Deviation Among Technology Reviews: An Informative Enrichment of Technology Evolution Theory for Marketing

Understanding technological change is of critical importance to marketers, as it bears new markets, new brands, new customers, and new market leaders. This paper examines the deviation among reviews of a technology’s performance and its consequences for inferences on technology evolution patterns. The basic premise of the current paper is that technology evolution literature, while highly relevant, is misguided in that it ignores potential deviation among technology reviews. Using a comprehensive dataset of all published reviews, both before and after FDA approval, of 7 statins for cholesterol reduction (LDL) from 1982 to 2007, the authors find that: (1) there exists vast deviation among reviews of technology performance leading to systematic bias in the portrayal of the path of technology evolution, especially if one relies only on manufacturer’s claims, (2) such deviation does not fade over time, (3) technology review (study design) characteristics affect the stated performance and, (4) both higher technology performance and a higher deviation affect sales positively, also when one controls for a firm’s marketing expenditures. We discuss the implications of these findings for technology evolution theory, managerial practice and public policy.

[1]  R. V. Wyk.  Innovation: The attacker's advantage : Richard N. Foster 316 pages, £14.95 (London, Macmillan, 1986) , 1987 .

[2]  Mph Dr. Richard A. Davidson MD.  Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[3]  D. Rennie,et al.  How to report randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[4]  G. Tellis,et al.  Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the Takeoff of Really New Consumer Durables , 1997 .

[5]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Introduction: Technology, Organizations, and Innovation. , 1990 .

[6]  D. Cook,et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? , 1998, The Lancet.

[7]  Sriram Venkataraman,et al.  The Debate on Influencing Doctors’ Decisions: Are Drug Characteristics the Missing Link? , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[8]  M. Cho,et al.  The Quality of Drug Studies Published in Symposium Proceedings , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[10]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses. , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  B. Djulbegovic,et al.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  M. Cusumano,et al.  Technological Pioneering and Competitive Advantage: The Birth of the VCR Industry , 1987 .

[13]  Fernando F. Suarez.  Battles for Technological Dominance: An Integrative Framework , 2004 .

[14]  Christian Gluud,et al.  The Journal Impact Factor as a Predictor of Trial Quality and Outcomes: Cohort Study of Hepatobiliary Randomized Clinical Trials , 2005, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

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

[16]  Edwin R. Otto.  Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage , 1986 .

[17]  Product liability: Its impact on the auto industry, Consumers, and global competitiveness , 2001 .

[18]  Chris Edwards.  The many lives of Moore's Law [Moore's Law - Electronics] , 2008 .

[19]  T. Bodenheimer,et al.  Uneasy alliance--clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  Alternative conceptions of technology , 1981 .

[21]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[22]  Sergio Sismondo,et al.  Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. , 2008, Contemporary clinical trials.

[23]  S. Roose,et al.  Does Study Design Influence Outcome? , 2009, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

[24]  P. N. Golder,et al.  How Does Objective Quality Affect Perceived Quality? Short-Term Effects, Long-Term Effects, and Asymmetries , 2006 .

[25]  Sridhar Narayanan,et al.  Heterogeneous Learning and the Targeting of Marketing Communication for New Products , 2009, Mark. Sci..

[26]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The Emergence of Emerging Technologies , 2002 .

[27]  G. Tellis,et al.  Does Quality Win? Network Effects versus Quality in High-Tech Markets , 2009 .

[28]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[29]  I. Galynker,et al.  Relationship between drug company funding and outcomes of clinical psychiatric research , 2006, Psychological Medicine.

[30]  R. Dhar.  Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option , 1997 .

[31]  G. Tellis,et al.  Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for Marketing Science , 2006 .

[32]  D. Weatherall,et al.  Academia and industry: lessons from the unfortunate events in Toronto , 1999, The Lancet.

[33]  J. Farmer.  Pleiotropic effects of statins , 2000, Current atherosclerosis reports.

[34]  Gordon E. Moore.  Can Be Delayed , 2003 .

[35]  J. Meltzer.  Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. , 1998, New England Journal of Medicine.

[36]  A. Endo,et al.  The discovery and development of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. , 1992, Journal of lipid research.

[37]  B. Haynes,et al.  Barriers and bridges to evidence based clinical practice , 1998, BMJ.

[38]  M. Mccarthy.  Company sought to block paper's publication , 2000, The Lancet.

[39]  B. Rodda,et al.  Clinical trials: Design, conduct, and analysis , 1987 .

[40]  Matthew Shum,et al.  An empirical model of learning and patient spillovers in new drug entry , 2004 .

[41]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility , 1985 .

[42]  Y. Goto,et al.  Randomized dose-response study of rosuvastatin in Japanese patients with hypercholesterolemia. , 2003, Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis.

[43]  L. Kjaergard,et al.  Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[44]  L. Opie.  Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[45]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[46]  W. Rosenberger,et al.  Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice , 2002 .

[47]  Pierre Azoulay,et al.  Do Pharmaceutical Sales Respond to Scientific Evidence , 2002 .

[48]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[49]  Ashish Sood,et al.  Technological Evolution and Radical Innovation , 2005 .

[50]  Michael Lewis,et al.  Motor vehicle recalls: Trends, patterns and emerging issues , 2007 .

[51]  Stefan Stremersch,et al.  Marketing of the Life Sciences: A New Framework and Research Agenda for a Nascent Field , 2009 .

[52]  Robert A. Peterson,et al.  First-Mover Advantage: A Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Research Propositions , 1992 .