60 YEARS

MA K I
I
N
N
G
T H E

a look at the ev o l u t io n o f r e s e a r c h o n
, in n o v a t io n a n D g r o w t h
new proDucts
MANN
B Y D O N A LD R . LE H

38 | M a r k e t i n g M a n ag e M e n t | w i n t e r 2 011

MM Winter 2011.indd 38 12/5/11 2:07 PM

0
❱ COVER STORY ❰
T
HE FACT THAT most
new product ventures
end in failure can limit
enthusiasm for emerg-
ing products, innova-
tion and growth. how-
ever, a low success
rate may be accept-
able, or even appro-
priate, if the potential benefit (the
profit) of a new product is suffi-
ciently greater than the cost of fail-
ure. for a 20-percent success rate,
as long as the potential gain is four
times the size of the potential loss
(ignoring benefits such as learn-
ing or product-line synergy and
costs like reputation tarnishing),
then one should go ahead with the
launch on an expected value basis.
in spite of the high failure rate,
the drive for new-product-driven
growth stems from two principal
motivations. first, there is hope
for a “right-tail” result (i.e., a spec-
tacular success, such as google,
MM Winter 2011.indd 39
T H O U G HT L E A D E R S H I P F R O M M S I 5 0
facebook, the ipod or the model
t). the allure of spectacular suc-
cess is particularly strong for small,
young firms that have relatively
little to lose in terms of brand eq-
uity or capital if they fail. in larger
companies, successful outcomes
make heroes out of the developers/
architects (steve Jobs, sergey brin,
henry ford) and generate huge fi-
nancial windfalls for the companies
that market them.
second, there is tremendous
pressure for publicly traded com-
panies to produce high growth
rates, thereby justifying and/or
increasing price/earnings ratios
and stock price. this second force
explains why companies often
acquire other companies—and
frequently overpay for them in the
process. a parallel force exists for
small family-owned firms as the ar-
rival of new generations produces
a need for more cash to sustain the
growing extended family.
w i n t e r 2 011 | M a r k e t i n g p ow e r . co M | 39
12/5/11 2:07 PM
 F IGU RE 1 : C h a n g e i n Pri o ri ti e s

1974-1994 1994-1996 1996-1998 1998-2000 2000-2002

Developing Successfully Innovation Marketing New product/
new business introducing really and really new innovation: innovation (6)
Opportunities (1) new products (1) products and Creating
and Improving markets (2) customers, • Market research
the new product • Forecasting adoption/ creating really that provides timely
development diffusion; incorporating new products (6) consumer insights
• Discovering and
process (3) customer reactions and testing really new • Speed to market
input products and services
• Best practices • Evaluating new
• Anticipating future • Concept testing for identifying products and projects
scenarios “breakthrough” new
• Developing product platforms
• Marketing-driven organizational
vs. market-driven processes and culture • Best practices for
development: The for innovation identifying fresh
benefits of leading consumer/customer
vs. following insights
• How marketing can
play the most effective
role

MSI Research Priorities
Given the key role of growth, in general, and new products,
in particular, it is interesting to see how both their importance
and the aspects of them considered most crucial have evolved
over time. To assess this evolution from the perspective of busi-
ness, it is useful to focus on the research priorities developed by
the Marketing Science Institute. Beginning in 1974, MSI has
surveyed its members (currently 72) to ascertain what issues
were most crucial and needed more attention (research). Figure
1 highlights the change in priorities over time.
First, somewhat surprisingly, developing new products was
not identified as a high priority topic between 1974 and 1992,
although developing business opportunities was the highest
priority topic from 1984 to 1985. By contrast, from 1992 on,
some variation on new products, innovation and growth has
consistently been a top priority.
More interesting is how the specific focus has evolved over
time. Through the 1980s, the top priorities concentrated on
improving (innovating) the marketing mix, with no special
focus on new products. The 1992-1994 priorities spotlight
improving the new product development process (i.e., efficien-
cy). For 1994-1996, the top priority was forecasting both new
product sales and future environments.
From 1996-1998, attention turned from minor (“lemon-
scented”) innovations to “really new” (discontinuous) innova-
tions, which created or revolutionized product categories. In
addition, interest began to focus on not just single innovations,
but on developing organizations capable of producing multiple
new products over time.
From 1998-2000, attention was focused on the topic du
jour: best practices. While observing the practices of other
successful companies can indeed provide suggestions/
hypotheses about what works, it is far from scientific or
reliable. Problems include:
• the failure to see if unsuccessful companies follow
the same practices;
• the possibility that other (unnoted) practices that are
correlated (occur concurrently) with the “best practice” drive
the result; and
• the question of whether the practice leads to success
or vice versa.
That is, successful firms can afford, and hence are more
likely, to engage in a number of activities, such as support-
ing social causes, providing employee benefits like day care
and spending on research and development or advertising.
Untangling what causes what is non-trivial and requires data
over multiple time periods, as well as careful (econometric)
analysis.
More interesting than the focus on method (best prac-
tices) are the topics identified as high priority. First, “break-
through” product platforms (aka really new products)
remained a central concern. Second, attention was directed
toward the now common topic of customer insights.
The 2000-2002 priorities showed a lessening in concern
about new products, as attention shifted to the Internet
and new media. In terms of specifics, interest in consumer
(customer) insights, speed to market and evaluating/selecting
among products remained high.
The 2002-2004 priorities showed both a re-emphasis on
the topic and an important shift in emphasis. For the first
time, growth was identified as the key aspect, with innovation
and new products now appropriately thought of as means to
this end/goal. Second, the role of metrics in assessing product
development, including the more qualitative aspect of idea
generation, became more prominent—especially as they
related to predicting success and failure.
The 2004-2006 priorities marked the ascension of growth
to the top priority, a position it has held for three of the last
four sets of priorities. Discontinuous growth strategies ef-
fectively combined the older emphasis on really new products
with growth. The emphasis on organic growth signaled the
increased emphasis on internal growth (vs. external via

40 | M a r k e t i n g M a n ag e m e n t | w i n t e r 2 011

MM Winter 2011.indd 40 12/5/11 2:07 PM

 2002-2004 2004-2006 2006-2008 2008-2010 2010-2012
Growth, Growth (1) Connecting Innovation (4) Using market
innovation, and innovation with information
new products (4) • Ensuring customer-
growth (1) • Novel approaches to identify
relevant innovation to new product opportunities for
development profitable growth
• Improved metrics/ • Organic growth • Engaging customers
ROI for new product through innovation and • Service innovation (1)
introduction/failures, • Discontinuous growth design
strategies that reshape • Co-creation
idea generation and • Aligning product
offering (product) the industry • Testing and • Identifying
innovation with
portfolio forecasting opportunities enabled
customer expectations
by technology
• Early prediction of • Creating a culture of
marketplace acceptance • Identifying
innovation opportunities arising
• Development and from economic
validation of better conditions
prediction/forecast
methods • Social issues shaping
marketing practice

mergers and acquisitions) now prominently espoused by lead-
ing companies such as General Electric and Procter & Gamble.
The 2006-2008 priorities conjoined innovation with
growth. It also highlighted the growing emphasis on involving
customers in the innovation and product-development process,
and formally identified design as a key (and emerging) focus. In
addition, it returned to the topic of the organization, specifi-
cally a culture of innovation.
The 2008-2010 priorities continued the evolution of
emphasis by identifying other aspects worthy of exploration,
including service, while retaining a focus on product develop-
ment co-creation and technology.
The current (2010-2012) priorities again place profit-
able growth at the top, highlighting the roles of information
and technology. It also, unsurprisingly given the state of the
economy, identifies the role of economic conditions and social
issues as particularly relevant aspects.
Examining these priorities across time reveals an interest-
ing progression. The focus has moved from innovation aimed
at improving the mix in general, to, initially, new products, and
then to really new products/discontinuous innovation. In-
novation itself then emerged as a major theme, including idea
generation, creativity and aspects of design. Most recently, the
focus has shifted to organic growth, with new products seen
more as a means to this end.
Sixty Years of Research
A complementary perspective to the priorities identified by
managers can be observed by examining the academic litera-
ture on the topic. Given the large body of work in this area,
it is impossible to adequately cover all of it. Nonetheless, by
examining award-winning and other relevant papers, one can
get a pretty good sense of the developments over time. Specifi-
cally, award-winning papers through 2010 were examined from
Journal of Marketing (H. Paul Root), Journal of Marketing
Research (William F. O’Dell), Marketing Science (Frank Bass
and John Little) and Journal of Consumer Research (Robert
Ferber).
An impressive fraction of award-winning papers addressed
the general area of new products, innovation and growth.
These were then supplemented by papers in these journals that
appeared on the top five pages of a Google search based on the
words “new products,” “innovation,” “growth” and “market-
ing.” Papers in the most focused journal in the area, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, were not included because they
were so numerous (i.e., the entire May 2011 issue was devoted
to product design). Clearly, it is an important resource for
anyone interested in the topic.
Next, a convenience sample of three professors was asked
to go over the list and add key references. Finally, the author
added a few personal favorites. The result is a relatively unsci-

br i efly • Despite high product failure rates, marketers continue to be motivated

by the possibility of spectacular new product successes and importance
of growth for financial performance.
• The emphasis has moved from the lone inventor to teams and collaborative approaches.
• Future efforts may favor structured creativity tools and seek improvements through
product design and execution.

w i n t e r 2 011 | M a r k e t i n g p ow e r . co m | 41

MM Winter 2011.indd 41 12/5/11 2:07 PM

 entific and potentially biased, but hopefully useful, perspective
on academic research in the area addressed over the last 60
years.
In examining past research, it is useful to divide the research
and problems into five broad areas. The first has to do with
creation and includes aspects such as ideation and design. A
second key area is forecasting, both in terms of whether a new
initiative will succeed and the actual sales (and profit) level it
attains over time. A third area, and one particularly relevant to
academics, involves understanding how and why new prod-
ucts come into being and how markets respond to them. A
fourth area of great importance (albeit receiving less academic
scrutiny) involves the management of development and imple-
mentation. This includes issues of organizational culture (e.g.,
market and customer orientation), incentives, inter-functional
coordination and alliances/partnerships. Finally, there is a need
to evaluate new products and initiatives, including their impact
on the stock market. (Some research has shown that major
innovations have a positive, if not totally immediate, impact on
stock price). This Appendix provides a list of key papers, orga-
nized by decade and general focus. To access it, please see an
extended version of this article on the Marketing Management
page at MarketingPower.com.
Significant work on creation and design emerged in the
1980s. The work initially focused on conjoint analysis and was
followed by methods for incorporating consumer insights via
the use of focus groups, lead users and the “voice-of-the cus-
tomer” approach. Most recently, the focus has been on enhanc-
ing creativity via structured methods and incenting individuals
to contribute to the innovation process.
Efforts to predict the success of new products date at least
back to Fourt and Woodlock’s 1960 paper. Bass’ seminal paper
provided a parsimonious model for durable adoption. From the
late ’60s and through the ’80s, a legion of new product fore-
casting models appeared including SPRINTER, ASESSOR,
LITMUS and NEWS, elements of which are found in the
current standard, BASES. More recently, attention has turned
F I GU RE 2 : A p p e n d i x Cl a s s i fi c a ti o n
Create Predict
’50s
’60s 3 3
’70s 1 5
’80s 4 6
’90s 2 6
2000s 2 2
TOTAL 9 22
42 | M a r k e t i n g M a n ag e m e n t | w i n t e r 2 011
MM Winter 2011.indd 42
to examining the benefits to pioneering and modeling sales
takeoff, as well as methods such as information acceleration and
stock trading, to provide early prediction of product sales.
Work on understanding is more diverse. The 1950s are
largely forgotten. Nonetheless, in 1955 the key topic of word of
mouth got a major boost from Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld’s
book Personal Influence (Transaction Publishers, 2005). Given
the current focus on Web-based influence via blogs, tweets,
social networks and customer reviews, it would be instructive
to re-examine classic work in this area, including Arndt’s 1967
Journal of Marketing Research paper on “product-related con-
versation.” Recently, word-of-mouth work has again become
prominent, largely focused on the Internet and social networks.
Another stream of research relates to how customers view
and evaluate new products, specifically how they categorize
them and evaluate specific features as exemplified by Everett
M. Rogers’ classic work, Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press,
2003). Considerable effort has also gone into understanding
what characteristics of the product and the firm lead to market
success and failure, as well as the impact of satisfaction on
subsequent purchases.
A managerial focus has been evident for a long time, begin-
ning with Wendell Smith’s work on product differentiation in
the 1950s. Considerable effort has been directed at identify-
ing the optimal strategy for new product introduction, as well
as responses to competitive introductions. In contrast to the
other areas, valuation had received relatively little attention
with the exception of the Chaney et al paper, “The Impact of
New Product Introductions on the Market Value of Firms”
(Marketing Science Institute, 1991). Since 2000, however,
spurred by the increased emphasis on metrics, several articles
have examined the impact of innovation and R&D spending on
stock prices.
Figure 2 provides a classification of the papers in the
online Appendix by topic area over time, with several observa-
tions emerging. First, academic research has concentrated on
forecasting, understanding and managing new products and
Understand Manage Value
2 1
1
4 3 1
6 8 1
10 13 5
26 25 7
12/5/11 2:07 PM
 growth much more than on creating or FiG U r e 3: Future D i recti ons rather than improvements within the
valuing it. Second, while prediction has classic new product funnel, is likely the
been a steady area of interest, work on • Structured Creativity key to future success.
understanding and managing continues • Design for Another direction for future
to grow and essentially dominates the • Production efficiency research (and company efforts) is
literature examined here. Finally, valua- (cost + resources) increased emphasis on brand and cus-
• Repair
tion seems to be emerging as a key topic. tomer vs. product-based growth. These
• Upgrade
Where will the emphasis be in the • Disposal/Re-Purposing
other perspectives provide additional
future? Recognizing the fallibility of ways to imagine growth. They also pro-
• Implementation
forecasts (hence the recurring interest • Cross-Functional Plus
vide important standards for evaluating
in better forecasts in the MSI priorities). • Beta Sites growth: Essentially a successful innova-
The following areas, outlined in Figure • Scaling Up; Shutting Down tion requires a superior product that is
3, seem likely to be important. • Organic Creation/Internet/ consistent with (or enhances) a com-
Opportunistic pany brand’s image and appeals clearly
creation/Design • Customer Engagement to either existing customers (leading
Over time, the emphasis moved from the • Customer Developed and Refined to expanded margin per customer) or
• Flexibility VS. The “Funnel”
lone inventor as almost mythical hero new customers (generating customer
to teams/labs (e.g., Xerox PARC, Bell acquisitions).
Labs and GE, which has recently expanded its R&D spending). The final area is less pleasant. To many constituencies,
More recently, external collaborations have been emphasized, growth is not seen as a mechanism for economic improvement,
including alliances/partnerships with other companies and with but rather as a drain on resources and a means to encourage a
customers via lead users and beta sites. Attention has shifted to more wasteful and less-fulfilling lifestyle. Failure to consider this
listening to “common folk” and customers and incorporating position and respond to some extent seems to be a recipe for
their ideas and “Duct-Tape” solutions to problems. Particularly conflict, if not disaster. Hopefully doing a better job in the other
interesting in this regard is the importing of non-U.S., less- areas in general, and design in terms of efficient use of resources
developed-country designs to industrialized country company and provision for disposal and re-purposing in particular, will
product lines (i.e., reverse innovation). help counteract the current criticism. MM
In the future, two areas seem ripe for further exploration. This article is one of a series based on presentations from the
One is further development of structured creativity devices to Marketing Science Institute’s 50th anniversary conference, where
identify growth options. The other is design. Beyond aesthetic marketing thought leaders gathered to celebrate MSI’s achievements
design, some important “industrial” design issues remain critical, and explore the future of marketing.
including design for:
• Efficient production in terms of both cost and resource use;
• Repair; ✒ donaLd r. LehMann is George e. warren professor of business at
• Easy upgrade; and Columbia University in new York. He may be reached at DrL2@columbia.edu.
• Disposal and/or repurposing.
Another area that is relatively under-researched is imple-
mentation/execution. As anyone involved in sports knows, a
well-executed strategy can beat a poorly executed one—even
if the second strategy is logically/potentially superior. Thus,
Need More Marketing Power?
areas such as cross-functional coordination, use of beta sites
and means for scaling up (and the ability and willingness to go to marketingpower.com
scale back in the face of weak demand) will remain important.
Organization culture and market orientation, as well as the ama articles
ability to coalesce around a strategy either by consensus or via a Managing Sales Force Product Perceptions and Control Systems in
the Success of new Product introductions, Journal of Marketing
(hopefully charismatic) leader, such as Steve Jobs of Apple, also
Research, 2010
play important roles.
A third area, organic creation, is really an extension of the Back to Basics: Managing Valuable Product Knowledge and Data
Aberdeen Group, 2009
first. So-called customer engagement, in the form of customer-
developed and customer-refined (and evaluated) designs/prod- ama webcast
ucts, is increasingly recognized for its potential to drive organic Growing Constituent Engagement, Loyalty and Lifetime Value,
growth. In effect, these recognize the “new normal” (i.e., that Convio and The NonProfit Times, 2011
firms are no longer in charge of their products). Flexibility,

w i n t e r 2 011 | M a r k e t i n g p ow e r . co M | 43

MM Winter 2011.indd 43 12/5/11 2:07 PM

Appendix: Noteworthy Literature
Create/Design
Fern, E. F. (1982), “The Use of Focus Groups for
Idea Generation: The Effects of Group
Size, Acquaintanceship and Moderator on
Response Quantity and Quality,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 19, 1-13. [Root]
Green, P., J. Carroll and S. Goldberg (1981),
“A General Approach to Product Design
Optimization via Conjoint Analysis, Journal of
Marketing, 43 (Summer), 17-35. [Root]
Griffin, Abbie and John R. Hauser (1993), “The
Voice of the Customer,” Marketing Science, 12
(Winter), 1-27. [Little, Bass]
Goldenberg, Jacob, David Mazursky and
Sorin Solomon (1999), “Toward Identifying
the Inventive Templates of New Products: A
Channeled Ideation Approach,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 36 (May), 200-210.
Moreau, C. Page and Darren W. Dahl (2005),
“Designing the Solution: The Impact of
Constraints on Consumers’ Creativity,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 13–22. [JCR]
Toubia, Olivier (2006), “Idea Generation,
Creativity, and Incentives,” Marketing Science,
25 (5), 411-425. [Little]
Urban, G. I. and E. von Hippel (1988), “Lead
User Analyses for the Development of New
Industrial Products,” Management Science, 34,
569-582.
Von Hippel, Eric (1988), The Sources of
Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wind, Yoram (1973), “A New Procedure for
Concept Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing, 37
(October), 2-11. [Root]
Predict/Forecast
Assmus, G. (1975), “NEWPROD: The Design
and Implementation of a New Product Model,”
Journal of Marketing, (January), 16-23.
Bass, Frank M. (1969), “A New Product Growth
Model for Consumer Durables,” Management
Science, 15, 224.
Blackburn, J. D. and Kevin J. Clancy (1980),
“Litmus: A New Product Planning Model,”
in Proceedings: Market Measurement and
Analysis, Robert P. Leone, ed. Providence
R.I.: The Institute of Management Sciences,
182-193.
Claycamp, H.J. and I.E. Liddy (1969),
“Prediction of New Product Performance,”
Journal of Marketing Research (November)
414-420.
Dahan E., A.J. Kim, A. W. Lo, T. Poggio and N.
Chan (2011), “Securities Trading of Concepts
(STOC),” Journal of Marketing Research, (June),
497-517.
Fourt L.A. and J.W. Woodlock (1960), “Early
Prediction of Market Success for New Grocery
Products,” Journal of Marketing, 25, 31–38.
Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis (1993),
“Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or
Marketing Legend?” Journal of Marketing,
(May), 158–70. [O’Dell]
Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis (1997),
“Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the Takeoff of Really
New Consumer Durables,” Marketing Science,
256-270. [Bass]
Horsky, Dan (1990), “A Diffusion Model
Incorporating Product Benefits, Price, Income
and Information,” Marketing Science, 342–365.
Mahajan, V., E. Muller and F.M. Bass (1990),
“New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A
Review and Directions for Research,” Journal of
Marketing, 54 (January), 1-26. [Maynard]
Norton, John A. and Frank M. Bass (1987),
“A Diffusion Theory Model of Adoption and
Substitution for Successive Generations of
High-Technology Products,” Management
Science, 33 (9), 1069-1086. [Little]
Ofek, E. and M. Sarvary (2003), “R&D,
Marketing, and the Success of Next-
Generation Products,” Marketing Science, 355-
370. [Little, Bass]
Pringle, Lewis, R.D. Wilson and E.I. Brody
(1982), “News: a Decision-Oriented Model
for New Product Analysis and Forecasting,”
Marketing Science (Winter), 1-30.
Silk, Alvin J. and Glen L. Urban (1978), “Pretest-
Market Evaluation of New Packaged Goods:
A Model and Measurement Methodology,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (2), 171-191.
[O’Dell]
Shocker, Allan D. and V. Srinivasan (1979),
“Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept
Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review,”
Journal of Marketing Research, (May), 16 (2).
[O’Dell]
Sultan, Fareena, John U. Farley and Donald
R. Lehmann (1990), “A Meta-Analysis of
Applications of Diffusion Models,” Journal of
Marketing Research, (February), 70-77. [O’Dell]
Tellis, G.J. and C.M. Crawford (1981), “An
Evolutionary Approach to Product
Growth Theory,” Journal of Marketing, 125-132.
Urban, G. L. (1970), “SPRINTER MOD III: A
Model for the Analysis of New Frequently
Purchased Consumer Products,” Operations
Research, 18, 805-854.
Urban, G. L., J.R. Hauser, W.J. Qualls, B.D.
Weinberg, J.D. Bohlmann and R.A. Chicos
(1997), “Information Acceleration: Validation
and Lessons From The Field,” Journal of
Marketing Research, (February), 143-153.
Urban, Glen L. and Gerald M. Katz (1983),
“Pretest-Market Models: Validation and
Managerial Implications,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 221-234. [O’Dell]
Urban, G., B.D. Weinberg and J. R. Hauser
(1996), “Premarket Forecasting of Really New
Products,” Journal of Marketing, 47-60. [Root
W I N T E R 2 011 | M A R K E T I N G P OW E R . CO M | 51
Understanding
Arndt, John (1967), “Role of Product-Related
Conversations in the Diffusion of a New
Product,” Journal of Marketing Research,
(August), 291-295.
Bronnenberg, Bart J. and Carl Mela (2004),
“Market Rollout and Retail Adoption for New
Brands of Non-Durable Goods,” Marketing
Science, (Fall), 500-518. [Little]
Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer and Kent
Nakamoto (1994), “Meaningful Brands from
Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence
on Irrelevant Attributes,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 31 (August), 339-350. [O’Dell]
Carpenter, G. S. and Kent Nakamoto (1989),
“Consumer Preference Formation and
Pioneering. Advantage,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 26, 285-298. [O’Dell]
Chandy, Rajesh and Gerard Tellis (2000),
“The Incumbent’s Curse? Incumbency, Size
and Radical Product Innovation,” Journal of
Marketing, 64 (July), 1-17. [Maynard]
Chevalier, Judith and Dina Mayzlin (2006), “The
Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online
Book Reviews,” Journal of Marketing Research,
43 (3), 345-354. [O’Dell]
Coleman, J., E. Katz and H. Menzel (1957), “The
Diffusion of an Innovation Among Physicians,”
Sociometry, 253-270.
Coleman, J.S., E. Katz and H. Menzel (1966),
Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. New
York: Bobbs Merrill.
Cooper, R.G. (1979), “The Dimensions of
Industrial New Product Success and Failure,”
Journal of Marketing, (Summer), 93-103.
Fornell, Claes, Roland T. Rust and Marnik
G. Dekimpe (2010), “The Effect of Customer
Satisfaction on Consumer Spending Growth,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (February),
28-35.
52 | M A R K E T I N G M A N AG E M E N T | W I N T E R
Gatignon, H. and T.S. Robertson (1985), “A
Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion
Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(March), 849-867.
Gatignon, H. and J.M. Xuereb (1997), “Strategic
Orientation of the Firm and New Product
Performance,” Journal of Marketing Research,
34, 77–90.
Goldenberg, Jacob, Sangman Han, Donald
Lehmann and Jae Weon Hong (2009), “The Role
of Hubs in the Adoption Process,” Journal of
Marketing, 73, 1-13.
Goldenberg, J., D.R. Lehmann and D. Mazursky
(2001), “The Idea Itself and the Circumstances
of Its Emergence as Predictors of New Product
Success,” Management Science, 47, 69-84.
Hauser, John, Gerard J. Tellis and Abbie Griffin
(2005), “Research on Innovation: A Review and
Agenda for Marketing Science,” MSI Special
Report No. 05-200.
Johnson, Joseph and Gerard J. Tellis (2008),
“Drivers of Success for Market Entry Into China
and India,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (May) 1-13.
[Root]
Katz, E. and P. Lazarsfeld (1955), Personal
Influence. New York: The Free Press.
Mittal, V. and W.A. Kamakura (2001),
“Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and
Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the
Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 131-142.
[O’Dell]
Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi and Roger Calantone
(1994), “Determinants of New Product
Performance: A Review and Meta-analysis,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11
(5), 397-417.
Moreau, C. Page, Donald R. Lehmann and
Arthur B. Markman (2001), “Entrenched
Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response
2 011
to New Products,” Journal of Marketing
Research, (February), 14-29.
Nowlis, Stephen M. and Itamar Simonson
(1996), “The Effect of New Product Features on.
Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research,
33 (February), 36-46. [O’Dell]
Raju, Jagmohan, Raj Sethuraman and Sanjay
Dhar (1995), “The Introduction and Performance
of Store Brands,” Management Science, 41
(June), 957-978. [Little]
Robertson, Thomas (1967), “The Process of
Innovation and the Diffusion of Innovation,”
Journal of Marketing, (January), 14-19.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations.
New York: The Free Press.
Tellis, Gerard J. and C. Merle Crawford (1981),
“An Evolutionary Approach to Product Growth
Theory,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Fall), 125-
132.
Trusov, Michael, Anand Bodapati and Randolph
E. Bucklin (2010), “Determining Influential
Users in Internet Social Networks,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 47 (4), 643-658. [Green
Management
Ailawadi, Kusum L., Jie Zhang, Aradhna
Krishna and Michael W. Kruger (2010), “When
Wal-Mart Enters: How Incumbent Retailers
React and How This Affects Their Sales
Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47
(August), 577-593.
Amaldoss, Wilfred, Robert J. Meyer, Jagmohan
S. Raju and Amnon Rapoport (2000),
“Collaborating to Compete,” Marketing Science,
19 (2), 105-26. [Little]
Biyalogorsky, Eyal, William Boulding and
Richard Staelin (2006), “Stuck in the Past: Why
Managers Persist with New Product Failures,”
Journal of Marketing, (April) 70 (2). [Maynard]
Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto
(1990), “Competitive Strategies for Late
Entry into a Market with a Dominant Brand,”
Management Science, 36, 10 (October),
1268-78.
Chandy, Rajesh K. and Gerard J. Tellis (1998),
“Organizing for Radical Product Innovation:
The Overlooked Role of Willingness to
Cannibalize,” Journal of Marketing Research,
35, 4 (November), 474-87.
Cooper, Lee G. (2000), “Strategic Marketing
Planning for Radically New Products,” Journal
of Marketing, 64 (January), 1-16. [Root]
Deshpande R., J.U. Farley and F.E. Webster
Jr. (1993), “Corporate Culture, Customer
Orientation, and Innovativeness,” Journal of
Marketing, 57, 1, 23-37.
Gatignon, Hubert, Thomas S. Robertson
and Adam Fein (1997), “Incumbent Defense
Strategies Against Innovative Entry,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing,
14 (2), 163-176.
Godes, David and Dina Mayzlin (2009), “Firm-
Created Word-of-Mouth Communication:
Evidence from a Field Study,” Marketing
Science, 28 (4), 721-739. [Bass]
Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis (1993),
“Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or
Marketing Legend?” Journal of Marketing
Research, (May), 158-170. [O’Dell]
Gordon, B. R. (2009), “A Dynamic Model of
Consumer Replacement Cycles in the PC
Processor Industry,” Marketing Science, 28 (5),
846–867. [Little]
Griffin, A. (1997), “PDMA Research on New
Product Development Processes,” Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 14, 429-458.
Hauser, John R. and Steven M. Shugan (1983),
“Defensive Marketing Strategies,” Marketing
Science, 2, (Fall), 319-360. [Little]
Hitsch, Gunter (2006), “An Empirical Model
of Optimal Dynamic Product Launch and
Exit Under Demand Uncertainty,” Marketing
Science, 25 (1), 25-50. [Bass]
Horsky, D. and P. Nelson (1992), “New Brand
Positioning and Pricing in an Oligopolistic
Market,” Marketing Science, 11 (Spring), 133-
152. [Bass]
Kopalle, Praveen K. and Donald R. Lehmann
(2006), “Setting Quality Expectations When
Entering a Market: What Should the Promise
Be?” Marketing Science, 25 (1), 8-24.
Luo, Lan, P. K. Kannan and Brian Ratchford
(2007), “New Product Development Under
Channel Acceptance,” Marketing Science, 26 (2),
149-163. [Little]
Mayzlin, Dina (2006), “Promotional Chat on the
Internet,” Marketing Science, 25 (2), 155-
163. [Bass]
Robertson, T.S. and H. Gatignon (1986),
“Competitive Effects on Technology Diffusion,”
Journal of Marketing, 50 (July), 1-12. [Maynard]
Rust, Roland T., Katherine N. Lemon and Valarie
A. Zeithaml (2009), “Return on Marketing:
Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing
Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 109-127.
[Sheth]
Rust, Roland T., Christine Moorman and Peter
R. Dickson, (2002), “Getting Return on Quality:
Cost Reduction, Revenue Expansion, or Both?”
Journal of Marketing, 66 (October), 7-24. [Root]
Shankar, Venkatesh, Gregory Carpenter and
Lakshman Krishnamurthi (1998), “Late Mover
Advantage: How Innovative Late Entrants
Outsell Pioneers,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 35 (February), 54-70. [Green]
Smith, W. (1956), “Product Differentiation and
Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing
Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 21, 3–8.
[Root]
Stephen, Andrew and Olivier Toubia (2010),
“Deriving Value from Social Commerce
Networks,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47
(2), 215-228.
Urban, G.L. and J.R. Hauser (1993), Design and
Marketing of New Products. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Value
Chaney, Paul K., Timothy M. Devinney and
Russell S. Winer (1991), “The Impact of New
Product Introductions on the Market Value of
Firms,” Journal of Business, 64 (4), 573–610.
Gupta, Sunil, Donald R. Lehmann and Jennifer
Stuart (2004), “Valuing Customers,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 41 (February), 7-18.
[Green]
Mizik, Natalie and Robert Jacobson (2003),
“Trading Off Between Value Creation and Value
Appropriation: The Financial Implications
of Shifts in Strategic Emphasis,” Journal of
Marketing, 67 (January), 63-76.
Sood, Ashish and Gerard J. Tellis (2009), “Do
Innovations Really Pay off? Total Stock Market
Returns to Innovation,” Marketing Science, 28
(3) 442–456.
Sorescu, A.B. and J. Spanjol (2008),
“Innovation’s Effect on Firm Value and Risk:
Insights from Consumer Packaged Goods,”
Journal of Marketing, 72 (2), 114-132.
Srinivasan, Shuba, Koen Pauwels, Jorge Silva-
Risso and Dominique M. Hanssens
(2009), “Product Innovation, Advertising
Spending and Stock Market Returns,” Journal of
Marketing, 73 (1), 24-43.
Urban, Glen L., Theresa Carter, Steve Gaskin
and Zofia Mucha (1986), “Market Share
Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical
Analysis and Strategic Implications,”
Management Science 32 (June), 645-659. [Little]
W I N T E R 2 011 | M A R K E T I N G P OW E R . CO M | 53