Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preannouncing pioneering versus follower products: what should the message be?

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the high practical relevance, prior research does not provide a clear picture whether the effectiveness of new product preannouncements is contingent upon order of entry and whether the message content of preannouncements for pioneering products should be different from those for followers. Drawing on diffusion research, the authors examine how preannouncements that focus on risk reduction and the product’s relative advantage influence the relationship between preannouncement intensity and new product success, taking into account order of entry. A cross-industry study investigating 151 new product launches shows that for pioneers, a message focus aimed at reducing perceived product risk positively influences preannouncement effectiveness. Furthermore, a relative advantage focus negatively affects preannouncement effectiveness and thus is rather counterproductive for pioneers. With regard to early followers, results indicate a positive influence of a risk reduction focus on preannouncement effectiveness. A relative advantage focus, however, is only effective if the product category is already established when the early follower product is launched. Finally, for late followers, only preannouncements which strongly emphasize the relative product advantage lead to a positive effect of preannouncements on new product success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this idea.

References

  • Agarwal, R., & Bayus, B. L. (2002). The market evolution and sales takeoff of product innovations. Management Science, 48(8), 1024–1041. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1024.167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., & Bayus, B. L. (2004). Creating and Surviving in New Industries. In J. A. C. Baum & A. M. McGahan (Eds.), Business Strategy over the Industry Life Cycle: Advances in Strategic Management, pp. 107–130. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085–1096. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. P. (1997). Understanding Regression Analysis. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (2005). Firms and the Creation of New Markets. In C. Ménard & M. M. Shirley (Eds.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, pp. 401–431. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple (2008). Apple Introduces MacBook Air — The World’s Thinnest Notebook. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/15mbair.html.

  • Balachandra, R., & Friar, J. H. (1997). Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: a contextual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(3), 276–287. doi:10.1109/17.618169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, Y., Dawid, H., & Tellis, G.J.(2005). Strategic Preannouncements of Innovations. Working Paper, University of Bielefeld.

  • Bass, F. M., Bruce, N., Majumdar, S., & Murthi, B. P. S. (2007). Wearout effects of different advertising themes: a dynamic bayesian model of the advertising-sales relationship. Marketing Science, 26(2), 179–195. doi:10.1287/mksc.1060.0208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayus, B. L., Jain, S., & Rao, A. G. (1997). Too little, too early: introduction timing and new product performance in the personal digital assistant industry. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 50–63. doi:10.2307/3152064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beard, C., & Easingwood, C. (1996). New product launch: marketing action and launch tactics for high-technology products. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(2), 87–103. doi:10.1016/0019-8501(95) 00037-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearden, W. O., & Shimp, T. A. (1982). The use of extrinsic cues to facilitate product adoption. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(2), 229–239. doi:10.2307/3151623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D., & Gatignon, H. (1995). Determinants of competitor response time to a new product introduction. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1), 42–53. doi:10.2307/3152109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D., & Gatignon, H. (1996). Order of entry as a moderator of the effect of the marketing mix on market share. Marketing Science, 15(3), 222–242. doi:10.1287/mksc.15.3.222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. J., & Schatzel, K. E. (2000). Strategic foretelling: communication-based antecedents of a firm’s propensity to preannounce. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 17–30. doi:10.1509/jmkg.64.1.17.17990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1987). The Heuristic Model of Persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. Olson & C. Herman (Eds.), Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium Vol. 5, pp. 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. T., Tellis, G. J., MacInnis, D. J., & Thaivanich, P. (2001). What to say when: advertising appeals in evolving markets. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 399–414. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.4.399.18908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow, G. C. (1960). Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica, 28(3), 591–605. doi:10.2307/1910133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New products: what separates winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(3), 169–184. doi:10.1016/0737-6782(87) 90002-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 218–244. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1981). The product life cycle: analysis and applications issues. Journal of Marketing, 45(4), 60–67. doi:10.2307/1251472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easingwood, C., & Beard, C. (1989). High technology launch strategies in the UK. Industrial Marketing Management, 18(2), 125–138. doi:10.1016/0019-8501(89) 90029-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echambadi, R., & Hess, J. D. (2007). Mean-centering does not alleviate collinearity problems in moderated multiple regression models. Marketing Science, 26(3), 438–445. doi:10.1287/mksc.1060.0263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echambadi, R., Campbell, B., & Agarwal, R. (2006a). Encouraging best practice in quantitative management research: an incomplete list of opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1801–1820. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00660.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echambadi, R., Arroniz, I., Reinartz, W., & Lee, J. (2006b). Empirical generalizations from brand extension research: how sure are we? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 253–261. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Houssi, A. A., Morel, K. P. N., & Hultink, E. J. (2005). Effectively communicating new product benefits to consumers: the use of analogy versus literal similarity. Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research (U. S.), 32(1), 554–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliashberg, J., & Robertson, T. S. (1988). New product preannouncing behavior: a market signaling study. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 25(3), 282–292. doi:10.2307/3172530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849–867. doi:10.1086/209021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1993). The impact of risk and competition on choice of innovations. Marketing Letters, 4(3), 191–204. doi:10.1007/BF00999226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., Robertson, T. S., & Fein, A. J. (1997). Incumbent defense strategies against new product entry. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(2), 163–176. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(96) 00035-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1989). The Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, pp. 199–224. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192. doi:10.2307/3172650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder, P. N., & Tellis, G. J. (1997). Will it ever fly? modeling the takeoff of really new consumer durables. Marketing Science, 16(3), 256–270. doi:10.1287/mksc.16.3.256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, E. A., & Lehmann, D. R. (1995). Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making. The Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 186–199. doi:10.1086/209444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregan-Paxton, J., Hibbard, J. D., Brunel, F. F., & Azar, P. (2002). “So that’s what that is”: examining the impact of analogy on consumers’ knowledge development for really new products. Psychology and Marketing, 19(6), 533–550. doi:10.1002/mar.10023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregan-Paxton, J., & Roedder John, D. (1997). Consumer learning by analogy: a model of internal knowledge transfer. The Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 266–284. doi:10.1086/209509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1–15. doi:10.2307/1252083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429–458. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(97) 00061-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guiltinan, J. P. (1999). Launch strategy, launch tactics, and demand outcomes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(6), 509–529. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(99) 00013-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardie, B. G. S., Robertson, T. S., & Ross, W. T. (1996). Technology adoption: amplifying versus simplifying innovations. Marketing Letters, 7(4), 355–369. doi:10.1007/BF00435542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J., Tellis, G. J., & Griffin, A. (2006). Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science, 25(6), 687–717. doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 5–28. doi:10.1007/BF00057884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 362–375. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.3.362.18861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett-Packard (2006). HP Boosts Server Lines with Dual Core-based Platforms. Retrieved from http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2006/060523xa.html?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN.

  • Holak, S. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (1990). Purchase intentions and the dimensions of innovation: an exploratory model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(1), 59–73. doi:10.1016/0737-6782(90) 90032-A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hultink, E. J., Griffin, A., Robben, H. S. J., & Hart, S. (1998). In search of generic launch strategies for new products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(3), 269–285. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(98) 00004-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hultink, E. J., & Langerak, F. (2002). Launch decisions and competitive reactions: an exploratory market signaling study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(3), 199–212. doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1930199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 114–132. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.2.114.27788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, S. P., Buchanan, B., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: the moderating impact of prepurchase attribute verifiability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 201–211. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP0904_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J., & DiNardo, J. (1997). Econometric Methods (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A. W., & Sharma, S. (2004). Customer knowledge development: antecedents and impact on new product performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 47–59. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.4.47.42722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalish, S. (1985). A new product adoption model with price, advertising, and uncertainty. Management Science, 31(12), 1569–1585. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.12.1569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, N., Bridges, E., & Srivastava, R. K. (1999). A simultaneous model for innovative product category sales diffusion and competitive dynamics. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(2), 95–111. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(98) 00026-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuth, B. A., Connelly, N. A., Sheeshka, J., & Patterson, J. (2003). Weighing health benefit and health risk information when consuming sport-caught fish. Risk Analysis, 23(6), 1185–1197. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00392.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, C. (1999). Signaling new product introductions: a framework explaining the timing of preannouncements. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 45–56. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(98) 00041-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambkin, M. (1988). Order of Entry and Performance in New Markets. Strategic Management Journal, 9(Special Issue), 127–140. doi:10.1002/smj.4250090713

  • Lambkin, M., & Day, G. S. (1989). Evolutionary processes in competitive markets: beyond the product life cycle. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 4–20. doi:10.2307/1251339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9(Special Issue), 41–58. doi:10.1002/smj.4250090706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilly, B., & Krishnan, H. S. (1996). Consumer Responses to New Product Announcements: A Conceptual Framework. In E. A. Blair & W. A. Kamakura (Eds.), 1996 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, Marketing Theory and Applications, pp. 56–62. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilly, B., & Walters, R. (1997). Toward a model of new product preannouncement timing. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(1), 4–20. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(96) 00092-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilly, B., & Walters, R. (2000). An exploratory examination of retaliatory preannouncing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(4), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montaguti, E., Kuester, S., & Robertson, T. S. (2002). Entry strategy for radical product innovations: a conceptual model and propositional inventory. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(1), 21–42. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(02) 00046-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001a). Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 14–29. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.1.14.18836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreau, C. P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001b). What is it? categorization flexibility and consumers’ responses to really new products. The Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 489–498. doi:10.1086/319623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olleros, F.-J. (1986). Emerging industries and the burnout of pioneers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3(1), 5–18. doi:10.1016/0737-6782(86) 90039-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olshavsky, R. W., & Spreng, R. A. (1996). An exploratory study of the innovation evaluation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(6), 512–529. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(96) 00037-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostlund, L. E. (1974). Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness. The Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 23–29. doi:10.1086/208587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, P. M., & Gatignon, H. (1996). Order of entry, trial diffusion, and elasticity dynamics: an empirical case. Marketing Letters, 7(1), 95–109. doi:10.1007/BF00557314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. doi:10.1177/014920638601200408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, S., & Sheth, J. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 5–14. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000002542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, J. B. (1969). Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 31(2), 350–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T. S. (1993). How to reduce market penetration cycle times. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T. S., Eliashberg, J., & Rymon, T. (1995). New product announcement signals and incumbent reactions. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 1–15. doi:10.2307/1252115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. T., & Chiang, J. (2002). Product development strategies for established market pioneers, early followers, and late entrants. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9), 855–866. doi:10.1002/smj.257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. T., & Fornell, C. (1985). Sources of market pioneer advantages in consumer goods industries. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 22(3), 305–317. doi:10.2307/3151427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzel, K. E., & Calantone, R. J. (2006). Creating market anticipation: an exploratory examination of the effect of preannouncement behavior on a new product’s launch. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 357–366. doi:10.1177/0092070304270737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, V., Carpenter, G. S., & Krishnamurthi, L. (1999). The advantage of entry in the growth stage of the product life cycle: an empirical analysis. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 269–276. doi:10.2307/3152098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberman, D., & Gatignon, H. (2005). Research issues at the boundary of competitive dynamics and market evolution. Marketing Science, 24(1), 165–174. doi:10.1287/mksc.1040.0065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1997). A cross-national comparative study of new product development processes: Japan and the United States. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 1–18. doi:10.2307/1251827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SONY (2004). First-Generation Electronic Paper Display from Philips, Sony and E Ink to Be Used in New Electronic Reading Device. Retrieved from http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200403/04-0324E/.

  • Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(01) 00041-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Instruments (2008). Big Picture Experience from Mobile Devices Is One Step Closer to Reality. Retrieved from http://www.dlp.com/tech/press_releases_details.aspx?id=1342.

  • Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999). How advertising works: what do we really know? Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 26–43. doi:10.2307/1251999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakratsas, D., Rao, R. C., & Kalyanaram, G. (2003). An empirical analysis of follower entry timing decisions. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 203–216. doi:10.1023/A:1027400918494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer, R. W., Jr. (1998). Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 136–150. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(97) 00075-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villarreal-Camacho, A. (1985). Effects of product class knowledge on the evaluation of comparative versus noncomparative messages. Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research (U. S.), 12(1), 504–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., Kardes, F. R., & Cronley, M. L. (2002). Comparative advertising: effects of structural alignability on target brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 303–311. doi:10.1207/15327660260382342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. (1998). Overcoming the early entrant advantage: the role of alignable and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing, 35(4), 413–426. doi:10.2307/3152161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Nakamoto, K. (2007). How do enhanced and unique features affect new product preference? the moderating role of product familiarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 53–62. doi:10.1007/s11747-006-0011-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziamou, P., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Innovations in product functionality: when and why are explicit comparisons effective? Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 49–61. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.49.18606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marketing Department I, University of Mannheim, Schloss, D-68131, Mannheim, Germany

    Christian Homburg, Torsten Bornemann & Dirk Totzek

Authors
  1. Christian Homburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torsten Bornemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dirk Totzek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Homburg.

Appendix

Appendix

Scale items for construct measures

Construct

Items

Individual item reliability

Average variance extracted

Composite reliability/ coefficient alpha

Order of entry (single-item scale based on Robinson and Fornell 1985)

When our product was launched, it was …

-

-

-

… the first product in its product category.

   

… not the first but one of the first products in an evolving product category.

   

… a later entrant into an already established product category.

   

Preannouncement intensity* (based on Beard and Easingwood 1996; Hultink and Langerak 2002)

We extensively preannounced the launch of our new product.

.74

.72

.88/.88

We substantially advertised our new product before it was launched.

.74

  

We already informed customers about our new product before it was launched.

.67

  

Risk reduction focus* (based on Ram and Sheth 1989)

Our communication …

-

-

-/.66

… focused on reducing perceived product risk.

   

… highlighted our new product’s reliability.

   

… mentioned statements from neutral sources to reduce uncertainty about the new product’s performance.***

   

Relative advantage focus* (based on Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1987)

Our communication …

 

.58

.80/.77

… focused on communicating the relative product advantage.

.47

  

… emphasized our new product’s relative advantage.

.88

  

… illustrated our new product’s superiority.

.40

  

New product success** (approach based on Joshi and Sharma 2004)

Relative to our competitors’ new products, the performance of our new product regarding the following aspects is (much worse/approximately equal/much better):

 

.55

.86/.86

• Customer retention

.48

  

• Acquisition of new customers

.67

  

• Creation of a strong market position

.73

  

• Speed of amortization of investments

.29

  

• Reduction of market penetration cycle time

.60

  

Pricing strategy (single-item scale based on Hultink et al. 1998)

Please indicate which pricing strategy you pursued when launching your new product:

-

-

-

• Penetration strategy

   

• Balanced approach

   

• Skimming strategy

   

Value for money* (based on Sweeney and Soutar 2001)

Our new product …

 

.61

.82/.81

… offered value for money.

.82

  

… was very economical for customers.

.38

  

… was reasonably priced.

.63

  

Market potential* (based on Song and Parry 1997)

At the time of market launch, …

 

.65

.85/.84

… there were many potential customers for this product category.

.53

  

… there was a high potential demand for this product category.

.79

  

… there was a high potential sales volume for this product category.

.64

  

Reaction speed* (based on Hultink and Langerak 2002)

Our competitors …

 

.89

.96/.96

… took counter-actions very quickly after our new product launch.

.86

  

… reacted to our new product launch without hesitation.

.90

  

… reacted immediately with counter- actions to our new product launch.

.90

  

Maturity of the product category* (based on Gatignon et al. 1997)

At the time when our product was launched, …

-

-

-/.88

… the product category was still very new. (reverse coded)

   

… the customer base for this product category had already been well established.

   

Product newness to the market* (based on Im and Workman 2004)

At the time of market launch, …

 

.69

.87/.86

… our new product was really “out of the ordinary” for the customers.

.64

  

… our new product was radically different from existing products.

.75

  

… our new product was considered as revolutionary by the customers.

.67

  
  1. *7-point rating-scales with anchors 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.
  2. **7-point rating-scales with anchors −3 = much worse and +3  = much better.
  3. ***The item had to be deleted due to low item reliability.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Homburg, C., Bornemann, T. & Totzek, D. Preannouncing pioneering versus follower products: what should the message be?. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 37, 310–327 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0134-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0134-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation