Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

Appeal to Novelty

argumentum ad novitatem

(also known as: appeal to the new, ad novitam [sometimes spelled as])

Description: Claiming that something that is new or modern is superior to the status quo, based exclusively on its newness.

Logical Form:

X has been around for years now.

Y is new.

Therefore, Y is better than X.

Example #1: Two words: New Coke.

Explanation: Those who lived through the Coca-Cola identity crises of the mid-eighties know what a mess it was for the company.  In fact, the “New Coke Disaster”, as it is commonly referred to, is literally a textbook example of attempting to fix what isn’t broken.  Coke’s main marketing ploy was appealing to the novelty, and it failed miserably -- even though more people (55%) actually preferred the taste of New Coke, the old was “better”.

Example #2:

Bill: Hey, did you hear we have a new operating system out now?  It is better than anything else out there because we just released it!

Steve: What’s it called?

Bill: Windows Vista!

Steve: Sounds wonderful!  I can’t wait until all of your users install it on all their computers!

Explanation: For anyone who went through the experience of Vista, this fallacy should hit very close to home.  You were most likely assuming that you were getting a superior product to your old operating system -- you were thinking “upgrade” when, in fact, those who stuck with the status quo (Windows XP) were much better off.

Exception: There are obvious exceptions, like in claiming that your fresh milk is better than your month old milk that is now growing legs in your refrigerator.

Tip: Diets and exercise programs/gadgets are notorious for preying on our desire for novelty.  Don’t be swayed by the “latest research” or latest fads.  Just remember this: burn more calories than you take in, and you will lose weight.


Sternberg, R. J., III, H. L. R., & Halpern, D. F. (2007). Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book

Take the Online Course