Rajesh K. Chandy

The Incumbent’s Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation

A common perception in the field of innovation is that large, incumbent firms rarely introduce radical product innovations. Such firms tend to solidify their market positions with relatively incremental innovations. They may even turn away entrepreneurs who come up with radical innovations, though they themselves had such entrepreneurial roots. As a result, radical innovations tend to come from small firms, the outsiders. This thesis, which we term the “incumbents curse,” is commonly accepted in academic and popular accounts of radical innovation. This topic is important, because radical product innovation is an engine of economic growth that has created entire industries and brought down giants while catapulting small firms to market leadership. Yet a review of the literature suggests that the evidence for the incumbents curse is based on anecdotes and scattered case studies of highly specialized innovations. It is not clear if it applies widely across several product categories. The authors reexamine the incumbents curse using a historical analysis of a relatively large number of radical innovations in the consumer durables and office products categories. In particular, the authors seek to answer the following questions: (1) How prevalent is this phenomenon? What percentage of radical innovations do incumbents versus nonincumbents introduce? What percentage of radical innovations do small firms versus large firms introduce? (2) Is the phenomenon a curse that invariably afflicts large incumbents in current industries? Is it driven by incumbency or size? and (3) How consistent is the phenomenon? Has the increasing size and complexity of firms over time accentuated it? Does it vary across national boundaries? Results from the study suggest that conventional wisdom about the incumbents curse may not always be valid.

Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development

The area of consumer cocreation is in its infancy and many aspects are not well understood. In this article, we outline and discuss a conceptual framework that focuses on the degree of consumer cocreation in new product development (NPD). The authors examine (a) the major stimulators and impediments to this process, (b) the impact of cocreation at each stage of the NPD process, and (c) the various firm-related and consumer-related outcomes. A number of areas for future research are suggested.

Sources and Financial Consequences of Radical Innovation: Insights from Pharmaceuticals

Radical innovations are engines of economic growth and the focus of much academic and practitioner interest, yet some fundamental questions remain unanswered. The authors use theoretical arguments on the risk associated with radical innovations, and the resources needed for them, to answer the following questions on the sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: (1) Who introduces a greater number of radical innovations: dominant or nondominant firms? (2) How great are the financial rewards to radical innovations, and how do these rewards vary across dominant and nondominant firms? (3) Is it only a firms resources in the aggregate or also its focus and leverage of resources that make its innovations more financially valuable? and (4) Which are more valuable: innovations that incorporate a breakthrough technology or innovations that provide a substantial increase in customer benefits? The authors pool information from a disparate set of sources in the pharmaceutical industry to study these questions. Results indicate that a large majority of radical innovations come from a minority of firms. The financial rewards of innovation vary dramatically across firms and are tied closely to firms’ resource base. Firms that provide higher per-product levels of marketing and technology support obtain much greater financial rewards from their radical innovations than do other firms. Firms that have greater depth and breadth in their product portfolio also gain more from their radical innovations.

The Impact of Acquisitions on Innovation: Poison Pill, Placebo, or Tonic?

Do acquisitions increase, decrease, or have no effect on innovation? The empirical research on this question suggests that acquisitions may hurt innovation; that is, they may be a “poison pill” for innovation. The authors present an alternative view. For firms that first engage in internal knowledge development, the knowledge-based view the authors present suggests that acquisitions can help innovation; that is, they can be a tonic for innovation. Analysis of cross-sectional, time-series data on a sample of pharmaceutical firms during 1988–97 provides evidence to support the thesis.

What to Say When: Advertising Appeals in Evolving Markets

The authors study how ad cues affect consumer behavior in new versus well-established markets. The authors use theoretical insights from consumer information processing to argue that the same ad cues can have different effects on consumer behavior, depending on whether the market is new or old. The authors then test these hypotheses in the context of a toll-free referral service, using a highly disaggregate econometric model of advertising response. The results indicate that argument-based appeals, expert sources, and negatively framed messages are particularly effective in new markets. Emotion-based appeals and positively framed messages are more effective in older markets than in new markets.

What Will the Future Bring? Dominance,Technology Expectations, and Radical Innovation

Are dominant firms laggards or leaders at innovation? The answers to this question are conflicting and controversial. In an attempt to resolve conflicting answers to this question, the authors argue that dominance is a multifaceted construct in which individual facets result in differing (and countervailing) propensities to innovate. To identify the overall effects of dominance, it is necessary to consider the effects of these facets taken together. The authors also study a hitherto ignored yet important driver of innovation, technology expectations, and show that managers have widely divergent expectations of the same new technology. Furthermore, even when their expectations are the same, managers of dominant firms display investment behavior at odds with their counterparts at nondominant firms. The authors use a triangulation of research methods and combine insights from lab studies with those from field interviews, archival data, and a survey of bricks-and-mortar banks’ responses to Internet banking.

From Invention to Innovation: Conversion Ability in Product Development

The ability to convert inputs into outputs is a critical determinant of success in many fields of endeavor. In this research, the authors study the ability of firms to convert ideas into products, that is, their conversion ability. Specifically, they address the question, Why are some firms better at conversion than others? In contrast to much of the existing literature, the authors propose that a strong focus on speed and on generating many ideas may actually hurt firms by lowering their conversion ability. The authors test their arguments on data between 1960 and 2001 from a cross-national sample of pharmaceutical firms. They find that firms vary widely in their ability to convert promising drug ideas into launched drugs. Firms with the highest conversion ability are those that (1) focus on a moderate number of ideas, in areas of importance, and in areas in which they have expertise and (2) deliberate for a moderate length of time on promising ideas.

When Do Chief Marketing Officers Affect Firm Value? A Customer Power Explanation

Recent discussions in academic literature and the business press often paint an unflattering picture of the contributions of chief marketing officers (CMOs) to the financial value of their firms. Some even suggest that CMOs, despite being the marketing leaders in firms, have little or no effect on firm performance. However, formal empirical research on the impact of CMOs on financial performance is scarce. This article presents conceptual arguments and empirical evidence about this controversial issue. The authors suggest that CMOs are far from irrelevant to the financial performance of firms. However, the impact of CMOs on financial performance is highly contingent on the managerial discretion available to them. Focusing on the role of customer power in limiting the managerial discretion available to CMOs, this study identifies individual and firm-specific conditions in which CMOs contribute more or less to firm value. Analyses of abnormal stock returns associated with the appointment of CMOs provide support for the hypothesized effects of customer power and managerial discretion.

Which Ad Works, When, Where, and How often? Modeling the Effects of Direct Television Advertising

The authors develop a model to decompose the effects of television advertising for a toll-free referral service, at the hourly level. The model estimates which ad works, when, in which station, and for how long. Results of the analysis show that ads do stimulate direct response, but their effects dissipate very rapidly. Effectiveness and profitability vary substantially by creative, television station, and station x time of the day. The results underscore the need for managers to undertake such analyses and for researchers to use such a disaggregate approach.

Employee-Based Brand Equity: Why Firms with Strong Brands Pay Their Executives Less

This article examines the concept of employee-based brand equity—the value that a brand provides to a firm through its effects on the attitudes and behaviors of its employees—and empirically demonstrates its significance on executive pay. Executives value being associated with strong brands and, therefore, accept substantially lower pay at firms that own strong brands. Consistent with identity theory, this effect is stronger for chief executive officers and younger executives than for other executives. Data from a large, cross-industry sample of executives suggest that academics and practitioners should take a broader view of the contributions of brand-related investments to firm value and make use of strong brands in pay negotiations that are typically viewed as being outside the realm of marketing.