Search results

There is no doubt graduates in marketing from the Michigan State University (MSU) doctoral program have a distinct flavor. Alumni are known for their work ethic and bold minds. Coming from Australia, I take pride in this image and try to uphold this reputation at every opportunity. The transition from student to graduate was a memorable experience in every way. Upon arrival in East Lansing in January of 2001, I was struck by the realization I had found a place where thinking was as admired as physical perspiration (Australians love their sports above all else). I immediately felt a sense of inclusion into the department as other students showed me where to shop and how to find journal articles. The doctoral seminars were intense at times where every waking moment was dedicated to reading and formulating frameworks. Each week was a blur of papers, summaries, critiques and research ideas. As each semester ended panic ensued as class papers became due. With the stated goal of journal submission quality, each class paper was a simulation for the future job of a professor. I recall the nervousness and pressure of presenting original work in a peer setting, and the pleasure of sharing new ideas with one another. I trudged across campus with my fellow students to take courses in statistics, across to Owen Hall for the pizza and soup lunch, and I became one with coffee. My officemate Destan Kandemir and I even ran a quasi café from our office. Unexpectedly, I found it was sometimes hard to explain the nature of our department to outsiders.“Oh, so you're studying in the marketing department”“Yes I am”“Do you do advertising?”“No, we have a separate school for that”.“What about communication?”“No, we have a separate school for that, and for packaging too”.“Well what do you do in the marketing department?”

This study surveys a broad spectrum of new product development (NPD) projects from the biochemistry industry in the USA, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Belgium with the purpose of exploring the role of the organizational activity factors in the NPD success.

Drawing on the resource‐based view of the firm, the authors present a set of hypotheses concerning the relationship between the people resources, development resources, testing resources, and launch resources committed to NPD projects and their financial success. In addition, the effect of the firm's international market involvement on the NPD project success is considered. In this study, testing of the hypothesized relationship is accomplished through linear probability model, binary probit model, and binary logit model.

Empirical results generally support the predictions from the theory. Specifically, the findings of this study show that: the involvement of a strong champion, use of a multi‐disciplinary team, and focus of a dedicated team are key factors for NPD project success among the people resources; the detailed market research has a significant impact on the project success in the development phase of the NPD process; the allocation of resources to the testing of the product with the final customer, market testing, and production start‐up positively influences the NPD project success; advertising quality plays a key role in the NPD project success during its launch; and the NPD project success is positively associated with the degree of a firm's diversification into international markets.

This study provides several guidelines for product managers seeking to launch new products. It offers critical insights into the identification of firm resources that influence the NPD project success. This study also has important implications for firms that consider diversifying or have already diversified into international markets. Understanding the role of market diversification in the NPD project success advances the ability of managers to direct their efforts in international market involvement.

This paper seeks to explore how moderation can and should be modeled in cross‐national/cultural contexts. A multi‐national study of consumer involvement is utilized to demonstrate proper methods for modeling the different types of moderation.

Using data from a consumer survey regarding wine purchasing preferences conducted in Australia, New Zealand and the USA, the paper demonstrates how to identify moderators of form and of strength. A form moderator is modeled using multiplicative interactions while a strength moderator is modeled using multi‐group analyses in structural equation modeling (SEM). Differences in consumers across the three countries are examined from the results.

This study suggests that search behavior is positively influenced by involvement in New Zealand and the USA but not in Australia. It also shows that perceived risk of occasion decreases involvement in all three countries, while partial support for the positive effects of importance of tradition on involvement is found. Furthermore, “perceived risk of occasion,” identified as a moderator of form, is found to significantly moderate the relationship between importance of tradition and involvement in the US sample only. Finally, the results demonstrate significant differences across the three samples in relationships among importance of tradition, perceived risk of occasion, involvement, and search behavior, indicating that the country variable has significant moderator effects.

Understanding form vs strength moderation is important when evaluating multi‐national/cultural differences so that proper methodology can be utilized. This paper provides international marketing researchers with guidelines on how to model interactions and multi‐group comparisons using SEM.

For various reasons consumers find some innovations undesirable. These are identified as resistant innovations or those innovations that consumers are unable or unwilling to readily embrace, such as screw caps on fine wines, hybrid automobiles and nanotechnology-based products. What makes these types of innovations undesirable to consumers? How should marketers introduce into the marketplace these types of innovations? These questions are the foundation of my ongoing research. In reflecting on my research decisions for the past ten years, I came upon my application for PhD programs. In 1997, I wrote:“The past ten years I have been focused on product development for telecom firms, including five years as an entrepreneur. As I've worked, questions have frequently surfaced about the slow acceptance in the marketplace of some telecommunication offerings; Why has ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) not taken off? Why did 30,000 perfectly functioning Newton PDAs (Personal Digital Assistant) end up at the Los Angeles dump? Did AT&T misjudge the market timing for videophones? What role, if any, did marketing play in these product mis-launches?”…I have explored disruptive technologies with Christensen (1997), crossed the chasm with Moore (1991), searched for the sources of innovation with Von Hippel (1988), and evaluated Roger's diffusion theories (1995) looking for direction. These investigations have led to more questions.

I am proud to be joining the many colleagues who appear in this volume, many younger but some more experienced in the marketing and the international business disciplines, honoring S. Tamer Cavusgil's retirement from Michigan State University. I am proud for many reasons, but mainly because throughout the years I have observed how Tamer's contributions to our professional and personal lives have shaped our growth as a fraternity of business scholars and teachers. I feel very fortunate to have grown as Tamer's colleague through the many papers we have published, the many doctoral students we have mentored, and the many service contributions we have made to the international business field during the past 30 years. I feel luckier, however, that I have come to know this remarkable person as a friend.