)
  • T. Hagerstrand

    Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process

    (1967)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (13)

  • Assessing the impact of retail location on store performance: A comparison of Wal-Mart and Kmart stores in Cincinnati

    2012, Applied Geography
    Citation Excerpt :

    Wal-Mart has been growing at a phenomenal rate even in the current tough economic times, while Kmart closed 600 under-performing stores in 2002 and 2003 (Shields and Kures, 2007), and subsequently merged with Sears in 2005. There has been extensive research done in investigating the reasons for Wal-Mart’s success and Kmart’s dismal situation, including examining store environment (Hayden, Lee, McMahon, & Pereira, 2002; Vance and Scott, 1994), price and brand (Graff, 2006; Hayden et al., 2002; Katz, 2003; Vance and Scott, 1994), distribution network of supercenters (Laulajainen, 1988; Meyer and Brown, 1979), culture (Lichtenstein, 2010; Tong and Tong, 2006), as well as technology (Basker, 2007). Because location is well accepted as the primary key to retail success (Birkin et al., 1996; Litz & Rajaguru, 2008), some scholars have paid more attention in examining the locational strategies of Walmart and Kmart.

View all citing articles on Scopus

This paper is part of ongoing research on the diffusion of innovation supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant G-36829). This support is appreciated. Various individuals in the advertising and real estate divisions of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation willingly offered information and data, and their help is appreciated. Also, helpful comments on the manuscript were provided by C. Samuel Craig, Cornell University; B.J. LaLonde, The Ohio State University; D. Archabal, The Ohio State University; and R. Erickson, Friendly Ice Cream, Inc. Graphics were prepared in the Cartographic Laboratory, and typing was by the Research Foundation, University of Connecticut.

View full text