Concept Development

  • Hubert Gatignon
  • David Gotteland
  • Christophe Haon


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.


Market Research Concept Development Consumer Research Conjoint Analysis Product Idea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alam, Ian (2002), “An Exploratory Investigation of User Involvement in New Service Development,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 250–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barczak, Gloria, Abbie Griffin, and Kenneth B. Kahn (2009), “Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batra, Rajeev, Pamela M. Homer, and Lynn R. Kahle (2001), “Values, Susceptibility to Normative Influence, and Attribute Importance Weights: A Nomological Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijmolt, Tammo H. A., and Michel van de Velden (2012), “Multiattribute Perceptual Mapping with Idiosyncratic Brand and Attribute Sets,” Marketing Letters, 23(3), 585–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Calantone, Roger J., C. Anthony Di Benedetto, and Jeffrey B. Schmidt (1999), “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in New Product Screening,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(1), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carbonell-Foulquié, Pilar, Jose L. Munuera-Alemán, and Ana I. Rodríguez-Escudero (2004), “Criteria Employed for Go/No-Go Decisions When Developing Successful Highly Innovative Products,” Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer, and Kent Nakamoto (1994), “Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, Bruce H., and David B. Montgomery (1999), “Managerial Identification of Competitors,” Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, Roger G. (1985), “Selecting Winning New Product Projects: Using the NewProd System,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2(1), 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, Robert G. (1992), “The NewProd System: The Industry Experience,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(2), 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, Robert G., and Ulrike de Brentani (1984), “Criteria for Screening New Industrial Products,” Industrial Marketing Management, 13(3), 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahan, Ely, Arina Soukhoroukova, and Martin Spann (2010), “New Product Development 2.0: Preference Markets — How Scalable Securities Markets Identify Winning Product Concepts and Attributes,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(7), 937–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahl, Darren W., and Page Moreau (2002), “The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking during New Product Ideation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Day, George S. (1981), “Strategic Market Analysis and Definition: An Integrated Approach,” Strategic Management Journal, 2(3), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Day, George S., Allan D. Shocker, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (1979), “Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product-Markets,” Journal of Marketing, 43(4), 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeSarbo, Wayne S., Richard L. Oliver, and Arvind Rangaswamy (1989), “A Simulated Annealing Methodology for Clusterwise Linear Regression,” Psychometrika, 54(4), 707–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeSarbo, Wayne S., Michel Wedel, Marco Vriens, and Venkatram Ramaswamy (1992), “Latent Class Metric Conjoint Analysis,” Marketing Letters, 3(3), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deshpandé, Rohit, and Hubert Gatignon (1994), “Competitive Analysis,” Marketing Letters, 5(3), 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dickson, Peter R., and James L. Ginter (1987), “Market Segmentation, Product Differentiation, and Marketing Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Frank, Ronald E., William F. Massy, and Yoram Wind (1972), Market Segmentation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Frazier, Gary L., and Roy D. Howell (1983), “Business Definition and Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 47(2), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuchs, Christoph, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2012), “Customer-Perceived Positioning Effectiveness: Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Implications for New Product Managers,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gatignon, Hubert, Barton Weitz, and Pradeep Bansal (1990), “Brand Introduction Strategies and Competitive Environments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27(4), 390–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, Paul E. (1975), “Marketing Applications of MDS: Assessment and Outlook,” Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green, Paul E. (1984), “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green, Paul E., J. Douglas Carroll, and Stephen M. Goldberg (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45(3), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green, Paul E., Stephen M. Goldberg, and Mila Montemayor (1981), “Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45(1), 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Green, Paul E., and Abba M. Krieger (1988), “Choice Rules and Sensitivity Analysis in Conjoint Simulators,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Green, Paul E., and Abba M. Krieger (1991), “Segmenting Markets with Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Manoj K. Agarwal (1991), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2), 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Robert N. Zelnio (1989), “A Componential Segmentation Model with Optimal Product Design,” Decision Sciences, 20(2), 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Green, Paul E., and Vithala R. Rao (1971), “Conjoint Measurement for Data Quantifying Judgmental,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Green, Paul E., and V. Srinivasan (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Green, Paul E., and V. Srinivasan (1990), “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice,” Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain (1973), “Analyzing Free-Response Data in Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Griffin, Abbie, and John R. Hauser (1993), “The Voice of the Customer,” Marketing Science, 12(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grover, Rajiv, and Vithala R. Rao (1988), “Inferring Competitive Market Structure Based on a Model of Interpurchase Intervals,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 5(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Haley, Russell I. (1968), “Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-Oriented Research Tool,” Journal of Marketing, 32(3), 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Hammedi, Wafa, Allard C. R. van Riel, and Zuzana Sasovova (2012), “Improving Screening Decision Making through Transactive Memory Systems: A Field Study,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hart, Susan, Erik Jan Hultink, Nikolaos Tzokas, and Harry R. Commandeur (2003), “Industrial Companies’ Evaluation Criteria in New Product Development Gates,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(1), 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hauser, John R., and Frank S. Koppelman (1979), “Alternative Perceptual Mapping Techniques: Relative Accuracy and Usefulness,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16(4), 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Henard, David H., and David M. Szymanski (2001), “Why Some New Products Are More Successful than Others,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 362–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Huber, Joel, and Morris B. Holbrook (1979), “Using Attribute Ratings for Product Positioning: Some Distinctions among Compositional Approaches,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16(4), 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Huynh, Van-Nam, and Yoshiteru Nakamori (2011), “A Linguistic Screening Evaluation Model in New Product Development,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(1), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jaccard, James, David Brinberg, and Lee J. Ackerman (1986), “Assessing Attribute Importance: A Comparison of Six Methods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Johnson, Richard M. (1987), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,” Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 253–265.Google Scholar
  51. Kaul, Anil, and Vithala R. Rao (1995), “Research for Product Positioning and Design Decisions: An Integrative Review,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(4), 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kohli, Rajeev, and Kamel Jedidi (2007), “Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants,” Marketing Science, 26(3), 380–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krishnan, V., and Karl T. Ulrich (2001), “Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature,” Management Science, 47(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luce, R. Duncan, and John W. Tukey (1964), “Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Magnusson, Peter R., Johan Netz, and Erik Wästlund (2014), “Exploring Holistic Intuitive Idea Screening in the Light of Formal Criteria,” Technovation, 34(5–6), 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martinsuo, Miia, and Jarno Poskela (2011), “Use of Evaluation Criteria and Innovation Performance in the Front End of Innovation,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 896–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi M., and Tony M. O’Driscoll (2000), “From Experience: Applying Performance Support Technology in the Fuzzy Front End,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(2), 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mullen, Penelope M. (2003), “Delphi: Myths and Reality,” Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17(1), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Myers, James H., and Mark I. Alpert (1968), “Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement,” Journal of Marketing, 32(4), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Netzer, Oded, and V. Srinivasan (2011), “Adaptive Self-Explication of Multiattribute Preferences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. O’Meara, John T. (1961), “Selecting Profitable Products,” Harvard Business Review, 39(1), 83–89.Google Scholar
  63. Ozer, Muammer (2005), “Factors Which Influence Decision Making in New Product Evaluation,” European Journal of Operational Research, 163(3), 784–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pessemier, Edgar A., Phillip C. Burger, Richard D. Teach, and Douglas J. Tigert (1971), “Using Laboratory Brand Preference Scales to Predict Consumer Brand Purchases,” Management Science, 17(6), 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rangaswamy, Arvind, and Gary L. Lilien (1997), “Software Tools for New Product Development,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rao, Vithala R. (2014), Applied Conjoint Analysis, New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rust, Roland T., and Bruce Cooil (1994), “Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmidt, Jeffrey B., Kumar B. Sarangee, and Mitzi M. Montoya (2009), “Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 520–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Scholz, Sören W., Martin Meissner, and Reinhold Decker (2010), “Measuring Consumer Preferences for Complex Products: A Compositional Approach Based on Paired Comparisons,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 685–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sethi, Rajesh, and Zafar Iqbal (2008), “Stage-Gate Controls, Learning Failure, and Adverse Effect on Novel New Products,” Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 118–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shocker, Allan D., and V. Srinivasan (1979), “Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, Wendell R. (1956), “Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Soukhoroukova, Arina, Martin Spann, and Bernd Skiera (2012), “Sourcing, Filtering, and Evaluating New Product Ideas: An Empirical Exploration of the Performance of Idea Markets,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Srivastava, Rajendra K., Mark I. Alpert, and Allan D. Shocker (1984), “A Customer-Oriented Approach for Determining Market Structures,” Journal of Marketing, 48(2), 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Hans C. M. Van Trijp, and Jos M. F. ten Berge (1994), “Perceptual Mapping Based on Idiosyncratic Sets of Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. Toubia, Olivier, and Laurent Florès (2007), “Adaptive Idea Screening Using Consumers,” Marketing Science, 26(3), 342–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Toubia, Olivier, John R. Hauser, and Duncan I. Simester (2004), “Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Toubia, Olivier, Duncan I. Simester, John R. Hauser, and Ely Dahan (2003), “Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation,” Marketing Science, 22(3), 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tversky, Amos (1972), “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,” Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Urban, Glen L., and John R. Hauser (1993), Design and Marketing of New Products, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  83. van Bruggen, Gerrit H., Gary L. Lilien, and Manish Kacker (2002), “Informants in Organizational Marketing Research: Why Use Multiple Informants and How to Aggregate Responses,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4), 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. van de Velden, Michel, and Tammo H. A. Bijmolt (2006), “Generalized Canonical Correlation Analysis of Matrices with Missing Rows: A Simulation Study,” Psychometrika, 71(2), 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Van Ittersum, Koert, Joost M. E. Pennings, Brian Wansink, and Hans C. M. Van Trijp (2007), “The Validity of Attribute-Importance Measurement: A Review,” Journal of Business Research, 60(11), 1177–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vriens, Marco, Michel Wedel, and Tom Wilms (1996), “Metric Conjoint Segmentation Methods: A Monte Carlo Comparison,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wedel, Michel, and Wagner A. Kamakura (2000), Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations, New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wedel, Michel, and Cor Kistemaker (1989), “Consumer Benefit Segmentation Using Clusterwise Linear Regression,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6(1), 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wedel, Michel, and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (1989), “A Fuzzy Clusterwise Regression Approach to Benefit Segmentation,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6(4), 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wedel, Michel, and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (1991), “A Clusterwise Regression Method for Simultaneous Fuzzy Market Structuring and Benefit Segmentation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(4), 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wilkie, William L., and Edgar A. Pessemier (1973), “Issues in Marketing’s Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 428–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wind, Yoram (1978), “Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15(3), 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. Wittink, Dick R., Lakshman Krishnamurthi, and David J. Reibstein (1989), “The Effect of Differences in the Number of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results,” Marketing Letters, 1(2), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hubert Gatignon, David Gotteland and Christophe Haon 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Gatignon
    • 1
  • David Gotteland
    • 2
  • Christophe Haon
    • 2
  1. 1.INSEADSorbonne UniversitésFrance
  2. 2.Grenoble Ecole de ManagementFrance

Personalised recommendations