The slow process of adoption

There is a familiar assumption behind many good ideas… if we build it, they will come!

Sometimes they do. But often, they don’t. Behaviour change is rarely that linear. It’s usually slower, messier and more dependent on context than we want it to be.

Back in the 1960s, Everett Rogers set out the Diffusion of Innovation model, explaining how new ideas and behaviours spread through a population over time. Adoption doesn’t happen all at once. It moves gradually from innovators and early adopters, through the majority, and eventually to those least inclined to change.

The model is often used to explain products. But I think it’s more useful when thinking about behaviour.

A product can be bought quickly. Changing behaviour is different… it has to feel relevant, safe, easy and worth the effort. It has to fit into someone’s life, habits, confidence and priorities.

All behaviour is difficult to change, but financial behaviour is especially difficult.

Money decisions aren’t made in perfect conditions. People are busy, distracted, worried, optimistic, avoidant, under pressure or maybe just trying to get through the week.

As a species we’re not rational. We don’t always act in line with what we know. We don’t always do what’s “best” for our future self. And we rarely engage with financial information just because it exists.

So if we want people to act differently, information is only one part of the job.

Behaviour changes when the environment changes

There’s plenty of examples beyond pensions.

Seatbelts didn’t become normal because everyone suddenly became brilliant at assessing road risk. That changed because law, enforcement, campaigns and social norms worked together until wearing a seatbelt became the expected behaviour.

Plastic bag use didn’t fall because people developed a deep emotional connection with waste policy. A small charge appeared at the point of decision and interrupted an automatic habit.

The smoking ban didn’t rely on every smoker becoming more concerned with their peers overnight. It changed the environment around the behaviour: where smoking was allowed, what felt socially acceptable and what became normal.

And then there’s automatic enrolment.

One of the reasons auto-enrolment worked is that it didn’t try to turn the population into highly engaged pension decision-makers. It accepted a basic behavioural truth: inertia is powerful. So instead of relying on millions of people to actively choose to save, it made saving the default.

Behaviour rarely changes because of one message, one campaign or one moment of education. It changes when the environment around the behaviour changes: the default, the friction, the timing, the social meaning, the simplicity and the next step.

Visibility is only the beginning

Pensions dashboards are such an interesting behavioural test. The idea is compelling. Give people a secure way to see their pensions information online and in one place. But visibility is not the same as adoption. And adoption is not the same as action.

The behavioural question is not simply whether people can see their pensions. It is what they understand, feel and do once they see them.

Do they trust the information?
Do they know whether the numbers are good or bad?
Do they understand what action is available?
Do they feel reassured, confused, disappointed or overwhelmed?
Do they come back?
Do they do anything differently?

That’s the difference between access and impact.

Different people need different routes in

Rogers identified five factors that influence adoption: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability.

In simpler terms:

Is this clearly better than what people do now?
Does it fit with their needs and expectations?
Does it feel easy enough to use?
Can they explore it without feeling exposed or locked into a decision?
Can they see evidence that it works?

Not everyone adopts at the same speed. Some people will be curious and confident. They may actively look for a dashboard and use it to plan. Others will need reassurance. Some will need a clear trigger, such as changing jobs, approaching retirement or worrying about money. Others may avoid it entirely if the experience feels too complex, too exposing or too abstract.

That means one message will not work for everyone.

For some, the promise is control.
For others, it is reassurance.
For others, it is simplicity.
For others, it is finally understanding what they have.

Good behavioural design recognises those differences, rather than assume everyone is starting from the same place.

Start with the behaviour, not the message

The most useful question is not “what do we need to tell people?”. It’s “what behaviour are we trying to create?”.

Do we want people to check? Understand? Compare? Save more? Consolidate? Seek guidance? Talk to someone? Come back regularly? Feel more confident?

Each behaviour needs a different path.

Good ideas still need help to travel

I’m not arguing against innovation. Quite the opposite. But we must take adoption seriously.

Good ideas need more than availability. They need to be made meaningful. Introduced in language people understand. Meet different levels of confidence, motivation and readiness. And they need to make the next step feel possible.

Behaviour change does not happen just because a policy has been announced, a product has launched or information has been made available.

It happens when people understand why something matters, trust it enough to try, find it easy enough to use and see enough value to continue.

That’s the slow process of adoption.