IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v22y2003i3p355-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

R&D, Marketing, and the Success of Next-Generation Products

Author

Listed:
  • Elie Ofek

    (Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Miklos Sarvary

    (INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305, Fontainebleau, France)

Abstract

This paper studies dynamic competition in markets characterized by the introduction of technologically advanced next-generation products. Firms invest in new product effort in an attempt to attain industry leadership, thus securing high profits and benefiting from advantages relevant for the success of future product generations. The analysis reveals that when the current leader possesses higher research and development (R&D) competence, it tends to investin R&D than rivals and to retain its lead position. The leader's investment exhibits an inverse-U pattern as this advantage increases. In contrast, when the leader enjoys an advantage that originates from the persistence of reputation, it investsthan its followers. Now, followers' investment exhibits an inverse-U pattern as reputation advantage increases. Depending on the extent of leader reputation, industry structure can either exhibit frequent leadership shifts or prolonged incumbent dominance. The basic framework is extended to allow investments in additional marketing variables (e.g., advertising). Interestingly, the leader takes advantage of strong demand for its current product by focusing more on advertising, whereas the follower expends more on R&D. By shedding light on the implications of industry position for investment incentives and market evolution, the analysis provides valuable insights for formulating marketing strategy in fast-paced, high-tech business environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Elie Ofek & Miklos Sarvary, 2003. "R&D, Marketing, and the Success of Next-Generation Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 355-370, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:22:y:2003:i:3:p:355-370
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.22.3.355.17742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.22.3.355.17742
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.22.3.355.17742?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders and Product Cycles," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(2), pages 557-586.
    2. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1985. "Innovation and Industry Evolution," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 100(1), pages 81-99.
    3. Christopher Budd & Christopher Harris & John Vickers, 1993. "A Model of the Evolution of Duopoly: Does the Asymmetry between Firms Tend to Increase or Decrease?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 543-573.
    4. John R. Hauser, 1998. "Research, Development, and Engineering Metrics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-1), pages 1670-1689, December.
    5. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    6. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    8. Joseph E. Stiglitz & G. Frank Mathewson (ed.), 1986. "New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262690934, April.
    9. Richard R. Nelson, 1991. "Why do firms differ, and how does it matter?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(S2), pages 61-74, December.
    10. Henry G. Grabowski, 1968. "The Determinants of Industrial Research and Development: A Study of the Chemical, Drug, and Petroleum Industries," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 76(2), pages 292-292.
    11. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 1993. "Predicting Advertising Pulsing Policies in an Oligopoly: A Model and Empirical Test," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 88-102.
    12. Richard Ericson & Ariel Pakes, 1995. "Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for Empirical Work," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 62(1), pages 53-82.
    13. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    14. William P. Rogerson, 1982. "The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 391-401, Autumn.
    15. Devavrat Purohit, 1994. "What Should You Do When Your Competitors Send in the Clones?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 392-411.
    16. Vickers, John S, 1986. "The Evolution of Market Structure When There Is a Sequence of Innovations," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 1-12, September.
    17. Pankaj Ghemawat, 1991. "Market Incumbency and Technological Inertia," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 161-171.
    18. Shantanu Dutta & Om Narasimhan & Surendra Rajiv, 1999. "Success in High-Technology Markets: Is Marketing Capability Critical?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 547-568.
    19. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    20. Miguel Villas-Boas, J., 1992. "Dynamic duopolies with non-convex adjustment costs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 391-394, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    2. Robert Gibbons, 2010. "Inside Organizations: Pricing, Politics, and Path Dependence," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 337-365, September.
    3. Klette, Tor Jakob & Griliches, Zvi, 2000. "Empirical Patterns of Firm Growth and R&D Investment: A Quality Ladder Model Interpretation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 363-387, April.
    4. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2012. "Going, going, gone. Exit forms and the innovative capabilities of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 795-807.
    5. Mahmood, Ishtiaq P. & Zhu, Hong-Jin & Zajac, Edward J., 2008. "Where Can Capabilities Come From? How the Content of Network Ties Affects Capability Acquisition," CEI Working Paper Series 2008-14, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    6. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    7. Susan Athey & Armin Schmutzler, 1999. "Innovation and the Emergence of Market Dominance," Working papers 99-18, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    8. Kaplan, Todd R. & Luski, Israel & Wettstein, David, 2003. "Innovative activity and sunk cost," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1111-1133, October.
    9. Martin, Xavier & Mitchell, Will, 1998. "The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 753-771, April.
    10. Natália Barbosa & Ana Paula Faria & Vasco Eiriz, 2014. "Industry- and firm-specific factors of innovation novelty," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(3), pages 865-902.
    11. Matthew Selove, 2014. "How Do Firms Become Different? A Dynamic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 980-989, April.
    12. Jacob Seifert, 2015. "Welfare effects of compulsory licensing," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 317-350, December.
    13. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Gale, Ian L. & Stegeman, Mark, 2001. "Sequential Auctions of Endogenously Valued Objects," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 74-103, July.
    15. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    16. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    17. Iain Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 1999. "The Diffusion of Science-Driven Drug Discovery: Organizational Change in Pharmaceutical Research," NBER Working Papers 7359, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Xavier Boutin, 2015. "Mergers and the Dynamics of Innovation," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2015-15, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Leenders, Mark A.A.M. & Wierenga, Berend, 2008. "The effect of the marketing–R&D interface on new product performance: The critical role of resources and scope," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 56-68.
    20. Gabriele Pellegrino & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "How do new entrepreneurs innovate?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 42(3), pages 323-341, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:22:y:2003:i:3:p:355-370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.