Summaries Marketing & Innovation
2012/2013
Inhoud
Session 2: ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Christine Moorman & Roland T. Rust (1999) .................................................................................. 3
De Luca et al. (2010) ........................................................................................................................ 4
Session 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Workman (1993) ............................................................................................................................. 5
De Clerq (2011)................................................................................................................................ 5
Session 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Bonner and Walker (2004) ............................................................................................................. 6
Schreier and Prügl 2008 .................................................................................................................. 7
Fuchs, prandelli and Schreier (2010) ............................................................................................... 8
Session 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Tripsas & Gavetti (2000) .................................................................................................................. 9
Rosa et al. (1999) ........................................................................................................................... 10
Session 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Mullins 2007 .................................................................................................................................. 12
Session 7 ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Goal: .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Graeff T.R. (1997) .......................................................................................................................... 12
Kleijnen et al. (2009)...................................................................................................................... 13
Session 8 ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Guiltinan (1999) ............................................................................................................................. 14
Zacharias, Nijssen and Stock (2012) .............................................................................................. 17
Session 9 ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Kotler (2006) .................................................................................................................................. 20
Surowiecki, James (2007). ............................................................................................................. 20
Session 10 .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Lee and O’Conner 2003 ................................................................................................................. 21
Session 11 .............................................................................................................................................. 22
Mudambi (2002) ............................................................................................................................ 22
Session 2:
Goal:
Defining marketing and market orientation
a. What is marketing? Distinguish between function, process/ philosophy
b. Explain difference between MO as culture and info behavior. Mo vs. Driving the market
c. Clarify that marketing adds to 3 key business processes: CRM, NPD and supply chain
Christine Moorman & Roland T. Rust (1999)
The role of marketing
The article researches the role of the marketing function in companies that have a high market
orientation, because what is the function of marketing if the firm is all about marketing? The authors
take the view that though a firm’s market orientation is undeniably important, the marketing
function should play a key role in managing several important connections between the customer
and critical firm elements, including connecting the customer to (1) the product, (2) service delivery,
and (3) financial accountability. The results show that the marketing function contributes to
perceptions of firm financial performance, customer relationship performance, and new product
performance beyond that explained by a firm’s market orientation.
A functional marketing organization: A group of specialists that focus on marketing of the company
Marketing process organization: Dispersion of marketing activities across non specialists in the
company.
The current literature states that marketing becomes more a job for everyone in the company. The
article suggests that marketing orientation only works with a strong function of marketing. Marketing
is everything and everything is marketing.
In this article, we are not interested in whether marketing as a function is actually on the decline. We take no
stand on this issue. Instead, we examine the contribution of a distinct marketing function as organizations adopt
a process or cross-functional structure to the management of marketing.
H1: The marketing function will contribute to the (a) financial performance, (b) customer relationship
performance, and (c) new product performance of the firm beyond the contribution of an
organizationwide market orientation.
Three customer connections:
- Customer -> product
- Customer -> service
- Customer -> financial accountability
On the basis of an extensive study of managers across a wide range of business types and six
different functional affiliations, we draw the following conclusions:
1. Marketing is best viewed as the function that manages connections between the organization and
the customer. The primary connections may be viewed as the customer–product, the customer–
service delivery, and the customer–financial accountability connections.
2. The extent to which the marketing function manages these connections contributes to financial
performance, customer relationship performance, and new product performance, beyond the impact
of an organizationwide marketing orientation.
3. The marketing function can improve its contribution to the firm by expanding its scope beyond the
traditional customer– product connection to include more emphasis on service delivery and financial
accountability. Marketing education also should be expanded to include this new focus.
Remarkable: Focus on service and financial accountability more important than product.
So, marketing is best viewed as a function that connects the customer and the organization.
De Luca et al. (2010)
Market Orientation and R&D Effectiveness in High-Technology Firms: An Empirical Investigation in
the Biotechnology Industry
The article investigates the marketing function related to the R&D of a company. Results from
hierarchical multiple regression analysis show that the different dimensions of a market orientation
have diverse effects on R&D effectiveness of high-technology firms: whereas interfunctional
coordination has a positive main effect, the effect of customer orientation is moderated by
knowledge integration, and competitor orientation has no effect on R&D effectiveness.
Definition marketing orientation: A market orientation reflects the extent to which a firm internalizes
the marketing concept as a primary organizing principle of the firm. In this study Narver and Slater’s
(1990) conceptualization of market orientation is adopted, based on three components: (1) customer
orientation; (2) competitor orientation; and (3) interfunctional coordination.
H1: Customer orientation is positively related to R&D effectiveness.
H2: Competitor orientation is positively related to R&D effectiveness.
H3: Interfunctional coordination is positively related to R&D effectiveness.
Eventually, only interfunctional coordination has an effect on R&D performance. So only part of
market orientation is important.
Remaining questions:
 What is the significance of these two articles? Why important?
 What kind of business processes do you think marketing should be involved in?
 What is the relationship between marketing as function (specialist group or dep’t) vs.
Marketing oriented culture (organization wide values)? Do you think this changes
over theorganizational life cycle? And, which paradox exists?
 What is the difference between market and customer oriented?
Session 3
Goal:
a. Discuss interface and lead/follow role of marketing depending on the industry
b. Discuss the importance of soft tools in high tech
c. Finish with importance to complement value creation with sound value delivery to ensure
exchange
Workman (1993)
Marketing's limited role in new product development
The article discusses the role of marketing in the new product development for high tech firms. Since
the technology is most important in such companies, what is the role of marketing there? The result
of the research is that marketing has an influence, but more at the end of the process with the
refinement and feedback towards R&D. Second, marketing groups play an important role in linking
specific projects underway in engineering.
De Clerq (2011)
A Closer Look at Cross-Functional Collaboration and Product Innovativeness
This study applies a contingency perspective to examine how the intra-organizational context
influences the relationship between cross-functional collaboration and product innovativeness. It
focuses on the role of (1) formal, structural factors directly controllable by top management
decisions and (2) more intangible, relational factors as potential enhancements of the firm’s ability to
convert cross-functional collaboration into product innovativeness.
Cross-functional integration has two dimensions: interaction and collaboration. The focus in the
research is on the collaboration. The research presumes there is an effect between cross-functional
collaboration and product innovativeness. But it is going to be researched what the moderating
factors are in this relationship:
1. Decision autonomy
2. Shared responsibility
3. Social interaction
4. Trust
5. Goal Congruence
The following hypotheses are linked to those factors:
H1: The positive relationship between cross-functional collaboration and product innovativeness is
moderated by the level of decision autonomy, such that this relationship is stronger for higher levels
of decision autonomy.
H2: The positive relationship between cross-functional collaboration and product innovativeness is
moderated by the level of shared responsibility, such that this relationship is stronger for higher levels
of shared responsibility.
H3: The positive relationship between cross-functional collaboration and product innovativeness is
moderated by the level of social interaction, such that this relationship is stronger for higher levels of
social interaction.
H4: The positive relationship between cross-functional collaboration and product innovativeness is
moderated by the level of trust, such that this relationship is stronger for higher levels of trust.
H5: The positive relationship between cross-functional collaboration and product innovativeness is
moderated by the level of goal congruence, such that this relationship is stronger for higher levels of
goal congruence.
The results of the research show that all the factors mentioned have a moderating effect on the
relationship between cross-functional collaboration and the product innovativeness.
After this, a post hoc analysis has been executed, dividing the factors into relational and structural.
As a result of this, the relational factors were significant, where the structural didn't.
Session 4
Goals:
a. Discuss article explaining that collaboration with current customers is better for incremental
innovation
b. Explain based on forthcoming JPIM article that selecting users smartly might help, focusing on
expected strategic benefits
c. Address possibilities to include customer communities via Internet
Bonner and Walker (2004)
Selecting Influential Business-to-Business Customers in New Product Development
The article investigates the effect of involving the most influential B2B customers in the development
of new products. The relational literature says that it is good to do that, but the innovation literature
states that. This study examines how two characteristics of these influential customers affect new
product performance: the embeddedness of relations and heterogeneity of knowledge. Is it more
important to include influential customers with close ties when developing more innovative products
or when developing incremental products? When is the inclusion of a heterogeneous set of
influential customers more likely to lead to higher performing products: during development of
innovative products or of incremental products?
It could be the case that holding on to the strong ties with the existing customers, does not provide
you with knowledge of what potential customers want.
H1: Customer relational embeddedness is related positively to new product advantage.
H2: The newer the product being developed, the less positive the relationship between customer
relational embeddedness and new product advantage.
The results are as following:
For projects seeking to develop incremental products, new product advantage tended to be higher in
projects using embedded or homogeneous customers. For projects following a highly innovative
product strategy, new product advantage tended to be higher in projects that involved
heterogeneous customers.
Customer
relational
embeddedness
.25**
-.16*
New
adv
-.03
Customer
Schreier and Prügl 2008
.25**
Knowledge
Extending Lead-User Theory: Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers’ Lead Userness
The article explains the research about
the role of lead users, the antecedents as well as the
heterogeneity
consequences are being researched and the data is collected within the field of extreme sports.
Using lead users to develop new products isn't a strange idea, it happens in the extreme sports but
also in the healthcare with surgeons as lead users. In the study it is proposed that lead users will
demonstrate innovative behavior not only by innovating on their own but also by adopting new
products faster and more intensively. In the existing literature, evidence of innovation by lead users
is already proven. There are two components according to the literature that matter, which are that
lead users are: 1. ahead of trends and 2. have a high expected benefit.
Product
newness
But, the hardest part about involving lead users is to identify them and that is what the article is also
about, the so called antecedents. Which are:
Field related variables


Consumer knowledge
Use experience
Field independent variables


Locus of control (LOC)
Innovativeness
Eventually, the consequences of including the lead users is researched.
These deliver the following hypotheses:
-.0
H1: The greater the consumer knowledge of the underlying field becomes, the stronger the lead userness
will be.
H2: The higher the level of use experience in the underlying field becomes, the stronger the lead
userness will be.
H3: The more internal a consumer’s locus of control (LOC) is, the stronger his/her lead userness will
be.
H4: The more innovative a consumer’s personality is, the stronger the lead userness will be.
H5: A consumer’s lead userness will positively impact his/her new product adoption behavior in the
underlying domain.
The results of the studies on extreme sports communities highlight the idea that field-related as well
as field-independent variables impact consumers’ leading-edge status in a given domain.
Lead users tend to possess more consumer knowledge and use experience in the underlying field,
tend to demonstrate a high internal locus of control, and can be characterized as having innovative
personalities. Furthermore, it is found that consumers’ lead userness is related to new product
adoption behavior. Lead users tend to adopt new products in the underlying domain faster and more
heavily than ordinary users.
Summary class

Customer involvement is an important way of improving NPD whether it is tech driven or
not.

Be ware
 EXPLOIT benefits from cooperation with current customers
 EXPLORE requires prospect or lead user involvement

The lead user approach may help to select frontrunner-customers
 New ideas
 Quick access to prototype
Fuchs, prandelli and Schreier (2010)
The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers product demand
Empowerment:
a strategy a firms use to give customers a sense of control over a company’s product selection
process, allowing them to collectively select the final products the company will later sell to the
broader market.
Currently, numerous companies involve their customers in the NPD process. This is done using
empowerment strategies. These strategies should enable companies to develop better product at
lower costs and risk but is this really the case? The article analyses the psychological consequences
for customers who are empowered to select the products a company should market.
Due to empowerment, customers can offer important and often hidden benefits beyond the
innovation outcomes, furthermore empowered costumers feel more connected to the firm and their
products and are therefore willing to pay more.
Web enabled strategies:
Every single customer is empowered to design their own customized product online.
H1: empowered customers will show stronger demand for the underlying products than nonempowered customers.
True, Empowerment reinforces the customers demand and increases the Willingness to pay
with almost 50%
H2A: empowered customers will experience higher levels of psychological ownership of the
underlying final products than non-empowered customers.
H2B: H1 can be explained by H2. (empowerment product demand by psychological ownership
Both true, empowerment affects the customer’s feeling of psychological ownership of the
final set of T-shirts. Furthermore, they were willing to pay more because of that ownership.
Word of Mouth and future loyalty intention also increased.
Drawback:
 The empowerment effect diminishes when the customization is a joint decision making and
not individual.
 Customers must have the capabilities to customize it.
 Empowerment firms lose a certain degree of power in the decision making.
Session 5
Goals:
a. Markets as cognitive representations
b. Negotiated by actors of supply and demand
c. Beliefs may cause serious inertia
d. Aim innovation at segment understanding benefits at early stage and least affected by negative
influence/cost
Tripsas & Gavetti (2000)
Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging
The article is about the difficulty that some firms have to adopt a new technology, the way Polaroid
did with the digital cameras. The cognitive behaviour of the managers comes into play in this part.
The resistance comes forward due to the cognitive representations that are based on experiences in
history instead of current knowledge of the environment. Digital imaging was viewed primarily as a
technological, not a market shift, with the majority of digital imaging investment directed towards
the development of new technical capabilities. As a consequence, the firm never invested in
developing any sales or marketing capability specific to digital imaging. At the end, the company was
too late with the market introduction and missed the boat. Despite having a prototype in 1992,
Polaroid did not announce its PDC-2000 mega-pixel camera until 1996. The focus was too much on
the razor model to make money, thus on former experience that the current knowledge was
neglected.
Rosa et al. (1999)
Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market
The article is about how the product markets are nothing more than social constructs, developed and
agreed to by market actors to make sense of producer and consumer behaviour. There is a tangible
product, but the producer's behaviour and the consumer's behaviour construct a product meaning
which differs. This can be seen in the following figure:
The study first researches the references that are made to a category. The hypothesis is that
customers references decrease when a category (e.g. minivan) decreases. But they expect that the
producers references will increase when a category stabilizes. Both of the hypotheses are supported
by the data eventually.
The discussion chapter in the article states that the research has proven that emerging markets are
socially constructed.
Class
Consumer cognitions of the market are anticipated to be…



Dynamic
Shared
Diffuse through market stories, WOM and publications, sellers' marketing etceteras.
They help consumers to…



Manouver in the market place
Cope with marketers/providers
Enjoy efficient decision making and exchange
Core concepts



Sensemaking
Category prototypes
Naive theories
3 Dimension model of Abell
1. Customer needs
2. Alternative technologies
3. Customer groups
Session 6
Mullins 2007
Discovering "Unk-Unks
The article is about discovering the unknown unknowns. They state that when basing your decision
on existing data, like doing a survey, is not the best way to discover if your new product will be a
success. Very often, the entrepreneur only wants to prove that its product will work. A solution that
is given, is a long interview. By doing this long interview and talk with lead users, it can prevent some
problems or give opportunities for a new idea. It is important to be objective in the interview, since
you don't want to influence it.
Session 7
Goal:
a. How customers relate to products: means and ends.
b. Innovation curve and diffusion (use figure from SD book)
c. Discuss adoption theory and model. Explain how firm can influence using marketing program
Graeff T.R. (1997)
Comprehending (begrijpen) Product Attributes and benefits: The Role of product knowledge and
Means-End Chain Inferences
Goal of the research: extend consumer comprehension by examining a) the types of product-related
inferences consumers form while comprehending product information b) the role of prior knowledge
in forming these inferences and c) the effect of different types of product-related inferences on
consumers’ attitudes.
Product comprehension: the process of interpreting product information based on activated
knowledge and inferring product-related meanings that go beyond the information given.
Furthermore, inferences formed while constructing personal interpretations of product information
given in marketing communication are probably very prevalent in consumers’ comprehension
processes.
Consumers interpret product information on knowledge that is activated at the time of
comprehension. This knowledge is contained in a means- end chains (connection between
attributes, consequences and personal goals and values)
H1: Compared to lower-knowledge consumers, higher-knowledge consumers are more likely to
comprehend product information by inferring.
a) Personally relevant consequences of attributes
b) Causal attributes of advertised benefits.
Comprehension process is used to form evaluation about the product. This ability to evaluate is
dependant on the ability to form relevant meaning about the product information.
H2: Compared to lower-knowledge consumers, higher-knowledge consumers will form
a) More evaluative thoughts about advertised product attributes
b) An equal number of evaluative thoughts about advertised product consequences
c) An equal number of evaluative thoughts about advertised product attribute and their related
consequences.
H3: Compared to consumers’ inferences about concrete product attributes and features, inferences
about personally relevant product consequences have:
a) Stronger effects on costumers brand attitudes
b) Equal effects on consumers’ ad attitudes
Results:
- 95 percent formed an inference
- Inferring attributes is not that prevalent as expected (only 16%)
- Inferring consequences (70%) (mostly about functional product consequences)
- The results support H1a and H1b
- H2a and H2b are supported, H2c not supported (higher knowledge subject formed sig. more
evaluative thoughts about the information in the attributes-plus-consequences ad than
lower knowledge subjects.) probably lower-knowledge subjects have difficulties on how
special attributes could lead to benefits.
- Lower-knowledge subjecs evaluated the product less favorable in response to the attributesplus-consequences ad.
- H3a and H3b are supported.
Kleijnen et al. (2009)
An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents
Resistance is a response to an conscious choice.
There are three types of innovation resistance in customer behavior:
1) Rejection
a. an active evaluation by the consumer which results in a strong disinclination to adopt
the innovation
b. for example: new and unproven innovations
2) Postponement
a. Although innovation is fount acceptable, costumer decides to no adopt this
innovation at that point of time
b. For example new software developments
3) Opposition
a. The costumer is convince the innovation is not suitable and decides to launch the
attack, resulting negative word of mouth
b. For example: gouden kooi.
Two main types of costumer resistance:
1) Innovation which require a change in costumer’s behavioral patterns, norms, habits and
traditions.
a. Contrary to group norms, societal and family values create a barrier
b. Conflict with the usage pattern (a lot of change)
2) Innovations which in some way cause a psychological conflict or problem for costumers.
a. Perceive image of a product should have influence on innovation resistant
b. Information overload (complexity should be avoided)  not relevant
c. Perceived risk
i. Economical (waste of money)
ii. Physical (damage you or others, is unhealthy)
iii. Social (social environment will accept their adoption)
iv. Functional (performance uncertainty)
Results and Discussion
 Risk plays an important role in innovation adoption
Postponement results:
Economic risk and change in usage patterns are the main drivers. It could be benefical to
communicate to customers how the innovation fits in their current lifestyle
Rejection results:
Economic, functional and social risk play an important role in innovation rejection. Perceived image
also plays a part in rejection. Companies should participate in risk-handling activities to decrease this
risk for the customers.
Opposition results
Seems to be driven by factors strongly embedded in the consumer’s personal and societal
environment. Furthermore usage pattern, perceived image, social, functional and physical risk are
also found significant.
Session 8
Goals: Begin with part I iPod video and then discuss strategic and tactical decisions
Guiltinan (1999)
Launch strategy, launch tactics, and demand outcomes
Generally, the launch phase is underscored. This is strange because it represents the largest
investments of resources to this phase. The Launch is therefore very important and can mean the
difference between success and failure even though the product is good on its own.
Timing the launch planning and activities
Launch planning usually starts when the marketing department gets involved. Because currently NPD
requires cross functional teams, the planning will start more early.
There are 6 different classes of new products:
- New to the world products
o Demand for the product must be built (primary demand)
- New to the firm products
o New entry into existing markets
- Additions to existing lines
o New additions into existing markets
- Improved/revised products re-entering established markets
o Stimulate new demand from past buyers
Represent vast majority of new
products and require complex
launch situations
-
Repositionings
o Obtaining share of an ongoing market
Cost reductions
Variations in buying behavior. Different type of product require different kind of launch activities.
New entry of line addition in existing market = trail achievement will be largely dependant on
advertising, selling, or other promotional methods to create awareness and trail. Availability is also
very important. (think about Cleopatra case)
Product improvement = important to keep the customer, otherwise they can be lost. New product
should have sig. improvements for customers to migrate to the new product.
New to the world = word of mouth plays and important role. Launch activity targeted to adopt
innovation
Innovation decision process, is a series of steps where an individual or organization goes through in
deciding whether or not to adopt a new product.
Characteristics of a new product that influence adoption
1) Relative advantage
2) Compatibility with values and experiences
3) Complexity in use or understanding
4) Trialability
5) Observability. (preferable tangible features over intangible)
Antecedents and components of launch plans:
1) Strategic launch decisions
a. Target market (niche vs. mass)
b. Leadership (lead vs. follow)
c. Relative innovativeness
2) Tactical launch decisions
a. Promotional activities
i. Advertising
ii. Coupons
b.
c.
d.
e.
iii. Publicity
iv. Sampling
v. Referens test sites
Sales and distribution support
i. Shows and demonstrations
ii. Technical support
iii. Distribution structure
iv. Intensity of coverage
v. Distribution incentives
Pricing
i. Introduction price: (skim vs. penetration
ii. Price administration
Product
i. Branding
ii. Breadth of assortment
Timing (fast vs. slow and whether to pronounce launch)
Relative innovativeness: perceptual but also technological.
Mass vs. niche: mass markets are avoided when they subject heavy competition from powerfull
competitors and require many resources. Some firms use mass customization to enter the mass
markets.
Kut artikel
Lead vs. follow: partly influenced by the newness of the product, new product mostly will be leaders.
(pioneers). However, pioneering may be very rewarding, it is also very risky. Therefore it can also be
wise to be a follower if you learn from the mistakes the pioneers made. Maybe you’ll will be earning
a little less, you don’t take the risk.
Firms resources and competencies
When deciding a certain launch plan there has to be realized that not all companies have the same
resources and competencies. Therefore it might be useful to adjust these launch strategies and
become a follower instead of a pioneer.
Product market characteristics
 Competitive dynamics
 Identifying competitors
Large and fast growing markets require greater market resource commitments than smaller markets.
Furthermore, the launch strategy must me tuned in on you competitors. Where is your product
standing compared to your competitors and what will be the strength, aggressiveness, and speed of
the competitors reaction.
Technology dynamics
 Technology life cycle
 Distribution effects
 Technology standards.
Zacharias, Nijssen and Stock (2012)
Every Pot Has a Lid: Effective Configurations of Innovation and Relationship Marketing Activities,
Lean launch: small commitments of resources, this will result in flexible supply chain.
Combining NPD and CRM activities to keep the customers loyal.
NPD activities: the creation of new product or customize solutions to enhance a firm’s competitive
advantage and long-term survival.
CRM activities: identify and manage relationship with target customers. Furthermore CRM activities
help the firm to differentiate itself (particularly high competitive markets with increasing similar
products)
Customer loyalty is regarded to be the central performance outcome in.
NPD activities
Exploration: development of new products through experimentation and fostering variation
Exploitation: NPD activities that seek experienced-based improvements
Adaptation: the degree of adjustment of a firms products and services, that meet the needs or
capabilities of customers.
CRM activities
Relationship management helps a firm to understand customers’ needs and then transforms this
knowledge into new and improved products.
Commitment building and satisfaction generation triggers customers retention.
Commitment building: firm’s effort to evoke costumers.
Satisfaction generation: the accomplishment to create customer satisfaction.
CRM and NPD activities can be divided into Core elements and Peripheral elements.
Core elements: essential elements
Peripheral elements: reinforce the core elements.
Table 3 shows the solutions and configurations for achieving very high performance
Solution 1 is labeled new product leadership. High exploration on NPD domain with satisfaction
generation as a peripheral element.
Solution 2 is labeled product exploitation leadership. Focus on exploitation and incremental
innovations with a little bit of exploration however that is not the aim. Furthermore, it is important
to stay close to the customers base. (satisfaction and commitment). The focus is to better serve and
make relationships with existing customers.
Solution 3 is labeled customization leadership. Aim is to provide a personal solution for their
customers. It is important to adapt fast to the changes in the market and have personal relationships
with their customers.
Session 9
Product line development, extending the product range towards cheaper or more expensive
products.
Reasons to do this:


fulfill different demands of customer
prevent competition to enter the market.
Kotler (2006)
Section of book Marketing Management
A product has a core benefit, with that benefit a basic product withholds that. Than the customer
expects a certain product on the shells. With that expected product, extra services can be added.
After that, a potential product is something that could be in the future.
Class:
Definition of brand: A distinguishing name, symbol etc. intended to identify the products or services
of a seller and to differentiate them from products or services of other sellers.
Types of branding:


family branding (Shell)
individual branding (Unilever)
Line extension  in same product category as parent brand
Brand extensions  towards new category
Surowiecki, James (2007).
Feature fatigue
Feature fatigue: a state of frustration with the multiple features on a device, esp. electronics
Manufacturers perspective:

designers are more technology savvy then buyers

more features is a way to differentiate from competitors

market research shows: consumers want them
What should we do:
a. reduce the features
b. reduce the fatigue
To reduce fatigue: find out how it works
Dealing with mixed feelings: the concept of 'ambivalence'
Session 10
Goals:
Discussion of network externalities when considering launch/develop launch plan
Lee and O’Conner 2003
New product launch strategy for network effects products
The article is about the launch of new products with network effects.
In the research, a conceptual model is created:
A distinction can be made between direct and indirect network effects.
Direct network effect (e.g. telephone,fax):
Indirect network effect(e.g. records, video):
Session 11
Goals:
 What is a brand?
 Role in brands for selling industrial products
 Evolution of firms’ brand portfolio and architecture
Mudambi (2002)
Branding importance in business-to-business markets, Three buyer clusters,
Organizational buying behavior exists out of a few important aspects such as:
- Buyer characteristics
- Purchase characteristics
- Decision process characteristics to the purchase choice
Intangible attributes can be of greater importance then tangible products or attributes.
Benefit segmentation research assumes that the buyer significantly differ in their evaluation of the
importance of choice attributes.
Perceived risk can be divided into two aspects: From the perspective of the uncertainty and adverse
consequences of buying a product
Powerful brands create a meaningful and strong image in the customers minds. Therefore
manufactures invest many in brand image.
Product attributes consist out of three levels:
1) Tangible product such as price and physical product features.
2) Augmented product adds such as features and services
3) Intangible product features and benefits such as brands
Three key general aspects of branding:
1) General name awareness
2) Reputation of the brand
3) Purchase loyalty
At a corporate level, reputation is especially important.
Brand equity: willingness to pay a price premium for a favored brand over a generic or unknown
brand; recommend the brand to peers; and give special consideration to different product with the
same company brand name.
Branding is more important in a product market when a product failure creates serious problems for
the organization or individual, the product requires services, and the product is under a time
constraint.
Business buyers enjoy associations with top companies. This inlfuences their own product indirectly
in a positive way.
Results show three clusters:
1) Highly tangible
2) Branding receptive
3) Low interest