FOCUS:
Consumer Robotics ·Adoption by Market Segment
ROLE:
Market Researcher · Innovation Strategist
DELIVERABLES:
Strategic Implications · Segment-Based Adoption Insights
CONTEXT:
Online Survey · Marketing Videos
Validating Market Fit for Home Robots
Testing emotional, functional, and pricing alignment across consumer segments using real-world marketing stimuli
Impact at a Glance
Despite significant investment, many consumer-facing social robots have failed to reach widespread adoption. This project asked a foundational question: What drives or blocks consumer adoption of socially interactive robots, and how does this differ by market segment (e.g., early adopters, mainstream adopters)? Rather than evaluating functionality in a lab, I examined reactions to real-world marketing videos, exploring how identity, segment, and context shape early-stage consumer judgments. Further, I was interested in determining characteristics of home robot early adopters, and how this differed from tech early adopters more generally.
Market Researcher · Innovation Strategist
I led the research strategy, participant recruitment, and data analysis for this project. I selected three real consumer robots (Jibo, Olly, Liku) and designed a between-subjects study that compared reactions across mainstream and early adopter segments. I developed and deployed the survey protocol, analyzed Likert-scale and open-ended data, and extracted strategic implications to inform product framing, market targeting, and early-stage go/no-go evaluation.
This study tested how everyday consumers respond to socially interactive robots when exposed to real-world marketing content. Rather than evaluating physical prototypes, I used authentic promotional videos from three commercially released robots—Jibo, Olly, and Liku—to simulate a real go-to-market scenario. Participants (N = 599, U.S.-based) viewed all three videos and rated each robot across multiple dimensions: liking, trust, privacy concerns, perceived usefulness, willingness to pay, and purchase intent.
Participants were also segmented into mainstream consumers and early adopters, based on technology adoption scale scores. In addition to survey responses, I analyzed demographic and psychographic variables—such as gender, age, income, and openness to technology—to uncover who is most likely to adopt emotionally intelligent home robots, and why. Importantly, I employed regression modeling and dominance analysis to determine the relative impact of pricing, performance expectations, perceived functionality, design, and privacy concerns on adoption likelihood. This research design enabled me to isolate responses to advertising, which will be more common than in-person interactions with robots, and identify critical gaps in robot-market alignment.
Price and value mismatch was a barrier
Robots priced at $800–$2,000 far exceeded what most participants were willing to pay, especially when functional benefits weren’t present or clear.
Functionality belief—not delight—drove intent
Many participants liked the robots but did not believe they could do what was promised—perceived usefulness outweighed charm.
Adopter segment shaped reactions
Early adopters were more open to emotional interaction and novelty; mainstream consumers emphasized practicality, efficiency, and ROI.
Price sensitivity was high—even for likable products
The robots were often liked but rarely deemed worth the price. The median willingness to pay for mainstream consumer from my other research ($265) is far below retail price, revealing an early need for pricing validation and value framing.
Perceived value helped drive adoption intent
Users needed to believe the robot could do what it claimed. Even so, aesthetically appealing robots failed if users doubted their functional reliability or perceived their behavior as vague or gimmicky.
Home robot early adopters diverged from tech early adopters
Unlike general tech adopters—who tend to be high-income men—early home robot adopters were more evenly gendered (with a slight skew toward female) and not high-income, especially among those interested in companion-like robots. In fact, higher income negatively predicted adoption intent for companion robots.
Testing various segments matters: early adopters ≠ early majority
Early adopters responded more favorably to novelty and emotional design, while early majority participants emphasized practicality, clarity of use, and privacy protection. Testing with early adopters alone would have overestimated market readiness.
Privacy concerns suppressed mainstream adoption
Privacy concerns had minimal effect on early adopters but dampened interest among the mainstream—especially for robots with perceived surveillance capacity (e.g., those with cameras or microphones).
Messaging must resolve skepticism
Participants often defaulted to doubt, even with professionally produced materials. Adoption intent will increase when videos clearly communicated capabilities, purpose, and value.
Testing the early majority early is critical
It’s not enough to test with early adopters alone. Mainstream consumers have different needs, values, and thresholds for trust, and overlooking them early can misguide product development and go-to-market timing.
Strategic framing matters as much as form
Evaluating robot marketing content—rather than the robot itself—revealed how much perceived value, trust, and purpose can shift based on narrative alone. This highlights the power of messaging as design.
Delight alone won’t drive adoption
Users need to believe in what the product can do. Even charming robots fail if they aren’t perceived as functional, trustworthy, or of sufficient value.
Messaging must resolve skepticism
Consumers often defaulted to doubt—even with professionally produced videos. Clarity, realism, and benefit signaling are essential at launch.
Established early adopter identification criteria
This study produced a practical segmentation model for identifying early adopters and early majority consumers—based on comfort with home robots, self-identified adopter type, and age—enabling more targeted future evaluations.
Defined benchmark for product viability in early evaluations
This study led to the adoption of a 4.5/7 average purchase intent threshold, used in later work to determine whether a robotic concept warranted further development or iteration.
Informed development of new robotic concepts
Participant feedback on existing market options directly influenced the design direction of four original robotic concepts, guiding aesthetic, emotional, and functional choices for follow-up evaluation studies.
