Rajan Varadarajan Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, 4112 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4112, U.S.A. 1. Radical vs. incremental innovations: The question of relative emphases Radical innovations refer to innovations that are new to the rm, market, and industry; which incor- porate a substantially different and new technolo- gy; and which provide substantially higher customer benets relative to current products in the industry. In contrast, incremental innovations refer to im- provements in a rms existing product offerings that better satisfy the needs of its current and potential customers. Incremental innovations man- ifest as adaptations, renements, enhancements, or line extensions, incorporating new features that offer additional benets. To the extent that incre- mental innovations entail changes in the underlying technology, those changes in the technological tra- jectory tend to be relatively small and place limited strains on a rms existing competencies (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Chandy & Tellis, 1998; Garcia & Calantone, 2002). A cursory examination of innovation literature indicates competing points of view regarding the relative emphases that rms should place on radical versus incremental innovations. For instance, Leifer et al. (2006) note that while incremental innova- tions can enable large companies to remain com- petitive in the short run, only radical innovations can change the game, leading the way to long-term growth. Along similar lines, Moore (2005) observes Business Horizons (2009) 52, 2129 www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor KEYWORDS Radical innovation; Incremental innovation; Competitive strategy; Marketing strategy; Marketing Abstract It is not uncommon to come across appeals in business literature exhorting managers to devote greater effort to the pursuit of radical innovations, or to see comments admonishing managers for devoting too much energy to the search for incremental innovations. Over the years, successful radical innovations have undis- putedly had a signicant impact on the fortunes of a number of companies. At the same time, rms cannot afford to overlook the role of incremental innovations in enhancing and sustaining the revenue and prot streams of successful radical innovations. From the standpoint of survival, growth, and protability, both home runs, meaning radical innovations, and singles, meaning incremental innovations, matter. The fact that home runs are generally infrequent underscores the importance of frequent singles. This article explores the various competitive strategy contexts in which incremental innovations can be leveraged effectively against that backdrop. # 2008 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved. E-mail address: varadarajan@tamu.edu 0007-6813/$ see front matter # 2008 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2008.03.011 that rather than concentrating on a few bold ideas, most rms spread their resources, often creating product enhancements that dont actually enhance the bottom line. On the other hand, Treacy (2004) notes that while breakthrough innovations may cre- ate a buzz in the boardroom and lesser forms of innovation go unnoticed, the slow and steady ap- proach of incremental innovation usually beats up exotic innovation strategies. Realistically, in todays intensely competitive market environment, simultaneous pursuit of both radical and incremental innovations is an impera- tive. For instance, Kanter (2006) characterizes the innovation strategy of successful innovators as an innovation pyramid comprised of a few big bets at the top, a larger number of promising midrange ideas in the test stage, and a broad base of early stage ideas or incremental innovations. She notes that not every innovation idea has to be a block- buster, and that sizeable prots can also result from a sufcient number of small or incremental innova- tions. Against this backdrop, this article focuses on the role of innovations at the bottom of the innova- tion pyramid (i.e., incremental innovations) in a business competitive strategy by exploring how they can be leveraged to compete more effectively in the marketplace. 2. Incremental innovations and competitive strategy In general, the competitive differentiation advan- tages of a business in the marketplace, such as a products distinctive features that offer specic benets to customers, are susceptible to erosion as a consequence of being neutralized by compet- itors actions and changes in consumers preferen- ces. This highlights the imperative for rms to continuously explore new avenues for achieving competitive differentiation advantages in the mar- ketplace. In this regard, incremental innovations can play an important role. Table 1 provides an overview of the role of incremental innovations in various competitive strategy contexts. A detailed discussion of these innovations with illustrative ex- amples follows. 2.1. Extending the time horizon of the revenue stream from radical innovations As noted earlier, in todays intensely competitive market environment, the simultaneous pursuit of both radical and incremental innovations is an im- perative. One example of the former is the 787 Dreamliner currently being developed by The Boeing Company; examples of the latter are the numerous variations of the Boeing 747 that have been intro- duced since that models launch in 1970. Boeing views its 787 Dreamliner, which is based on a radi- cally different approach to aircraft design, as a game-changer that will transform aviation (Wayne, 2006). The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is being designed as a highly fuel-efcient plane that can be cong- ured with a seating capacity of 200 to 290, and which can y from and to any point in the world. When launched, it will be the rst commercial jet to be made of more than 50% carbon ber and other lightweight plastics, rather than aluminum. Boeing views its 787 Dreamliner as a better t for the 22 R. Varadarajan Table 1. The role of incremental innovations in competitive strategy Extending the time horizon of the revenue stream from radical innovations Entering new markets in product categories in which the rm currently has a presence - New types of markets - New market segments - New geographic markets Entering new product-markets in product categories in which the rm currently does not have a presence - New product-markets that currently are fragmented industries - New product-markets that emerge or become attractive as a consequence of changes in the legal and regulatory environment - Related new product-markets with entrenched competitors Achieving and defending product category leadership - Preempting shelf space by preempting potential entry points of competitors - Responding to price sensitivity and variety-seeking behavior driven brand switching - Protecting agship brands with anker brands Commanding a higher price relative to the product being supplanted by the incremental innovation, or a price premium relative to competitors offerings, to achieve higher margins Adapting to the structural constraints of the industry ecosystem emerging needs of the commercial aviation market. It envisions that an increasingly larger percentage of future international air travel will be point-to-point between city-pairs, meaning travel between mid- size cities, such as Houston to Osaka and Dallas to Berlin, and between large gateway and midsize cities, such as London to Philadelphia, rather than between two large gateway cities, such as London to New York. At one level, the product attributes of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, including greater fuel efciency in an environment of increasing fuel prices and a design that will allow the plane to y from and to anywhere in the world, constitute potential sources of competitive advantage. At another level, should more future international air travel evolve toward point-to-point travel between city-pairs, as opposed to travel between major international gateway cit- ies on a plane like the Airbus 380 with a seating capacity of 555 for commercial air travel, the Dreamliner will have a competitive advantage by virtue of being a better t for the markets needs. At the same time, Boeings substantial resource outlay for the 787 Dreamliner, and the prospect of com- petitors offerings eroding some of these competi- tive advantages over time, suggests that subsequent investments in incremental innovations will be crit- ical in order to achieve new dimensions of competi- tive advantage and extend the time horizon of the revenue stream. An earlier highly successful inno- vation by Boeing, the 747, is instructive in this regard. Incremental innovations of the original 747 have enabled Boeing to garner a sizeable share of the market and continue to keep the product in the sky. These incremental innovations are reected in the 747-400 and 747-400 Freighter models, which were major aerodynamic improvements over earlier 747 models; the 747-400ER and 747-400ER Freighter models, which have an extended range (ER); and the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter models, which were new high-capacity 747s. 2.2. Entering new markets Incremental innovations can play a major role in the entry of rms in product categories in which the rm currently has a presence into new markets, includ- ing: new types of markets, such as a rm operating in the business-to-consumer (B2C) market entering the business-to-business (B2B) market; new market segments; and new geographic markets. A brief discussion of these follows. 2.2.1. Entering new types of markets Scott Paper Companys successful inroads into the institutional market for bathroomtissue and related paper products, such as paper napkins, is illustrative of the role that incremental innovation plays as an enabler for entering a new type of market. Prior to its acquisition in 1997 by James River Corporation, and its subsequent merger with the Georgia Pacic Corporation in 2000, the Fort Howard Paper Compa- ny enjoyed a dominant market position in the insti- tutional market for bathroom tissue and related paper products such as used in public washrooms in government buildings, universities, and commer- cial establishments. Unlike most of its competitors, who use wood pulp to manufacture bathroomtissue, Fort Howard uses a mix of wood pulp and recycled paper. While bathroom tissue manufactured using a mix of wood pulp and recycled paper tends to be of lower quality, which is reected in the products softness dimension, the raw-material costs are con- siderably lower than tissue manufactured using wood pulp. As a result, Fort Howard was able to offer its products at a lower price relative to its competitors product offerings based on wood pulp. Rather than attempting to compete against Fort Howard on price, Scott Paper Company explored alternative potential entry points. It found that dispensers used in Europe were designed to hold bigger rolls of paper. Scott Paper Company recong- ured its manufacturing equipment to manufacture larger rolls of bathroom tissue: rolls with six times the number of sheets compared to standard rolls of bathroom tissue. The size of these tissue rolls re- quired Scott Paper Company to also invest in the production of tissue dispensers. These dispensers were initially provided free of charge to institution- al customers, in light of their potential to create a captive market for the larger rolls of bathroom tissue manufactured by Scott Paper Company. The incremental innovation of bathroom tissue in larger rolls bestowed a competitive advantage on Scott Paper Company for some period of time, thanks to the potential benet it offered for insti- tutional customers through savings in labor costs due to building staff having to replenish the facili- ties less frequently, and the lead time competitors required to recongure their manufacturing equip- ment to manufacture larger-size rolls of bathroom tissue and dispensers. In effect, the institutional customers that Scott Paper Company was able to cultivate with the above incremental innovation were less vulnerable to being attracted by compet- itors for some length of time. Fort Howard did subsequently come out with a pilfer-proof dispenser designed to accommodate four of its regular-sized bathroom tissue rolls. Nevertheless, the Kimberly- Clark Corporation, which acquired Scott Paper Company, continues to command a sizeable pres- Fortune at the bottom of the innovation pyramid: The strategic logic of incremental innovations 23 ence in the institutional market for bathroom tissue and related paper products. 2.2.2. Entering new market segments Christensen, Johnson, and Rigby (2002) note that companies seeking to create disruptive growth should rst search for ways to compete against non-consumption. They point out that non-con- sumption of a product by certain segments of the market could be due to reasons such as the product being too expensive or too complicated. One exam- ple of rms successfully entering such market segments with incremental innovations is the mar- keting of single-use shampoo sachets in developing and less developed country markets. Historically, salon-quality shampoo has been sold in large con- tainers. As salons utilize generous quantities of shampoo on a daily basis, this bulk packaging makes sense in terms of both volume and cost. Individual users, however, could consider both the volume and cost of bulk-packaged shampoo to be overwhelming. While a salon may use several liters of shampoo per week, an individual consumer might take several months to consume 1 liter; buying in bulk, a salon might also pay far less for a liter than an individual would have to pay. To attract those customers who might not otherwise purchase salon-quality sham- poo as currently packaged, single-use shampoo sa- chets could prove to be a protable alternative. Such innovations constitute adaptive market re- sponses to marketplace realities, such as non-con- sumption of a product by a market segment due to it lacking the purchasing power to buy a product in quantity or volume in which it is normally packaged and marketed (e.g., shampoo in 16 ounce contain- ers) and less frequent use of the product. 2.2.3. Entering new geographic markets By developing a solar-powered portable charging system for its digital cameras and photo printers, Hewlett-Packard has been able to make successful inroads into the vast Indian rural market. This in- cremental innovation has enabled HP to successfully sell digital cameras and printers to consumers living in villages in India that have not yet beneted from the national rural electrication program. However, unlike the customers targeted for HPs digital cam- eras and photo printers in the urban markets of India, HP has successfully nurtured rural female entrepreneurs as customers for its mobile solar- powered photo studio with digital camera and printer. The mobile photo studio allows these en- trepreneurs to process and deliver on-the-spot pho- tographs taken for purposes like government IDs, or at social events such as marriages and festivals. In addition to the incremental innovation in the prod- uct arena being a source of competitive advantage in the rural marketplace, the business model em- ployed by HP to tap into the potential of the rural market is also innovative. Unlike in urban markets where the camera and printer are sold outright to customers, the village entrepreneurs lease the equipment and purchase consumables from HP. An- other major contributing factor to HPs success in penetrating the rural market in India was knowledge about rural communities that it was able acquire through the immersion of a team of HP employees into the homes of local families for a couple of days, and from attending community meetings (Hewlett-Packard, 2005). 2.3. Entering new product-markets Incremental innovations can facilitate a rms entry into new markets, such as product categories in which a rm already has a market presence as discussed in the previous section, as well as into new product-markets, meaning established product categories in which a rm currently does not have a market presence. As a case in point, in 1985 Chesebrough-Ponds entered the market for lip care, a product category in which it did not have a market presence, by launching Vaseline brand petroleum jelly packaged in a 0.35 ounce plastic tube, and directly applicable on the lip, under the brand name Vaseline Lip Therapy. Applying Vaseline petroleum jelly on dry or cracked lips, particularly during the winter season, is one of the many uses for which the product has long been promoted. Howev- er, compared to petroleum jelly in a jar, the same product packaged in a 0.35 ounce tube that is contoured at the tip for ease of application offers greater form utility, or ease of use, as well as place utility and time utility, because it can be slipped into a pocket or carried in a handbag and used where and when needed. Besides facilitating entry into a new product-market, it is conceivable that the prot margins associated with the incremental innovation are considerably higher. While Vaseline brand petroleum jelly in a 13 ounce plastic jar retails for about $2.99 ($0.23 per ounce of jelly), the same product packaged in a 0.35 ounce tube retails for $1.99 ($5.69 per ounce of jelly). The above illustra- tion addresses the role of incremental innovations in the context of entering newproduct-markets broad- ly construed, while the sections that follow focus on more specic product-market contexts. 2.3.1. Entering fragmented product-markets Afragmented industry refers to an industry in which a large number of rms tend to be relatively small in respect to measures such as annual revenues, prots, 24 R. Varadarajan and assets, and are often regional. All else being equal, investments in innovation at the aggregate industry level, as well as at the individual rm level, are likely to be relatively lower in fragmented indus- tries in comparison to more concentrated industries. Incremental innovations can enable a relatively larg- er rm entering a fragmented industry through ac- quisition to establish a national market presence and nurture a national brand in the product category. For instance, prior to being acquired by Unilever in 1987, Chesebrough-Ponds acquired a regional brand in an ethnic food product category, Ragu brand spaghetti sauce, and took it national. Product variety, such as spaghetti sauce in a variety of avors, is one of the areas in which incremental innovations brought about by the acquiring rm is evident in the brands current product line. Understandably, incremental innovations as a source of competitive advantage by themselves could not have enabled the Ragu brand to achieve a dominant market position in the market- place. Theresources andskills of theacquiring rmto promote and distribute the product nationally were also major contributing factors. More generally, incremental innovations can be potential pathways for rms to enter commodity- product categories and establish a national market presence by investing in branding and incremental innovations. A natural consequence of differentia- tion through branding and incremental innovations in erstwhile commodity-product categories, such as common salt, edible oil, and milk, is increasing industry concentration. That signies that frag- mented industries are evolving into increasingly concentrated industries. 2.3.2. Entering product-markets following changes in the regulatory environment In 1997, in an effort to combat iodine-deciency disorder, a major health problem and leading cause of mental disorders including retardation and lowIQ, the Indian government banned the sale of non-io- dized salt. Since almost everyone consumes salt, iodized salt was viewed as an effective means for providing sufcient iodine to the population. Howev- er, due to the primitive storage and transportation conditions in certain regions of India, standard meth- ods of iodizing salt tended to be ineffective because the iodine leached out over time. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL), a subsidiary of Unilever, researched ways of keeping the iodine content of salt intact under transportationandstorageconditions inIndia. Rather than chemically encapsulating iodine with a protec- tive coating around both it and the salt particle, HHL researchers developed a method of protecting the iodine at the molecular level, which kept it intact until releasedintheacidic environment of thehuman stomach. Currently, HLLs Annapurna brandsalt is one of the two leading brands in the branded-salt cate- gory in India (Prahalad, 2004). 2.3.3. Entering related product-markets with entrenched competitors Economies of scope, or scope effects, refers to competitive cost advantages a rm is able to derive by virtue of entering into new businesses character- ized by cost or demand interdependencies with one or more of its current businesses. Illustrative of cost interdependency is a rm broadening its product line from facial tissue to facial tissue and bathroom tissue, as was the case with Kimberly-Clark, while a rm broadening its product line from carbonated beverages to salty snack foods, as was the case in the merger of the Pepsi-Cola Company and Frito-Lay in 1965, is illustrative of demand interdependency. When entering a related product-market with en- trenched competitors, in addition to the scope- based competitive cost advantage, competitive dif- ferentiation advantage based on incremental inno- vationsspecically, incremental innovations relative to the present offerings of entrenched competitorsmay be an imperative in order to attract the customers of entrenched competitors. 2.4. Achieving and defending product- category leadership Key to achieving and defending product category leadership are incremental innovations-based prod- uct differentiations that enable a rm to pursue a multi-brand strategy through differentiated product positioning and target marketing. These differentia- tions are also critical fromthe standpoint of enabling a rm to preempt retail shelf space by preempting the likely entry points of potential competitors. 2.4.1. Preempting retail shelf space by preempting potential entry points of competitors In the face of intense competition for shelf space at the retail level, incremental innovations-based product variety (forms, avors, features, price points, and so on) can enable rms to acquire retail shelf space by preempting the likely entry points of potential competitors. Incremental innovations, be- sides preempting potential entry points for compet- itors, can also enable rms to garner a greater proportion of the retail shelf space allocated to a specic product category. For instance, consider Procter & Gamble, the market share leader in the household laundry detergents category in the United States. In addition to Tide, its agship brand, P&Gs other differentiated brand offerings are the Fortune at the bottom of the innovation pyramid: The strategic logic of incremental innovations 25 Cheer brand positioned as formulated to help pro- tect against fading, color transfer and fabric wear; the Dreft brand positioned as formulated to rinse out thoroughly and promoted as the number one choice of pediatricians for years; the Era brand positioned as tough on stain; the Gain brand posi- tioned as a detergent with fabric softener; and the Ivory brand positioned as a mild cleansing deter- gent. However, consider the following caveat. In the past, it might have been possible for rms to pursue a strategy of product proliferation void of incremen- tal innovations, meaning line extensions with new avors, forms, sizes, and so on that offered no other compelling benet to consumers. Although rms incurred certain costs in pursuing such a strategy, it did serve the purposes of garnering larger amount of shelf space at the retail level, and deterring entry of competitors. However, the current information- rich business environment severely constrains the ability of rms to achieve meaningful results by employing such practices. One consequence of re- tailers greater ability to objectively measure the revenue and prots associated with the retail shelf space allocated at the product category level, brand level, and stock keeping unit (SKU) level is the more effective and efcient utilization of retail shelf space. That means that more or less shelf space is allocated at the product category and brand level based on these measures, and that the stocking of SKUs within brands that fail to deliver is discontin- ued. Furthermore, the practice of slotting allow- ances that retailers levy to make shelf space available for new products, as well as new SKUs within existing product categories and brands, are a deterrent to manufacturers pursuing a strategy of product proliferation void of incremental innova- tions. 2.4.2. Responding to price sensitivity and variety-seeking behavior driven brand switching by consumers In product categories that exhibit low brand loyalty, a rm can increase the likelihood of brand switching occurring within its multiple brand offerings by offering an incremental innovations-based differen- tiated portfolio of brands, and thereby discourage switching from its brand offering to the brand offer- ings of its competitors. Brand switching can occur for reasons such as price sensitivity and variety- seeking behavior. In the former, a rm that ensures that, at any point in time, one of its differentiated brands is available as a featured price promotion brand, such as with a cents-off coupon or weekly in- store special, may be able to retain the patronage of the price sensitive segment of the market. By dis- persing the incidence of price promotions across various brands, a rm can also lower the risk of dilution of the image of any of its brands that might result due to frequent price promotions. 2.4.3. Protecting agship brands with anker brands Incremental innovations can enable a rm to differ- entiate its anker brands, or brands that occupy positions adjacent to a rms agship brand(s) on either side in retail store shelves, from its agship brand. At the retail store shelf level, the anker brands serve to increase the physical distance be- tween the rms agship brand and competitors brand: for example, in the laundry detergents cat- egory in the United States, anker brands increase the physical distance between P&Gs agship brands Tide and Cheer from Unilevers agship brands Wisk and All. In addition, for products that trigger a greater degree of variety-seeking behavior by con- sumers, anker brands increase the probability of brand switching occurring within the rms brand offerings, and lower the probability of the user of a rms brand offering switching to a competitors brand offering. However, a few caveats should be considered regarding the multi-brand strategy-incremental in- novation nexus discussed here in the context of (a) responding to price sensitivity and variety-seeking behavior driven brand switching by consumers, and (b) protecting agship brands with anker brands. First, in recent years, in their quest to nurture and develop global brands in the face of high costs associated with developing global brands, a number of rms have resorted to downsizing their brand portfolios by deleting marginal brands. Second, with the deletion of marginal brands, a shift from inter- brand differentiation to intra-brand differentiation seems to be taking root (Varadarajan, DeFanti, & Busch, 2006). In other words, incremental innova- tions are increasingly launched as line extensions of existing brand names rather than under new brand names. For instance, the following is a partial list of differentiated variations in which Procter & Gamble currently markets its agship brand of laundry de- tergent: Tide, Tide Liquid, Ultra Tide Liquid, Tide Powder, Tide Simple Pleasures, 2X Ultra Tide, Tide with Febreze Freshness, Tide with a Touch of Downy, Tide Coldwater, Tide with Bleach, and Tide with Bleach Alternative (http://www.tide.com). Third, the label not withstanding, a anker brand cannot be based on a lackluster incremental innovation. As noted earlier, in todays information rich environ- ment, retailers are much better equipped to make effective and efcient utilization of retail shelf space in their stores. 26 R. Varadarajan 2.5. Commanding a higher price or price premium An incrementally innovative new product can enable a rm to command a higher price as well as realize higher margins than the product it replaces in the marketplace. For example, in 1971 the Gillette Safe- ty Razor Company (acquired by P&G in 2005) intro- duced the Gillette Trac II brand, a razor with two blades tted in a shaving cartridge. In 2006, it intro- duced the Gillette Fusion brand, tted with ve blades in a cartridge for shaving plus a sixth blade for trimming. The history of the price per replace- ment cartridge for Gillette brand razors, spanning the 35 year period from 1971 to 2006, summarized in Table 2, is instructive in this regard. The price per replacement cartridge unadjusted for ination, and the price per replacement cartridge adjusted for ination on the basis of consumer price index and expressed in 2006 equivalent dollars, is presented in the second and third columns, respectively. Incremental innovations can also enable a rm to command a price premium in the marketplace. For example, the Energizer Brand Quick Switch ash- light can be used with two AA, C, or D size batteries. While most ashlights in the marketplace, which are designed for use with only AA, C, or D size batteries, retail for about $3, the Energizer Brand Quick Switch ashlight retails for about $15. Understandably, the more important issue is whether an incremental innovation will enable a rm to achieve a higher margin rather than com- mand a higher price, compared to its previous prod- uct offering, or a price premium, relative to competitors product offerings. Two broad sets of criteria, price and non-price criteria, inuence the buying or brand choice decisions of individuals and organizations. With incremental innovations, a rm can enhance the salience of non-price criteria vis-a`- vis price in buyers choice decisions. Since the rm will incur certain costs in incorporating incremental innovations in its product offering, such a strategy will enable the rm to enhance its nancial per- formance, provided the marginal cost associated with the incremental innovation is lower than the increase in price that the incrementally innovative product is able to command in the marketplace. 2.6. Adapting to the structural characteristics of the industry ecosystem Often, the structural characteristics of the industry ecosystem in which a rm operates may call for the simultaneous pursuit of both incremental and radi- cal innovations. This may be particularly imperative when the ecosystem where a radical innovation has been introduced is still in the nascent stages. In the automobile industry, for example, it may be an imperative for rms to pursue both incremental innovations, such as hybrid vehicles and ex-fuel vehicles, and radical innovations, such as electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell-based vehicles, in light of the current state of the industry ecosystem. However, while a nationwide network of automobile service stations equipped to service electric ve- hicles and hydrogen fuel-cell-based vehicles, mean- ing service stations at which the batteries in an all electric vehicle can be recharged or replaced, does not currently exist, the existing network is adequate in the current context of hybrid vehicles and ex- fuel vehicles. 3. Marketplace outcomes of incremental innovations While the foregoing discussion and illustrations pro- vide insights into the centrality of incremental in- novations to a business competitive strategy, a related issue is empirical evidence on the market- Fortune at the bottom of the innovation pyramid: The strategic logic of incremental innovations 27 Table 2. Commanding higher prices through incremental innovations Product version Price per replacement cartridge Unadjusted for ination 1 Adjusted for ination 2 Gillette Trac II (1971, two-bladed cartridge); Two blades are better than one. $0.20 $1.00 Gillette Sensor (1990, spring-mounted blades); Can sense and adjust to the contours of your face. $0.79 $1.22 Gillette Mach3 (1998, three blades); You take one stroke, it takes three. $1.63 $2.02 Gillette Fusion (2006, ve blades plus a trimmer); The comfort of ve blades, the precision of one. $3.00 $3.00 1 Source: Marketing marches on. (2006, February 6). Business Week, 12. 2 Expressed in 2006 equivalent dollars. Adjusted for ination on the basis of consumer price index (see Williamson, 2008). place outcomes that result from pursuit of incre- mental innovations. Research pertaining to incre- mental innovations that manifest as line extensions suggest that a product-line-proliferation strategy can have three primary effects: (a) it increases overall demand faced by the rm, (b) affects supply by increasing costs, and (c) has strategic consequen- ces such as deterring entry of competitors and thereby allow an incumbent rm to increase prices (Bayus & Putsis, 1999). Research on incremental innovations that manifest as added new features in a rms current product offerings suggests that those added features provide positive differentia- tion by giving a product perceived advantages over competitors products. Consumers seem to use added features in an instrumental-reasoning pro- cess that makes the brand with more features ap- pear superior in a choice set (Brown & Carpenter, 2000; Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994). The later nding serves to reiterate a point made early on. In the face of erosion of a business com- petitive differentiation advantages in the market- place as a consequence of being neutralized by competitors actions, newdimensions of competitive differentiationadvantageresultingfromincremental innovations can be critical. While it is conceivable that the effect of some of the incremental innova- tions on a business competitive differentiation ad- vantage and performance may be marginal at best, the cumulative effect of a sequence of incremental innovations can be expected to be signicant. This highlights the importance for rms to pay careful attention to analysis and management of their port- folio of incremental innovations by focusing on issues such as the current stockpile/inventory, pipeline, optimal launch time, and evolutionary path of a sequence of incremental innovations. 4. Final thoughts and implications Although the illustrations presented here are in the context of goods, or tangibles-dominant products, the underlying competitive strategy contexts in which they are presented is also pertinent for serv- ices, or intangibles-dominant products. The follow- ing example is illustrative of the importance of dual emphasis on radical and incremental innovations in service industries. In the 1970s, using a eet of jet aircraft and a hub-and-spokes model for shipment of time-sensitive freight, FedEx Corporation revolu- tionized the express delivery service business, which represented a radical innovation. Over time, the incremental innovations that have followed include the installation of drop boxes; a centralized computer system to manage people, packages, vehicles, and weather scenarios in real time; a hand-held bar code scanner system to capture de- tailed package information; an electronic customs clearance system to expedite regulatory clearance while cargo is en route; and software that allows customers to process and manage shipping from their desktop computer. A number of key implications emerge from the foregoing discussion on the strategic logic of incre- mental innovations. First, in todays intensely com- petitive environment, pursuit and effective exploitation of both radical and incremental inno- vation opportunities are imperatives. Managed ef- fectively, every radical innovation can serve as a springboard for a steady stream of incremental innovations that generate new revenue streams or prolong the principal revenue stream. In turn, the prot streams associated with successful incremen- tal innovations enhance a rms ability to pursue radical innovation opportunities by serving as a source of funds to support both initial investments in R&D and subsequent investments in manufactur- ing and marketing. Second, in their attempts to emphasize the im- portance of innovations, rms routinely set innova- tion-related performance objectives, such as the percent of revenues or prots that various busi- nesses in the rms portfolio should derive from new products introduced in the recent past, mean- ing past 3 to 5 years. It is important to ensure that the scope of such innovation performance related objectives encompass performance objectives and metrics specic to incremental innovations. Third, rms should strive to nurture organization- al conditions, including organizational climate, pro- cesses, policies, structure, and systems, conducive to superior performance in the realmof incremental innovations. An organizational climate and top- management mindset that downplays the impor- tance of incremental innovations, or fails to recog- nize and reward mangers for superior performance in the realmof incremental innovations, can have an adverse impact. Specically, the continued effec- tiveness of the competitive strategy of businesses in a rms portfolio as well as their long-term growth and prot outlook can be at peril. Finally, the importance of incremental innova- tions to a rms long-term growth, protability, and survival notwithstanding, there is a need to guard against internal organizational conditions such as managerial biases and inertia resulting in an exces- sive focus on incremental innovation to the detri- ment of pursuit of radical innovations. For instance, researchers have drawn attention to organizational pathologies that inhibit breakthrough inventions. They include the familiarity trap (favoring the 28 R. Varadarajan familiar), the maturity trap (favoring the mature), and the propinquity trap (favoring search for solu- tions near to existing solutions). By experimenting with technologies that are novel (technologies with which the rm lacks prior experience), emerging (technologies that are recent or newly developed in the industry), and pioneering (technologies that do not build on any existing technologies), rms can overcome these traps and create breakthrough in- ventions (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001). References Ahuja, G., &Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established rms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Jour- nal, 22(6/7), 521543. Bayus, B., &Putsis, W. (1999). Product proliferation: An empirical analysis of product line determinants and market outcomes. Marketing Science, 18(2), 137153. Benner, M. J., &Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revis- ited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238256. Brown, C., &Carpenter, G. S. (2000). Why is the trivial important? A reasons-based account for the effects of trivial attributes on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 372385. Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 339351. Chandy, R. K., &Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474487. Christensen, C. M., Johnson, M. W., & Rigby, D. K. (2002). Foundations for growth: How to identify and build disruptive new businesses. Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 2231. Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at the techno- logical innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. The Journal of Product Innovation Manage- ment, 19(2), 110132. Hewlett-Packard. (2005). Pioneering protable models for growth: HP emerging market solutions. Hewlett-Packard De- velopment Company, L.P. Retrieved from http://www. hp.com/e-inclusion/en/project/ems-yir-022005.pdf Kanter, R. M. (2006). Innovation: The classic traps. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 7383. Leifer, R., McDermott, C. M., OConnor, G. C., Peters, L. S., Rice, M. P., & Veryzer, R. (2006). Radical innovation: How mature companies can outsmart upstarts. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Marketing marches on. (2006, February 6). Business Week, 12. Moore, G. A. (2005). Dealing with Darwin: How great companies innovate at every phase of their evolution. New York: Penguin USA. Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The fortune at the bottomof the pyramid. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing. Treacy, M. (2004). Innovation as a last resort. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 2930. Varadarajan, R., DeFanti, M. F., & Busch, P. S. (2006). Brand portfolio, corporate image, and reputation: Managing brand deletions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 195205. Wayne, L. (2006, May 7). Boeing bets the house on its 787 Dreamliner. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/business/yourmoney/ 07boeing.html?scp=1&sq=wayne+boeing+house+dreamliner &st=nyt Williamson, S. H. (2008) Six ways to compute the relative value of a U.S. dollar amount, 1790 to present. Measuring Worth.com. Retrieved from http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators /uscompare Fortune at the bottom of the innovation pyramid: The strategic logic of incremental innovations 29