Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Chapter 6 (Offerings)
Marketing Principle #3
All Competitors React Managing
Offering-based Sustainable Competitive
Advantage
© Robert Palmatier 1
Agenda
Introduction
Takeaways
© Palmatier 2
Developing an Innovative Offering is
Critical to Many Firms’ SCA
GE is pursuing 100 “imagination breakthrough” projects to drive growth
“Innovation is the only way that Microsoft can keep customers happy
and competition at bay” (Ballmer)
Today, innovationis the number one strategic priority at 40% of
companies versus 19% in 2005 (BCG)
86% of senior managers believe that “innovation is more important than
cost reduction for long-term success” (Bain)
However: short-term business pressures often undermines
innovation
CEOs want returns from marketing in 6-12 months
Resources taken from long-term initiatives to hit short-term targets
Accounting practices for market-based assets impact decisions
© Palmatier 3
3
Innovation Offering
© Palmatier 4
Example: Dell (US)
© Palmatier 5
What Is Innovation?
Innovation Rader
Captures many different ways a firm can innovate; helps define the innovation
space according to what, who, how, and where
© Palmatier 7
Innovation Radar
Presence Solutions
Change where Provide a total
products are sold solution
Experience
Supply chain Change Changing who
Change supply customer the customer
Changing
how to sell to
chain Processes Customer interactions is
HO
Change
H
customers Change
OW
customers to
W
operating
processes target
© Palmatier 8
Starbucks
Offering
Brand
(WHAT) Platform
Networking Solution
Presence Customers
(WHERE) (WHO)
© Palmatier 9
Walmart
© Palmatier 10
Innovation Radar Exercise: Take a Few
Minutes and Develop Innovation Ideas
1. Offering: Develop new products or new services
Team exercise (IPOD)
2. Platform: Design modular platforms and
Think of one way to innovate strategic control points (Nissan)
for the assigned radar 3. Solution: Solve end-to-end customer problems
(John Deere)
dimension 4. Customer: Discover unmet customer needs or
underserved segments (DIY)
Use one of the companies 5. Experience: Rethink how customers interface
below: with you (IKEA)
6. Value Capture: Redefine how you get paid
Your firm (Google)
T-Mobile 7. Processes: Innovate in your core operating
Microsoft processes (Progressive)
8. Organization: Change form, function or scope
Alaska Airlines (IBM, Arrow)
Nordstrom 9. Supply chain: Rethink sources (Dell)
10. Presence: Innovative points of presences
(Starbucks at airport)
11. Networking: Integrated offering, leverage others
(Otis elevator)
12. Brand: Leverage the brand into new domains
© Palmatier (Virgin) 11
11
Benefits of Innovation and Offering’s Equity
Offering equity refers to the core value that the performance of the
product or service offers the customer, absent any brand or relationship
equity effects
New offerings also can help the firm acquire new customers or enter new
markets when they offer similar performance but at a lower price
Offering new and innovative products tends to enhance the firm’s brand,
even if customers don’t buy the new offering
© Palmatier 12
Example: BlueScope (Australia)
© Palmatier 13
Example: TomTom (the Netherlands)
© Palmatier 14
Agenda
Introduction
Takeaways
© Palmatier 15
Offering and Innovation Strategies
Many good products fail to achieve their set financial objectives due to
poor product launches
© Palmatier 16
Developing Innovative Offerings
© Palmatier 17
Stage-Gate Design Review Process for Effective
Product Development
Concept and Definition Design and Development Validation and Production Final Audit
Initial
ideas
New Product
The concept and The design and development The validation and production The audit stage consists of
definition stage consists stage consists of product and stage consists of continued final product and product
of an initial screening of process design and development. market launch planning and assessments. It often
all potential ideas, Financial feasibility product manufacturing and includes some reflection on
concept assessment, considerations also are pertinent, process validation. It also may the previous steps.
project definition, and including testing of price points include test marketing and
feasibility assessment. and customer acceptance. evaluation of launch plans. 18
Example: Tata Motors (India)
Tata Motors innovated the Nano, the cheapest car in the world, launched
in 2009 at a sale price of just $2,000
The ultimate product cost less to build and thus was affordable in the
Indian market, but perhaps even more important, it turned out to be
better suited to busy Indian traffic patterns, which require quick and
frequent maneuvering
© Palmatier 19
Repositioning Strategies
The advantage of this strategy is that it generally does not require a new
technology or invention, and marketers thus can to take the lead in these
efforts
© Palmatier 20
Red vs. Blue Ocean Innovation Approach
Cirque du Soleil raised prices and redefined their target market. Rather
than children and families, it sought to appeal to adults, couples on dates,
and business clientele
© Palmatier 22
Defining Characteristics of Blue Ocean
Initiatives
© Palmatier 23
23
Comparison of Red and Blue Ocean Strategies
© Palmatier 24
New Technology – Based Innovation Strategies
© Palmatier 25
Sustaining Versus Disruptive “Technological”
Innovation
Companies doing everything well can lose their leadership
position due to failing to manage disruptive innovations
(Polaroid, Xerox, DEC)
Sustaining technologies improve performance of established
products along dimensions valued by mainstream customers in
major markets
Products often overshoot customer needs
Processes support incremental product improvements (lower risk)
© Palmatier (Christensen) 26
26
Sustaining Versus Disrupting Technical
Innovations
Disruptive technology
With its very different price Sustaining technology
and performance This well-understood
characteristics this technology will lead to
technology often improves continuous, incremental
Performance Features
Incremental
enhancement High-End Customers
Incremental
enhancement
Low-End Customers
Time
© Palmatier 27
Incumbents Usually Win the Battles of
Sustaining Innovation
Digital to Optical
Caller ID
MAIN STREAM CUSTOMERS
Analog to Digital
Time
Source: Christensen
© Palmatier (Christensen) 28
New Entrants Usually Win the Battles
of Disruptive Innovations
Digital to Optical
Caller ID
MAIN STREAM CUSTOMERS
Analog to Digital
VOIP
Time
© Palmatier (Christensen) 29
Mini-Mills Took 50% Share by Starting
with Low-End Rebar
- - 55 %
STEEL T EEL
TS
QUALITY 25-30% SHEE
STE EL – 22%
TURAL
STRUC
15%
%
& RODS – 8
, BAR
ANGLE
12%
R– 4%
REBA
7%
% IN TONS
TIME
1975 1980 1985 1990
© Palmatier (Christensen) 30
Transistors Were First Used in New
Markets
Performance
Different m t u b es
Performance Vacuu
Measure
op roc essors
r
Mic
emo ry c hi p
C ch ip M Time
ns is to rI
Tra
Time
Non-consumers or
Non-consuming contexts
Sonotone 1952
© Palmatier
Sony 1955 31
Disruptive Innovations Occur in Either
Low-End of Existing or in New Markets
Low End Disruptions New Market Disruptions
Nucor’s steel mini-mills Bell telephone (telegraph)
Vanguard’s index mutual funds eBay online marketplace
Dell’s direct-to-customer business model Transistor radios
Why?
Cannot compete with existing, sustaining products
© Palmatier (Christensen) 32
Why do Market Leaders Fall into This
Trap?
Companies find it difficult to invest in disruptive innovations –
lower-margin opportunities that their customers don’t want
Growth targets bias firm’s toward larger markets
© Palmatier 33
33
Overall: Must Manage Portfolio of Red
Ocean/Sustaining and Blue Ocean/Disruptive
Innovations
Ensure business is conducting classical STP and stage-gate
innovation
Constant flow of new products (incremental)
Need uncompromised customer/competitive input
© Palmatier 34
34
Conjoint Analysis Helps Make New
Offerings “More” Successful
Product superiority drives financial success
Largest predictor of new product success
Good designs are 5 times more likely to succeed than poor designs
© Palmatier 35
35
DAT 6.1 Conjoint Analysis
How it Works
In this view, a product consists of multiple attributes that together provide benefits to a customer. For example, a smartphone customer might
think about call quality, operating system, screen size, and camera quality benefits. If a firm decides to design a new smartphone, it cannot just
ask customers about what features they care about; most customers would say they wanted the best version of all the features. Instead, the firm
can simulate a trade-off: Would you rather have better camera quality or a smaller (or bigger) screen size? The trade-offs reflect how customers
actually make decisions, because few of them can afford the best options for all attributes in every product. Another basic assumption
underlying conjoint measurement is that customers cannot reliably express how they weight the separate product features when forming their
preferences. Instead, marketers need to infer these relative weights by asking for evaluations (or choices) of alternate product concepts, using a
structured process. Thus, during a conjoint exercise, rather than directly asking customers about the significance of product attributes, the
analyst uses a more realistic setting and asks customers to evaluate alternative scenarios or product profiles, each with multiple product
attributes. Then it is possible to infer the significance of each product attribute from the ratings that customers provide for each scenario,
reflecting their overall product preference. The conjoint formula is:
where P is the product bundle, comprising certain attributes; R(P) is the rating associated with product P; ij is the part-worth utility associated
with the jth level (j = 1, 2, 3, ..., kj) of the ith attribute; kj is the number of levels of attribute I; m is the number of attributes; and x ij equals 1 if the jth
level of the ith attribute is present in product P, and 0 otherwise.
With data collected from such a conjoint experiment, we can estimate the underlying value of each product attribute, or its part-worth utility
(ij). The estimated part-worth utilities from a conjoint analysis can provide the answers to many marketing questions, such as which product
configurations are optimal and how much market share an offering is likely to capture.
© Palmatier 36
DAT 6.1 Conjoint Analysis Example
Example
A smartphone manufacturer wants to design a new phone for its target demographic. The main product attributes the manufacturer
wants to focus on are camera resolution quality, screen size, and price. The manufacturer also wants to understand customers’
willingness to pay for the new smartphone. Thus, it designs a conjoint study for 250 customers to provide a product rating score (0 =
least preferred, 100 = most preferred) for eight alternative smartphones, according to their price, camera resolution, and screen size.
One of the eight products is provided here for illustration:
Price $500
Camera Resolution 5 MP
Screen size 2.5 inches
Your Rating (0 to 100, where 100 is most likely to buy):
With the rating scores from the 250 customers, the manufacturer can apply the conjoint formula and estimate the part-worth utilities
associated with each product attribute. Let’s say that our hypothetical customers, reasonably, prefer the $500 smartphone more (part-
worth = 25) than the $600 option (part-worth = 0). They also want an 8 MP smartphone (part-worth = 10) rather than a 6 MP one
(part-worth = 0) and a 6.5-inch screen (part-worth =20) more than a 5.5-inch one (part-worth = 0).
The part-worth difference between the 5.5- and 6-inch phone options (20 – 0 = 20) is twice as great as the difference between the 8 and
6 MP versions (10 – 0 = 10), so screen size appears twice as important as camera resolution quality. The part-worth difference between
the $500 and $600 smartphones was 25 (25 – 0 = 25), which implies that each part-worth unit is worth $4 ($100 = 25 units, or 1 unit =
$4). Noting that the part-worth difference between the 5.5- and 6-inch phone options was 20 units, the manufacturer can estimate that
customers are willing to pay $80 (i.e. $4 x 20 units = $80) more for a 6-inch screen than for a 5.5-inch version.
Thus, this manufacturer should produce a phone with 6 MP camera quality, a 6-inch screen size, and a price that is $80 more than the
base price of $500.
© Palmatier 37
Conjoint Analysis Process
1. Design study
Select attributes and levels (range and #)
Develop bundles (< 16 optimal)
© Palmatier 38
Designing an EMBA Program
Location of Program
Cost of Program More than 30 miles from home
More than $20,000 per year Between 10 and 30 miles from
Less than $20,000 per year Within 10 miles of home
© Palmatier 39
39
Collecting EMBA Ratings Data
Best product for customer 1: Less than $20,000 per year, requires more than
10/hrs/week work outside of class, between 10 and 30 miles from home, and
is a top ranked business school. Ranking is most important and is over 12
times more important than cost (< or > 20k$).
© Palmatier 41
Using Conjoint Analysis to Evaluate
Strategic Alternatives
© Palmatier 42
42
Model Estimates Market Share of Each
Offering for Different Decision Rules
Market Share by Offering
Cheap-N-Easy
Decision Rules Flashy MBA Value MBA
MBA
First choice 5% 72.5% 22.5%
Share of 11.8% 50.2% 38.0%
preference
Logit choice 15% 48.6% 36.4%
First choice rule: each customer selects the product that offers
him/her the highest utility among the competing alternatives
Share of preference rule: customer selects each product with a
probability that is proportional to the utility of that compared to
the total utility derived from all the products in the choice set
Logit choice rule: alternative to share rule by using an
exponential weighted utility
© Palmatier 43
MarkStrat Conjoint 1: Relative Importance
Across Attributes (by segment)
Resolution
© Palmatier 45
45
Agenda
Introduction
Summary
Takeaways
© Palmatier 46
75% of Products Launched End Up
Failing to Meet Objectives
Failure to provide large enough perceived benefit (poor
development)
No differential advantage (BenGay Aspirin)
© Palmatier 47
Example: Kellogg’s (US)
© Palmatier 48
Some Relevant Consumer Psychology
on Persuasion
Social proof: looking at others is a way we
determine what to do (Jonestown, testimonials)
More people → larger belief it is correct
More similar people → larger impact on behavior
© Palmatier 49
49
Understanding Prospect Theory
Subject Value
(i.e. Psychological Impact)
Current
Wealth State V (+)
Or
“Status Quo”
- $200
Objective Losses Objective Gains
+ $600
V (-)
1) Relative to reference Endowment effect: people
point value things in their possession
2) Decreasing marginal
more than when they don’t
sensitivity have the item. Effect of loss of
item is larger than the gain
3) Loss aversion
(electric car).
© Palmatier 50
Implications of Prospect Theory
© Palmatier 51
51
Launching and Diffusing Innovative Offerings
© Palmatier 52
Crossing the Chasm: Adoption Lifecycle
Categories of Innovators Early Adopters Chasm Early Majority Late Majority Laggards
Product First to adopt a Perceive the Gap More pragmatic, Demands even Need the most evidence
Adopters new offering; benefits of the between such that they more evidence to persuade
actively seek new technology early must be of the product’s
new and are willing adopters convinced that functionality
technologies to buy with just and early the new product and are harder
a few references majority really works to persuade
Adapted from Moore, G.A. (2006), Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and
Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers, 1st rev. ed., (New
York: Collins Business Essentials)
© Palmatier 53
Failing to “Cross The Chasm” is Common
Barrier to Success
Firm takes on more visionaries than it can handle
© Palmatier 55
55
Product-Based Factors that Influence
Innovation Diffusion
Another long stream of research, starting with Everett
Rogers, shows that specific product characteristics can
capture 40–80 percent of the variation in the speed with
which offerings diffuse
Changing each of the following five factors can alter the rate
of product diffusion, all else being equal
1. Relative advantage
2. Compatibility
3. Complexity
4. Trialability
5. Observability
© Palmatier 56
Besides Psychology and People, “Product
Factors” Determine the Rate of Diffusion
1. Relative Advantage: degree to which an offering is
perceived as being better than the ideas it supersedes
Economic: cost, price
Status, prestige, etc. See Note on Innovation
Diffusion: Roger's Five
Necessary but not sufficient (i.e., new keyboard)
Factors
© Palmatier 57
57
49% to 87% of the Variance in Rate of
Adoption is Explained by 5 Factors
3. Complexity: degree to which an offering is perceived as relatively difficult
to understand/use
Education is key (online banking)
Speed of Google
© Palmatier 58
58
STP/BOR Strategies Should be Adapted
Based on 3Ps (Psych, People, Product)
Segmenting and Targeting Strategies
Focus on vertical markets, intra-segment communication, no takeaways,
large relative advantage (10x)
Low end and/or new markets for disruptive innovations
Target beachheads for bowling alley effect
Select segments where “5 factors” are best
Positioning Strategies
Make offering compatible to existing offering
Education and simplicity are key to messaging
Free samples, reduce risk, use warranty and trial periods
Enhance visibility of users, testimonials
© Palmatier 61
Psychology, People, and Product
Factors Determines Product Diffusion
© Palmatier 62
Bass Diffusion Model for New Product
Adoption Capture Multiple Factors (3Ps)
© Palmatier 63
63
Sum of Innovators and Imitators Yields Model
for New Adopters
© Palmatier 64
Estimating the Parameters of the
Bass Model
Use historical data
Innovation Imitation
Product/ parameter parameter
Technology (p) (q)
B&W TV 0.065 0.335
Color TV 0.021 0.583
Room Air conditioner 0.010 0.454
Clothes dryers 0.073 0.389
Ultrasound Imaging 0.003 0.506
CD Player 0.028 0.368
Cellular telephones 0.005 0.506
Microwave Oven 0.018 0.337
Hybrid corn 0.000 0.798
Home PC 0.003 0.253
Van den Bulte and Stremersch (2004) suggests an average value
© Palmatier
of 0.03 for p and an average value of 0.42 for q 65
65
Example: Forecasting DirecTV
Used Bass Diffusion model
Market size estimate from customer survey
Diffusion parameters estimated from managerial
judgments and analogous products (cable TV)
Results:
Five year forecasts made 3 years before launch
were, on average, -16% below actual
Forecast justified earlier launch of a satellite for
expanded transmission capability
© Palmatier 66
66
Agenda
Introduction
Summary
Takeaways
© Palmatier 67
Steps to Building Offering Equity
© Palmatier 68
Research Approaches for Designing and
Launching New Offerings
Qualitative techniques such as observation, focus groups, and
customer interviews are effective early in the development
process; they can reveal some important needs that may be
just emerging or that are unknown to the firm
Then to avoid the risks associated with the high failure rate
of new offerings, firms can use different techniques to
improve their decision making and avoid unsuccessful
launches, such as conjoint analysis
The Bass model captures many of the people- and product-
based factors, but it also integrates pricing and advertising
levels to predict adoption rates
© Palmatier 69
Agenda
Introduction
Takeaways
© Palmatier 70
Takeaways
Offering equity captures the core value that the customer obtains from a
new offering, absent any brand or relationship equity
© Palmatier 71
Takeaways
New and innovative offerings increase firm value by providing more value
to customers (through enhanced performance or better performance for
the price), motivating customers to switch, expanding customers and
markets, and establishing a brand image as a leading, innovative company
© Palmatier 72
Takeaways
Conjoint analysis can facilitate the design and launch of new offerings by
helping managers define the optimal product, according to the value
assigned to various product attributes by consumers. Bass models also are
helpful, because they use historical data related to the coefficients of
innovation and imitation to predict adoption rates
© Palmatier 73
Readings
© Palmatier 74
74