The idea-generation approaches described in the previous chapters are likely to provide a firm with more ideas than it can actually deal with. Consequently, decisions must be made about which ideas will be pushed further and which ones will be put on hold or dropped. Assuming that an idea is the fundamental basis that determines market success or failure, the decisions at this stage are critical. In Section 10.1, we address the topic of ideas evaluation and selection. Ideas usually remain somehow abstract or incomplete and must be elaborated to become testable. A concept is an elaborated version of an idea that describes the main attributes of the corresponding new product or service in a way that potential customers can understand. Moreover, a new concept is usually not completely isolated from existing offers and, even for the most innovative products, there are very often competitive alternatives that must be taken into account. Consequently, testing a new concept requires some thought about potential market segments and competing offers, which is the topic of Section 10.2. Finally, a new concept can be tested in a way that provides insights into how potential customers forge their preferences, thus allowing for improvement of the concept before it is moved to the industrial design stage. Concept testing and improvement are addressed in Section 10.3.
KeywordsMarket Research Concept Development Consumer Research Conjoint Analysis Product Idea
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bjelland, Osvald M., and Robert Chapman Wood (2008), “An Inside View of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam,’” MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
- Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Frank, Ronald E., William F. Massy, and Yoram Wind (1972), Market Segmentation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind (2004), “Buyer Choice Simulators, Optimizers, and Dynamic Models,” in Yoram (Jerry) Wind and Paul E. Green (Eds.), Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects — A Tribute to Paul E. Green, New York, NY: Springer, 169–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hammedi, Wafa, Allard C. R. van Riel, and Zuzana Sasovova (2011), “Antecedents and Consequences of Reflexivity in New Product Idea Screening,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(5), 662–679.Google Scholar
- Johnson, Richard M. (1987), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,” Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 253–265.Google Scholar
- Myers, James H., and Mark I. Alpert (1977), “Semantic Confusion in Attitude Research: Salience vs. Importance vs. Determinance,” in William D. Perreault (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 106–110.Google Scholar
- O’Meara, John T. (1961), “Selecting Profitable Products,” Harvard Business Review, 39(1), 83–89.Google Scholar
- Srivastava, Rajendra K., Allan D. Shocker, and George S. Day (1978), “An Exploratory Study of the Influences of Usage Situation on Perceptions of Product-Markets,” in H. K. Hunt (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 32–38.Google Scholar
- Stefflre, Volney J. (1971), New Products and New Enterprises: A Report of an Experiment in Applied Social Science, Irvine, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
- Urban, Glen L., and John R. Hauser (1993), Design and Marketing of New Products, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and David R. Bell (2007), “Market Segmentation,” in S. Hart and M. J. Baker (Eds.), The Marketing Book, Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 222–244.Google Scholar