Search

There is a substantial literature on the product development process but comparatively little on the impact of lean launch execution and launch timing on new product performance. Given the costs and risks involved in product commercialization, this research gap is surprising. Delays in product launch can lead to poor channel cooperation and coordination, missed market opportunities, and lost competitive opportunities, yet timing of the launch has not been included in many reported studies. In addition, managers at many firms have prioritized supply chain activities such as integration of logistics with other functional areas in order to obtain cost efficiencies and accelerate time to market; the role of lean launch execution in improving new product performance has also received little research attention. In this study, we build a conceptual model in which lean launch, launch timing, and quality of marketing effort are modeled as precursors to new product performance; we assess the role of market orientation and cross-functional integration in lean launch execution as well as indirect and direct effects of launch timing on performance. We empirically test our model with a sample of 183 U.S.-based corporate managers actively involved in new product launch. We find evidence that execution of a lean launch and effective marketing significantly improve new product performance, and that correct launch timing positively moderates the effect of lean launch on performance. These variables therefore should be carefully considered by managers of new product processes.

We develop a conceptual model for studying the antecedents and consequences of achieved and optimal levels of manufacturer–distributor (M–D) cooperation. We hypothesized that levels of market turbulence, competitive intensity, and the manufacturing firm’s strategic type (i.e., prospector, analyzer, or defender) affected the optimal level of M–D cooperation. We also hypothesized that the level of under- and overachieving the optimal levels of cooperation negatively affects firm performance. The conceptual model is tested using empirical data collected from 295 manufacturing firms in the U.S. and validated using data collected from 104 distributors in the U.S. We also collect data from 255 Japanese manufacturing firms and 98 Japanese distributors. The empirical results support the model’s hypotheses with only one unexpected finding: in the Japanese sample, overachieving the optimal level of cooperation has a greater negative effect on performance than underachieving. We conclude by discussing theoretical and managerial implications.

The Miles–Snow (M–S) strategic typology has continued to receive attention in the academic business press, even though it has been criticized for not making explicit the relationships between strategic type and ultimate profit performance. Using the market orientation and Resource-Based View literature, we develop hypotheses regarding relationships between M–S strategic type and four firm capabilities (technology, information technology, market-linking, and marketing capabilities), relationship between the four capabilities and performance, and the moderating role of M–S strategic type. An empirical test involves multiple data collections from 216 firms. The study results suggest that there are significant relationships between capabilities and performance if one does not account for the moderating role of strategic type. When strategic type is used as a moderating variable, we find that only certain capabilities had significant effects on profitability. For example, technology and information technology capabilities increase financial performance for prospector organizations, while a different set of capabilities (market-linking and marketing) are positively related to financial performance for defender organizations. We discuss how our findings are consistent with the expectations of the Resource-Based View of the firm. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications.

Brand equity has recently been a topic of great interest among marketing academics. This study proposes a stagewise learning process involved in the building of brand equity: (1) brand birth; (2) the creation of brand awareness and associations; (3) the building of quality and value perceptions; (4) the emergence of brand loyalty; and (5) the launching of brand extensions. A later section contrasts the development of brand equity in the consumer and industrial markets.

Managers in a business environment marked by rapid technological change face major challenges when making strategic decisions. A risk-averse, conservative strategy may be a safe route, but might lead to missing marketplace opportunities. This paper investigates whether a hostile business environment adversely affects either a firm's rate of technological innovation or its rate of success with new product launches. It also examines what successful innovating firms do, in terms of strategic posture and organizational structure, to adapt to hostile conditions. A model depicting relationships between environmental conditions, firm responses, innovation rates, and new product success was constructed and tested in an empirical study of 142 U.S. firms involved in technological innovation. The final section discusses managerial implications of the findings.

Game theory may be used to gain insight into interfirm competition and the marketing decision-making process. This paper is aimed at the reader unfamiliar or only vaguely familiar with game theory and begins with a review of game theory terminology useful to marketing applications. Attention then focuses on the meaning of rational behavior in less-than-perfect conditions, which is a critical issue in the application of game theory to practical business situations (what may appear to be irrational behavior under conditions of complete information may be reasonable given the complex competitive environment typical of marketing decision-making situations). The paper concludes with an appraisal of the use of game theory as a decision-making model for managers.