Delaying the inevitable

Whereas there is general satisfaction with straightforward picture‐board techniques for testing me‐too and brand extension product concepts, there is a widely held belief that such techniques are inadequate in accurately gauging the appeal of truly innovative concepts. “Living with the concept” is an alternative method which requires participants to keep material describing the concept at home for a period of time. During this time they are asked to think about the concept. At the end of the fixed period participants record their attitudes and likely purchase intention for the concept. Although this method is considerably more costly and time consuming, it continues to grow in popularity, supported by the lay‐beliefs that “time to think” affects participants’ responses to the concept and makes such responses more predictive of marketplace success. Reports on an empirical study that provides a controlled test of the first of these beliefs. States that results showed that time per se had no effect on responses, but argues that more systematic “thought‐related” exercises within concept tests may lead to better prediction of marketplace success for innovative products.

[1]  Berend Wierenga,et al.  MODEL AND MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER CHOICE OF FOOD PRODUCTS , 1983 .

[2]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Salience of Anti‐Abortion Beliefs and Commitment to an Attitudinal Position: On the Strength, Structure, and Predictive Validity of Anti‐Abortion Attitudes1 , 1995 .

[3]  Jin K. Han,et al.  Market Orientation and Organizational Performance: Is Innovation a Missing Link? , 1998 .

[4]  K. Atuahene–Gima,et al.  Market Orientation and Innovation , 1996 .

[5]  Gerrit Antonides,et al.  Adoption of payment systems in ten countries – a case study of diffusion of innovations , 1999 .

[6]  S. Bhate.  Cognitive style differences and their impact on responses to message sources , 1999 .

[7]  M. Zanna,et al.  Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship☆ , 1978 .

[8]  Dominic Abrams,et al.  Social Identification, Self-Categorization and Social Influence , 1990 .

[9]  Karen H. Smith,et al.  Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconfirmation Judgments , 1992 .

[10]  H. Tuorila,et al.  Predicting the Intent to Purchase Unfamiliar and Familiar Cheeses: The Effects of Attitudes, Expected Liking and Food Neophobia , 1999, Appetite.

[11]  G. Lilien,et al.  Medical Innovation Revisited: Social Contagion versus Marketing Effort1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  G. Hult,et al.  Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination , 1998 .

[13]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing. , 1991, Harvard business review.

[15]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[16]  A. Markman,et al.  Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New Products , 2001 .

[17]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Process Analysis , 1981 .

[18]  H. Barkema,et al.  Adoption of a service innovation in the business market: An empirical test of supply side variables , 1998 .

[19]  C. Flavián,et al.  The acceptance and diffusion of new consumer durables: differences between first and last adopters , 1998 .

[20]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Structural models for the mediation of salience effects on attribution , 1982 .

[21]  R. Chandy,et al.  Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize , 1998 .