Search results

Purpose – The primary purpose of this study is to illustrate a statistical method to identify product attributes that differentiate branded products from those of competitors. Design/methodology/approach – The authors use classification and regression tree (CART) models in an analysis of observable characteristics of a mature category of relatively complex products, dirt bikes. Findings – The authors show how the CART model can be used as a tool for identifying brand differences and to summarize product categories in terms of these key differences. Research limitations/implications – The work focuses on physical specifications of the products at one point in time. An important area for future extensions will be to incorporate consumer utility into the analysis. Practical implications – The approach will offer value to brand managers and product managers who have a goal of maintaining the alignment of the brand with the underlying observable differentiation of the branded products. The approach can also serve as the basis for a product/brand performance report (similar to consumer reports) by identifying a select set of product characteristics that differ across brands. Originality/value – Products serve as influential sources of information about a brand's identity. To the extent that observable product characteristics do not match brand claims, consumers may question the brand's authenticity. Although for some products it may be a reasonably simple task to identify the set of observable product attributes that have implications for the brand identity, the task can be challenging for many products. The authors employ an analysis technique to reveal product characteristics that are consistent within brand product lines but that differ across brands.

Cites that the application of statistical methods is becoming increasingly prevalent in litigation which brings a number of issues to the fore, including which techniques, appropriate measures and sizes of disparity. Concentrates on the “two‐tailed test” for the population mean and for the population proportion. Provides examples of their use in court and evaluates the issues raised. Discusses the 80 per cent rule.

Roots of global Terrorism are in ‘failed’ states carved out of multiracial empires after World Wars I and II in name of ‘national self‐determination’. Both sides in the Cold War competed to exploit the process of disintegration with armed and covert interventions. In effect, they were colluding at the expense of the ‘liberated’ peoples. The ‘Vietnam Trauma’ prevented effective action against the resulting terrorist buildup and blowback until 9/11. As those vultures come home to roost, the war broadens to en vision overdue but coercive reforms to the postwar system of nation states, first in the Middle East. Mirages of Vietnam blur the vision; can the sole Superpower finish the job before fiscal and/or imperial overstretch implode it?

Basic science, sometimes called “curiosity-driven research” at the National Science Foundation and other places, starts with a question that somehow stays in the mind, nagging for an answer. Such questions really are “puzzles”; they arise in an intellectual field or context, asking someone to fit pieces to an improving but incomplete picture of the social world. What makes a worthwhile puzzle is a missing part in understanding the picture, or a new piece of knowledge that does not seem to fit among other parts. Sometimes creative theorists can imagine a solution to one of the holes in the puzzle. If they are also empirical scientists, they devise ways to get evidence bearing on their ideas, and some of those ideas survive to give more complete and detailed pictures of the world. This chapter is the story of puzzles and provisional solutions to them, developed by dozens of men and women investigating status processes and status structures, using a coherent perspective, for over half a century.¹

Given the increasing number of new products competing for limited shelf space, retailer acceptance of new products is crucial to both retailers and suppliers. However, limited empirical research has investigated what drives retailers to accept or decline a new product offering. Extant research on retailers' new product acceptance focuses mainly on product and market factors. Despite the growing importance of buyer‐supplier relationships in new product marketing, few studies have addressed their influence on retailers' acceptance of new products. This study aims to fill the research gap by proposing a model of retailers' new product acceptance that incorporates the buyer‐supplier relationship perspective.

This study develops an integrated research framework assessing the determinants of retailers' acceptance of new products. Four constructs were derived from the literature on buyer‐supplier relationship marketing and new products literature to investigate their influence on the retailer's decision to adopt a new product. The constructs include buyer‐seller relationship factors (relationship intensity and channel motivation) and non‐relationship factors (product advantage and market competitiveness). Hypotheses were developed and tested with a sample of retailers.

Owing to the lack of appropriate existing scales for the four constructs that influence retailers' adoption of new products, this study developed and validated multiple‐item scales through psychometric scale development procedures. Hypotheses were then tested with ordinary least squares regression analysis, and all factors were found to have a positive relationship with the retailer's acceptance of new products. Results further show that buyer‐supplier relationship factors are stronger predictors of retailer new product adoption than traditional non‐relationship factors.

This research represents an attempt to incorporate the buyer‐supplier relationship into the process of retailer new product acceptance. Future research directions are discussed, with an emphasis on two‐way viewpoints, multiple supplier choice, and product sales performance after acceptance.

The willingness of a retailer to stock a new product does not depend solely on product and market factors. In an age of intense competition and seemingly limitless product choices, suppliers must also consider the implications of the buyer‐supplier relationship before entering negotiations with retailers regarding the stocking of a new product.

This paper represents the first study to propose and empirically test a research model that incorporates the literature regarding both buyer‐supplier relationship marketing and new product literature. Suppliers can strengthen their competitive advantage by understanding and enhancing their performance in these factors.