Cutting Edge

(1)

Cutting Edge

The degree to which the new product launch factors

of Company X’ Product Y are critical to its success

in China

RIK THOMAS

Student number: 1336681

University of Groningen

MsC BA Strategy and non-Technical Innovation, Faculty of Economics & Business

Waagmeestershoeve 402 7326 RX Apeldoorn Telephone: +31 681132988 Email: r.thomas@student.rug.nl Date: 22nd of July 2008 Faculty supervisors:

Dr. T.L.J. Broekhuizen (first supervisor) & Dr. G. Gemser (second supervisor)

(2)

(3)

2

Preface

It came to me as a surprise that I could not find any research on the entire range of new product launch success factors in China. Many people feel a barrier in going to China for a longer period than just a holiday; because of a different culture, language, and the resulting challenges in communicating with Chinese people. Perhaps this restrained researchers until now from conducting research on new product launch in China.

Many things do not go as planned and surveys need to be translated from English to Chinese back and forth. However, I received so many things in return, that I recommend anyone going there. Working in China has been a personal enrichment, and taught me that my way might not always be the best way.

You can be committed, but you also need people who can give you the opportunity to realize your ambitions. Therefore I would like to thank Willem Kwak, Simon Wong, Shirley Fang and most of all Amy Wang for making this research and internship at Company X in China possible.

Rik Thomas

(4)

3

Abstract

Research on key success factors in new product launch in China remains scarce. Therefore this research addresses this timely issue by studying Product Y product category Z launch by Company X in China, using the following research question:

To what degree are the new product launch factors of Company X’ Product Y product category Z critical to its success in China?

(7)

6

Introduction

Managers see control over factors that can determine the success of a new product. Many studies have compiled lists of factors that contribute to new product performance to improve managers’ decision making process. These usually include innovation characteristics, organization characteristics, market environment factors and process decisions (Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994). However, almost all of these studies were focused on western countries, whereas developing countries and especially China were left out. Focusing attention on China is very important though, because of its huge consumer base of 1.4 billion people and sustained growth figures (www.stats.gov.cn, taken from Zhao, Flynn, & Roth, 2006).

This study investigates new product launch of a consumer good in China. Thus far, not much has been written about new product development in China. The only known existing study about key success factors in new product development in China is that of Parry and Song (1994), based on Cooper’s identified success and failure dimensions (1979). Parry and Songs’ study targets managers of Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and reports differences compared to Coopers’ findings. State-owned enterprises however are quite distinct from other more privately-State-owned organizational modes in China because of their persistent unprofitability due to bad management practices (Zhao, Flynn, & Roth, 2006) and “the parallel power structure consisting of administrative and (communist1) party authority” (Parry and Song, 1994). In their research, Parry and Song focus on industrial goods, such as aviation, electric machinery-building, chemicals and electronics but they do not analyze consumer goods. In follow-up studies, using the same sample, a cross-cultural comparison of controllable factors of new product success is made between the US and China (Calantone, Schmidt and Song, 1996), and between Canada, China and South Korea (Mishra, Kim, & Lee, 1996). However, after more than a decade many of the success factors have possibly changed as China develops so rapidly and these researches still only use one data set. The results of these studies will be further elaborated in the theoretical background section.

1

(8)

7 Research on new product development in China remains scarce and research focusing on new product launch is lacking. Therefore this thesis addresses this timely and important issue and studies the critical new product launch factors in China by conducting a case study on the Company X Product Y product category Z new product launch in that country. This will also indicate how well the launch factors were executed and how the relative importance of success factors of a product launch in China may differ from other countries by relating the findings to those of earlier studies. In this case study, existing literature is used to list the most important success factors for a new product launch as a framework. By applying the identified launch factors from other countries as input for this research, I test the relative importance of these factors. This is also the first research that studies the effects from a multinational companies’ (MNCs) subsidiary perspective, using the product itself as given from the corporate headquarters. A questionnaire submitted to Company X managers and key distributors and retailers indicates the importance of launch factors to new product success and how well these launch factors were performed. Semi-structured interviews with marketing managers at different hierarchical levels (globally, nationally and regionally) are conducted to get deeper insights why the respondents gave high or low scores on the questionnaires. Something which is necessary, as Chinese respondents are not that familiar with theses, and to check the validity of their answers. These interviews were also important in identifying differences between China, other Asian countries and western countries when it comes to new product launch activities and critical success factors in new product launch. By using multiple data sources and perspectives, this research provides a comprehensive analysis of a consumer product launch, which can benefit multinational companies launching products in China.

Research question

The purpose of this study is to research the importance of launch factors taken in China by a multinational company to new consumer product success in the Chinese market, in this case the Product Y electric product category Z from Company X. Consequently, the research question for this thesis is:

(9)

8

Research limitations

There are three limitations to this research. The first limitation is that due to time constraints, the launch factors and results are only analyzed until half a year after the launch. As such, only the initial success of failure of a launch can be evaluated. On the other hand, this also minimizes distortion, because managers’ perceptions are more accurate and detailed when it is fresh in their memory.

The second limitation is that this research focuses on an established brand in China as opposed to a new venture, of which the latter’s success in China is researched by Tellis (2008). Company X has been present in the Chinese market over twenty years and is the Chinese market leader in electric product category Zs. The results of this study probably would have been different if the focus would have been a new product launch from a new venture in China.

The third limitation is that only controllable in China that are related to the launch are researched, thereby excluding new product development activities taken in the Netherlands, where Company X’ corporate headquarters are based. New product launch is the commercialization part of the new product development (Hultink et al., 1999). This phase excludes the development phase (concept forming, product testing et cetera) of the new product development process. The focus of this research is represented by the shaded area in Figure 1.

Figure 1 New product launch research demarcation

This research also excludes some of the other factors mentioned in new product launch literature because they are not controllable by the subsidiary in China. For that reason R&D skills and resources, manufacturing skills and resources and

New product development New product launch New product launch in China - Firm strategy - R&D, manufacturing and engineering resources & skills - Concept forming,

(10)

9 engineering skills and resources (Di Benedetto, 1999) are excluded, as well as firm strategy (including NPD driver and strategy; researched by Hultink et al., (1998, 1999) and the use of cross-functional teams and work group structure (Calantone and Di Benedetto, 2007). The latter two focus on the impact of work group structure and cross-functional teams on new product success, which mainly take place during product development and/or in the companies’ headquarters.

Thesis outline

(11)

10

2 Theoretical

background

2.1 New product success

Finding out how to improve a new product launch is a non-technical aspect of innovation management. Research about new product development (NPD) factors’ effect on new product success is usually based on a posteriori managerial perceptions. The common view is that success can be managed and that it is “the achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted”2. The general approach was to ask managers to select two typical new product projects introduced in recent years, of which one is a clear success and the other a clear failure (as decided by the firm). For example, Cooper (1979) lets managers answer to what extent they agreed that each of the 77 statements described their successful and unsuccessful project on an eleven-point scale. The mean ratings of the successful projects were compared with the mean ratings of unsuccessful projects, which showed which factors were “determinant” to a new products success.

2.2 New product launch

Until the early 1990s, relatively little research has focused on product launch (Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994). Three different research types are relevant to mention. The first type is listing a number of new product launch factors and letting managers give a score to each of the launch factor (cf. Di Benedetto, 1999). The second type is using categorical responses for each launch activity and letting managers choose between those responses. This approach is done to test combinations of launch decisions effect on new product success and to avoid the possibility of systematic biases in attribution. This approach is applied by Hultink et al. (1997; 1998; 1999; 2000). For example, this “avoids leading the respondents into selecting the appropriate response which might explain the advantage achieved” (Hultink et al., 2000). The third type is new product development studies of which a part is about new product launch (cf. Cooper, 1979). Two meta-analyses have been performed on new product development (Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994; Henard & Szymanski, 2001), but none of these is specifically about new product launch.

2_{success. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from}

(12)

11 Di Benedetto (1999) drew on the work of Hultink et al. (1997), who distinguished strategic and tactical activities, and Cooper (1979) that studied the compatibility of resource and skills with the new product (requirements), and added information-gathering activities to the relevant factors. Di Benedetto (1999) uses a sample of practitioner members of the Product Development & Management Association, which can come from any country, but probably most from western countries. Strategic launch activities included interdepartmental communication and decision-making and logistics’ involvement in decision-making. Tactical launch activities mainly relate to the price, promotion, place and timing of the new product launch, which are almost similar to the four P’s of marketing. The information-gathering activities were focused on the proficiency of information-gathering market information. Di Benedetto and Calantone (2007) added more launch factors and clustered them along different pricing strategies.

Hultink et al. (1999) investigate the strategic and tactical launch decisions for new consumer product launches in the United Kingdom. Strategic launch decisions are decisions that are made early in the new product development process and that are difficult or expensive to change later during the project. Conversely, tactical launch decisions are decisions that are made relatively late in the project and if they can be easily or inexpensively modified as launch nears (Crawford, 1984, Hultink, Griffin, Hart, & Robben, 1997). Hultink et al. (1999) analyze the interrelatedness of strategic and tactical launch decisions, organize them in four distinct launch strategy clusters and show every cluster’s performance implications. Strategic launch decisions are made early in the development process and are hard and/or expensive to change and consist of product strategy, market strategy and firm strategy. The tactical launch decisions are made later in the development process related to the four P’s of marketing that are made later in the development process and that are easy and/or inexpensive to change.

(13)

12 a certain success level. The three generic strategies were labeled ‘innovative new product’, ‘offensive improvements’ and ‘defensive additions’ each with a specific combination of strategic and tactical launch decisions.

Cooper (1979) hypothesized that factors influencing new product success fall under six variables: the market in which the product competes, compatibility of the product with the firm’s existing skills, characteristics of the new product venture, proficiency of new product development activities, characteristics of the commercialized product and its launch and information acquired during the product development process. Previous research contributions are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Previous research contributions

Author Research question Unit of analysis Dependent variable Independent variables Cooper (1979) Parry and Song (1994) What distinguishes between successful and unsuccessful innovations? Successful versus unsuccessful new product developments New product development success

- the market in which the new product competes; - the compatibility of the new product with the firm’s

existing skills; - the characteristics of the

new product venture; - the proficiency of new

product development activities; - the characteristics of the commercialized product and

its launch; and - the information acquired

during the product development process. Hultink (1998; 1999) What launch strategies are applied and how do they perform? Organizational strategies regarding new product development New product launch success

- strategic launch decisions - tactical launch decisions

Di Benedetto (1999) What distinguishes between successful and non successful innovations? Successful versus unsuccessful product launches New product launch success

- skills and resources - strategic launch activities

(14)

13

2.3 List of launch factors that determine success

Hultink et al. (1997, 1998 and 1999) study a number of combinations of launch decisions. To extend their research to China, multiple cases need to be used to test the launch decisions and launch strategies. Di Benedetto (1999) studied the impact of individual launch factors on new product success, which is more suitable for a study that uses one case and therefore Di Benedetto’s launch factors form the basis for the list of launch factors for this thesis. Some factors from other studies might be considered as critical to new product success and are therefore included. The launch factors included in this thesis are summarized in Table 2, with the respective literature source. Some marketing mix launch factors are added that were researched as launch decisions by Hultink et al. (1998, 1999) In this case it will be assessed how well the launch factor decision was made, instead of merely describing the launch factor choice like Hultink et al. (1998, 1999) did. These are: right brand name and breadth of assortment, price strategy (right choice between skimming, penetration or other pricing strategy), pricing practice (right choice between determining price on cost, product value or competitive products) and right choice of distribution channels. Certain factors were excluded from Di Benedetto’s (1999) list, because for this product launch, the activity took place in the companies’ headquarter in the Netherlands instead of China. These factors are usage of cross-functional teams and involvement of logistics in various activities.

Table 2 New product launch factors

Launch

factor group

& factor

Launch sub factor

Authors

Skills and Resources: fit between new product requirements and existing firm skills and resources (a)

Marketing research 1, 2, 8

Sales force 1, 2, 8

Distribution 1, 2, 8

(15)

14

Management 8

Targeting Right choice of target group 5, 6,

Marketing mix launch factors

General Finalizing plans for marketing 1, Establishing overall direction for this product

launch 1, 2,

Launching this product into the marketplace 1, 8

Product Branding (right brand name in eyes of Chinese

consumers) 5, 6,

Right choice of breadth of assortment (of new

product) 5, 6,

Service & technical support for the customer, e.g.

right people, qualified, responsive 1, 2,

Price Appropriate pricing of the product in general 1, 2, Price strategy (right choice between skimming,

penetration or other strategy) 2, 5, 6,

Pricing practices (right choice between determining price on cost, product value or competitive

products)

7

Promotion Advertising quality (of TV commercial, print

advertisement, etc.) 1, 2, 8

Executing the advertising strategy for this product (e.g. good media choice, adequate number of advertisements)

1, 2,

Promotion (e.g. discounts, road shows, events) 1, 2, 8 Quality of selling effort, e.g. the right people,

properly trained, etc. 1, 2, 8

Training sales force 1, 2,

Place Product availability: sufficient inventory available at

sales counter 1, 2,

Product distribution: on-time delivery to sales

counter, quick response 1, 2,

(16)

15

Launch timing

Reaching target relative to business unit goals 1, 2, Right timing relative to direct competition 1, 2, Right timing relative to major customers 1, 2,

Market information gathering activities

Selecting customers for market acceptance

Submitting product to customers for in-use testing Executing test marketing programs

Interpreting the findings of the market testing Delegating or contracting specialized research work to outside contractors

Studying feedback from customers during launch Studying feedback from customers after launch Planning and testing the advertising for this product

1, 2, 3, 8

Notes:

1 Di Benedetto (1999)

2 Di Benedetto & Calantone (2007) 3 Calantone, Schmidt & Song (1996) 5 Hultink et al. (1998)

6 Hultink et al. (1999) 7 Ingenbleek et al (2003) 8 Cooper (1979)

(a) Description based on Cooper (1979) and Parry and Song (1994)

2.4 Conceptual

model

The launch factors included in this research can be grouped in five launch factor groups, as shown in Table 2:

Fit between existing skills and resources with the Product Y product requirements: marketing research, sales force, distribution, advertising, promotion and management skills and resources.

The right choice of the target group.

(17)

16 Launch timing compared to business unit goals, its major competitors and the

major customers.

Market information gathering activities.

(18)

17

Figure 2 Conceptual model of new product launch factor variables in China

(19)

18

2.5 New product development in China

Previous relevant literature about China showed how key success factors in new product development are different between China and western countries3. A full research on new product launch key success factors does not exist, only parts of new product launch has been researched4. New product development (of which new product launch is a component) in China has been researched by Parry and Song (1994), who compared their findings with Cooper (1979), who targeted Canadian businesses. They researched factors influencing new product success at state owned enterprises (SOEs) operating in the Chinese aviation, electric machinery-building, chemical and electronics industry. These business to business industries are very distinct from the industry that Company X operates in. Success of new product ventures was tested using 77 statements which reflected six types of variables (shown in Figure 3, that describe:

1. the market in which the new product competes;

2. the compatibility of the new product with the firm’s existing skills;

3. the characteristics of the new product venture;

4. the proficiency of new product development activities;

5. the characteristics of the commercialized product and its launch; and

6. the information acquired during the product development process.

The main differences between China and Canada are that almost all factors are found to be more significantly correlated to new product success in China than in Canada, indicating that in China new product development is managed much more proficiently

3

Not much information about China itself will be given as it is beyond the scope of this thesis. For those that want more information, Zhao Flynn and Roth’s concise work (2006) is advisable, which deals with China’s economy, culture, demography and interregional differences as well as a review of business research on China.

4

(20)

19

Figure 3 Variables influencing new product outcome (from Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987, numbers added)

for successful new product compared to unsuccessful new product. Furthermore, the new product itself is found to have a much more significant influence on new product success in China compared to Canada. Other differences between China and Canada are according to Parry and Song (1994):

1. Thirteen out of fifteen variables significantly correlate with success opposed to Cooper who only found three factors to be significant. The highest negatively correlating variable with product is ‘frequent new product introductions in the market’ and the two most positively variables correlating with new product success are ‘market growth’ and ‘degree of need for product in product class’. Therefore, Parry

Commercial entity Outcome Success or failure Information acquired Activities undertaken New product process

Environment Environment 1 2 3 4 5 6

Nature of the venture The firm

(resource base)

(21)

20 and Songs’ results oppose that of Coopers’ (1979, p.129), who said “variables describing the marketplace are notable for their lack of impact on new product outcomes”. Because of the opposite findings of Cooper and their strong correlation with new product success, these three market characteristics are added as control variables to make sure a positive or negative market performance is not incorrectly attributed to launch factors taken in China.

2. All eight skills and resources firm factors correlated with new product success and more significantly than in Coopers’ study. In descending degree of correlation with new product success, these skills and resources are from the following functions: marketing research, sales force and/or distribution, engineering, management, R&D, production, advertising and promotion and financial resources.

3. ‘Characteristics of the new product venture’ is composed of general characteristics, factors about where the product was derived from and factors describing the newness to the firm. The product characteristics correlating highest with new product success were high innovativeness, a high per unit price and the technological level of the product. Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1991) found a U-shaped relation between product innovativeness and new product success. Parry and Song surprisingly found the contrary: a linear relationship between innovativeness and success which means more innovative products are more successful. The only negative correlation between newness and product success is the newness of the production process, but the authors state the central planning of the Chinese government has a large influence on this. Market derived new product ideas highly correlate with new product success, which opposes Coopers finding that it is irrelevant whether the product idea was market or internally derived.

4. ‘Proficiency of process activities’ involved all activities from the predevelopment phase to market launch. Findings from Parry and Song correspond with the findings of Cooper, but correlations between factors and new product success were much stronger in Parry and Songs’ study, indicating that they are more critical to new product success in China.

(22)

21 lower priced product, which is generally consisted with Cooper’s findings. He notes that it “is the direction of effort rather than the magnitude of effort that impacts more strongly on new product results” (Cooper, 1979; p. 132). Parry and Song however find that “the direction and magnitude of the sales force-distribution effort were both related to new product success in China, but both were clearly dominated by characteristics of the product itself” (Parry and Song, 1994; p.24). Of these characteristics, ‘higher quality’, ‘meeting customer needs better than competitors’, ‘permitted customers to perform a unique task’ and ‘unique features or attributes’ correlated highest with new product success. Because of the big impact on new product success, these four factors have been added as control variables, to make sure a positive or negative market performance is not incorrectly attributed to launch factors taken in China. These were combined into product innovativeness, product quality and product advantage.

6. ‘Information acquired during the development of the product’. Confidence about the success of the new product correlated highest with new product success. Next to that, findings from Parry and Song reinforce Cooper’s findings that knowledge about customers needs, wants, behavior and price sensitivity are vital to success.

To conclude, three product characteristics and three market characteristics are added as control variables, which are part of the conceptual model in Figure 2. The results on the new product development activities of Parry and Song that will also be studied in this research are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Findings of Parry and Song (1994)

Launch factor Correlation

coefficient with success (a) Skills and Resources: fit between new product requirements and existing firm skills and resources

Marketing research 0.52

Sales force (c) 0.52

Distribution (c) 0.52

(23)

22

Management 0.46

Product characteristics

Product innovativeness to the market 0.52

Product quality- lasted longer, more reliable, etc 0.79 Product advantage (relative superiority of the new product over

competition) (d) 0.78

Market characteristics

Frequency of new product introductions in the market -0.81

Degree of need for products in product class 0.59

Market growth 0.60

Marketing mix General

Launching this product into the marketplace (e) 0.66

Promotion

Advertising quality (f) 0.37

Promotion (f) 0.37

Quality of selling effort (g) 0.42

Place

Managing distribution channel activities (g) 0.42

Market information gathering activities

Submitting product to customers for in-use testing (h) 0.54

Executing test marketing programs (i) 0.54

Note:

(a) -1 Means complete reverse correlation with new product success, 0 means completely not correlation, and 1 means complete correlation with new product success

Parry and Song (1994) use the following different definitions:

(c) Parry and Song combined these factors into “Sales force and/or distribution resources and skills”

(24)

23 (e) Market launch

(f) Parry and Song combined these factors into “Strong advertising/promotion effort” (g) Parry and Song combined these factors into “Strong sales force/distribution effort” (h) Prototype testing with customer

(i) Test marketing / trial selling

2.6 Expected

findings

(25)

24

3. Methodology

3.1 Data

method

The research question will be answered by conducting a single case study, which is useful when analyzing an under-researched country like China. Within this case quantitative and qualitative data will be used. The geographic focus of this study is China.

The common approach to studying launch factors’ effect on new product success is by submitting a questionnaire with Likert scale items to managers responsible for the new product launch (e.g. Di Benedetto, 1999; Cooper, 1979; Hultink et al., 1999). Managers are asked about their perception on the proficiency in performing the launch factors for a successful and unsuccessful product. The mean results are compared between successful and unsuccessful products and significant differences are labeled key success factors. However, because only one case is studied in this thesis, this approach is not possible, as there is no variation. Therefore this thesis used a different approach for the questionnaire, using a two–step approach. The first step was that managers were surveyed about how important the launch factors (mentioned in Table 2) are to new product success. The second step was that the managers were surveyed how well Company X performed those launch factors and what the Product Y’s market performance was.

(26)

25

3.2 Data collection and sample

Four marketing managers filled in the questionnaire. They were chosen as they were responsible for the regional (North-China), national and Asian-wide launch of the Product Y, and they were most knowledgeable about the Product Y launch in China. Fifteen other managers from North-China have filled in the survey. These include six sales (branch) managers, one logistics manager, four distributors and four retailers. According to the national marketing manager product category Zs, the management team in North-China is representative for Company X in the rest of China, when it comes to management professionalism and proficiency in performing the launch activities.

Including external stakeholders like distributors and retailers is a form of data triangulation, which increases internal validity (Yin, 2002). The distributors and retailers can support or contrast input from Company X managers, and thereby provide a check that (internal) Company X managers are not positively biased towards a successful product launch performance. In the same line of reasoning, the perception of marketing managers versus sales managers can be compared. In total nineteen surveys have been filled in, and one survey has been unanswered (the national logistics manager), which results in a response rate of 95 %.

The four marketing managers were also chosen based on the expertise in their field. The interviews were held after the interviewees filled in the questionnaire.

3.3 Research instrument and Measures

3.3.1 Survey

(27)

26 characteristics factors had to be explained, as well as pricing practices). This was all done to ensure that the survey was clear to the Chinese respondents and still would accurately reflect the original meaning in English (Zhao, Flynn, & Roth, 2006). This approach tried to minimize translation mistakes, which frequently occur with China related research (Zhao, Flynn, & Roth, 2006).

The marketing managers were sent the entire questionnaire. The sales managers, the logistics manager and the distributors and retailers were sent a selection of questions from the questionnaire, based on their expertise and involvement in the Product Y launch which was (more) limited than that of marketing managers. The specific set of questions to be answered by each different function was determined after discussions with the marketing managers. The entire survey questionnaire is shown in Appendix 3 – Product Y success survey questionnaire, which shows which respondents answers what question.

Before answering the questions, respondents were assured that the answers they would give would not be used to evaluate their or their department’s performance, but only to better understand what factors lead to new product success from a research point of view. An example question was added to display correct answering behavior. This thesis used validated scales to further increase internal validity. To measure how important each launch factor was, each respondent was asked to grade the launch factor from 1 (not critical at all) to 9 (very critical), using 5 as a neutral score. The wording ‘critical’ replaced ‘important’ used in previous questionnaire drafts, because while all launch factors might be important, not all of them are necessarily critical to product success.

(28)

27

Table 4 Launch factor group response possibilities

Launch factor group Response option

(from 1 – 9)

To what extent was there a fit between existing skills and resources and Product Y product launch requirements?

No fit at all - very significant fit How do the Product Y product characteristics compare to that of

competing products in the same market segment?

Much worse - much better How did choosing the right target group influence the Product Y

success?

Very negatively - very positively How would you rate the quality of each of the following elements

in the launch of the Product Y? Please rate the level actually achieved.

Very poor - excellent

Please comment on the relative timing of the Product Y's launch. Strongly disagree - strongly agree Please indicate how well Company X undertook each of the

following market information gathering activities for the Product Y.

Very poor / not at all - excellent

Please use the following scale to indicate your extent of agreement about how well the Product Y performed in the area for which you are responsible on each of the success indicators mentioned below.

Very poor - very good

(29)

28

3.3.2 Interviews

The interviews were conducted to explain the reasoning behind every score they gave in the questionnaire; in essence, why they gave a high or low score. Additional questions were posed relating to differences in key success factors between China and western countries. They were also asked about the causes of these differences and the comparing the market performance across countries. The entire question list is shown in Appendix 4 - Interviews.

3.3.3 Company records

Sales and market share data from company records are preferable because they can be considered accurate and bias free (Henard and Szymanski, 2001). Thereby “biases and imperfect information that characterize human decision making” (Henard and Szymanski, 2001 p. 366) can be avoided. However, objective success measurements do not always encompass all aspects of new product success (e.g. customer satisfaction of the new product is subjective and cannot be retrieved using surveys), which is why subjective perceptions of new product success will also be assessed in the questionnaire.

As Griffin and Page (1996) showed, the most suitable performance measure depends on the characteristics of the innovation. Many authors agree (e.g. Hultink & Robben, 1995; Griffin and Page, 1996; Henard and Szymanski, 2001) that it is better to use multiple measurements for success because it is a multi-dimensional concept. Also it can more accurately specify launch factors’ influence on success; example given launch timing might turn out to influence sales but not profitability which would not be discovered if only a single measurement item would be used. The following success measurements are used in this research to measure new product success: market share, sales and channel satisfaction.

(30)

29 category. Furthermore, the goal of the Product Y to Company X is to sell more of the entire Company X product category Z category and thereby is the only Company X product category Z that is being communicated to the market (through advertisements et cetera). Actual sales, profit and market share will be compared with company set targets. If the actual results are lower than company set targets, the new product is unsuccessful, if the results are higher than the set targets, the new product is successful. To what extent the new product can be determined to be successful, is shown in Table 5 of which the predetermined success measurement scales are defined by the author.

Table 5 Objective success measurements of new product

Actual results of new

product Sales

Product category Z range market share increase <25% of set target Extremely unsuccessful Extremely unsuccessful

<50 % of set target Very unsuccessful Very unsuccessful

50 - <80 % of set target Unsuccessful Unsuccessful

80- <100 % of set

target Slightly unsuccessful Slightly unsuccessful

Equal to company set target

Averagely successful from sales point of view

Averagely successful from market share point of view

>100 – 120 % of set

target Slightly successful Slightly successful

>120 – 150 % of set

target Averagely successful Averagely successful

>150 -200 % of set

target Very successful Very successful

>200 % of set target Extremely successful Extremely successful

(31)

30

4. Empirical

results

This chapter consists of six parts. The first part describes the reliability of measures. The second part gives a brief overview of the importance and performance of the launch factors, as well as an analysis between the two. The third part deals more elaborately with the importance of launch factors. Findings from the survey questionnaire will be discussed, in which significant differences in perception of launch factor importance between functions are analyzed. The fourth part describes the performance of the Product Y in the market. On the one hand, the (respondents’) perceived market performance of the Product Y will be described along the four predetermined criteria and, on the other hand, the objective data about market performance will be described. The fifth part of the results chapter deals with how well the Product Y launch factors were executed in China. This describes the perceived performance of the launch factors as well as significant differences in perception of launch factor performance between functions. This is followed by the sixth part, which compares the findings of this research on key success factors in China with that of Parry and Song (1994), and with key success factors from Benedetto (1999). This includes interview findings of differences in launch factor performance between countries. Relevant feedback of the three interviewed marketing managers on the filled in questionnaire will be discussed throughout the results section.

4.1 Weighting the importance of answers of various actors

(32)

31 not be used to evaluate that person’s or other people’s performance, but to establish a general idea about how proficient the new product was launched.

Distributors and especially retailers are not as involved, knowledgeable and experienced about Company X’ activities in China as Company X marketing managers responsible for product category Zs. Furthermore, I have the expectation that people find their own actions more important than those for which they are not responsible. Therefore I consider the marketing managers’ perception of the new product launch as more valuable than distributors’ or retailers’ perception. To make the results balanced and representative I therefore chose to develop a weighting system, which is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Respondent weighting table

Function A Number of respondents B Total weight given to this group C Weight per respondent (B/A) Justified for average 1 (B*C*1,9) Marketing managers 4 4 1 1,9 Branch managers North-China 6 2 1/3 3,8 Logistics manager North-China 1 1 1 1,9 Distributors 4 1,5 3/8 2,85 Retailers 4 1,5 3/8 2,85 Total 19 10 19

In Table 6, column B describes the weights allocated to each function, which is divided by the amount of respondents in that function in column C. In column five, the weight per respondent is multiplied by 19 (the amount of respondents), to make the average weight of the respondents 1. From now on all mean scores and standard deviations are calculated using Table 6 unless stated otherwise.

4.2 Overview

of

results

(33)

32 X, as stated by the marketing manager. These launch factors were executed by the corporate headquarters in western countries, which are outside the scope of this research. Considering insights from western markets might be partially applicable to the Chinese market could explain why the performance on these launch factors were not rated as 1, but between 6 and 7. Furthermore, the performance on market characteristics has not been measured, because these are factors are not controllable by Company X.

(34)

33

Figure 4 Launch factor importance and performance mean scores

>

Launch factor importance

>

Launch factor performance

Row

5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5

Mean score (graph shortened, originally 1-9)

Mark.res. s&r (a) Sal. force s&r (a)

Distr. s&r (a) Adv. prom. s&r Man. s&r Prod. inn. Prod. qual. (a) Prod. adv. Choice targ. group Freq. new prod. introd. Need prod. in prod. class Market growth Final. mark. plans Establ. overall direc. (a) Launching prod. (a) Branding (b) Choice assort. breadth Serv & tech supp. Pricing general Price strat. Pric. pract. Adv. qual. Exec. adv. strat. (b) Promotion (a) Qual. selling Training sales force Prod. avail. (a) Prod. distr. (a) Man. distr. channel (b) Choice distr. channel Timing bu goals (b) Timing comp. (a) Timing cust. Sel. cust. test. (a) Subm. cust. test. (a) Exec. test mark. (b) Interpret. findings Deleg./contract. to outsiders (a) Feedb. during launch Feedb. after launch Plann. & test. adv.

Launch factor

5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5

Mean score (graph shortened, originally 1-9)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Note: using paired sample t-test (a) indicates significant difference and (b) indicates significance at the 0,10 level

(35)

34

Figure 5 Launch factor importance and performance differences (Legend shown on next page)

5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5 9,0 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5 9,0

Launch factor importance

L au nc h f ac tor pe rf or ma nc e

Note: significant differences (at the 0,05 level) between launch factor importance and performance are highlighted in the scatter plot above and shown below in the legend, where significant higher importance (compared to performance) is marked with (a) and higher performance with (b).

Potentially underperforming launch factors (a) Potentially

(36)

35

Launch factor impo

Launch factor imp

Marketing research skills and resources (a) Distribution skills and resources (a) Management skills and resources (b) Product quality (b)

Right choice of target group

Degree need product in product class Finalizing plans for marketing

Launching this product into the market (a) Right choice of breadth of assortment Appropriate pricing of the product in general Pricing practices

Executing the advertising strategy for this product Quality of selling effort

Product availability (a)

Managing distribution channel activities Right timing according to BU goals

Right timing relative to major customers (b) Submitting product to customers (b)

Interpreting the findings of the market testing Stud. feedback customers during launch

Planning and testing the advertising for this product

and performanceSales force skills and resources (a)

Adv. and promotion skills and resources Product innovativeness to the market Product advantage

Frequency of new product introductions Market growth

Establishing overall direction (b) Branding

Service & technical support Price strategy

Advertising quality Promotion (b) Training sales force Product distribution (a)

(37)

36

4.3 Importance of launch factors

4.3.1 Importance of launch factor variables

The perceived importance of launch factors is ranked by descending order in importance per group of launch factors in Table 7. Please consider that the weighed importance is shown. The overall top and bottom 10 launch factors are shown in the Appendix in Table 19, along with a short explanation.

Table 7 Perceived importance of factors (ranked in descending order per group of factors)

N Mean

Std. Deviation

How critical is it the fit between existing skills and resources and Product Y product requirements to the Product Y success? (1=not critical at all – 9=very critical)

Distribution skills and resources 11 8.00 0.92

Advertisement and promotion skills and resources 8 7.75 1.17

Sales force skills and resources 11 7.50 1.22

Marketing research skills and resources 8 6.75 1.17

Management skills and resources 13 6.48 1.83

Mean importance of fit of skills and resources with

Product Y 7.30 1.26

How critical are the following product characteristics to the Product Y success? (1=not critical at all – 9=very critical)

Product innovativeness to the market 19 8.36 1.04

Product advantage (relative superiority of the new product

over competition) 19 8.06 1.03

Product quality - lasted longer, more reliable, etc. 19 7.84 1.22

Mean importance of product characteristics 8.09 1.10 How critical is the following targeting decision to the Product Y success? (1=not critical at all – 9=very critical)

Right choice of target group 17 8.00 1.40

How critical are the following market characteristics to the Product Y success? (1=not critical at all – 9=very critical)

Frequency of new product introductions in the market 17 7.65 1.50

Degree of need for product in product class 17 7.25 1.22

Market growth 17 6.17 2.20

Mean importance of market characteristics 7.02 1.64 How critical are the following marketing mix factors to the Product Y success? (1=not critical at all – 9=very critical)

Establishing overall direction for this product launch 8 8.25 0.89

(38)

37

Finalizing plans for marketing 8 6.50 1.61

Mean importance of marketing mix general factors _7.54 _1.19

Branding (right brand name in eyes of consumers from

various countries) 17 7.08 1.64

Right choice of breadth of assortment (of new product) 19 6.95 1.59 Service & technical support for the customer, e.g. right

people, qualified, responsive 17 6.17 2.27

Mean importance of marketing mix product factors _6.73 _1.83

Price strategy (right choice between skimming,

penetration or other strategy) 17 8.05 1.37

Pricing practices (right choice between determining price

on cost, product value or competitive products) 17 7.43 1.31 Appropriate pricing of the product in general 17 7.18 1.56

Mean importance of marketing mix price factors _7.55 _1.41

Executing the advertising strategy for this product (e.g.

good media choice, adequate number of advertisements) 17 8.51 0.59 Advertising quality (of TV commercial, print

advertisement, etc.) 17 8.44 1.07

Quality of selling effort, e.g. the right people, properly

trained, etc 17 7.64 1.07

Training sales force 17 7.55 1.51

Promotion (e.g. discounts, road shows, events) 17 7.05 1.34

Mean importance of marketing mix promotion factors _7.84 _1.11

Product availability: sufficient inventory available at sales

counter 19 8.53 0.69

Product distribution: on-time delivery to sales counter,

quick response 19 8.46 0.83

Managing distribution channel activities 19 7.95 0.76

Right choice of distribution channels 19 6.98 1.98

Mean importance of marketing mix place factors 7.98 1.06 Mean importance of all marketing mix factors 7.53 1.32

(calculated using the mean scores on the 5 sub variables to be representative, so that it is does not matter how many launch factors per sub variable were tested)

How critical are the following launch timing topics to the Product Y success? (1=not critical at all – 9=very critical)

Right timing relative to direct competition 19 7.87 1.22

Relative to our business unit goals, the timing of the

Product Y launch was on target 13 7.76 1.11

Right timing relative to major customers 19 7.27 1.22

Mean importance of reaching right launch timing 7.63 1.18 How critical are the following market information gathering activities to the Product Y success? (1=not critical at all – 9=very critical)

Studying feedback from customers during launch 8 7.75 1.76

Studying feedback from customers after launch 8 7.75 1.76

(39)

38 Interpreting the findings of the market testing 6 6.67 1.37 Delegating or contracting specialized research work to

outside contractors (e.g. AC Nielsen) 6 6.00 1.56

Submitting product to customers for in-use testing 8 5.75 1.39 Executing test marketing programs of the product

(introduction of product and marketing program on small scale in one or more selected market areas)

6 5.67 1.04

Selecting customers for market acceptance 8 5.50 1.61

Mean importance of market information gathering

activities 6.48 1.46

N is based on the weighted number of respondents

None of the launch factors scores below average (equal to 5), indicating that no launch factor is unimportant to new product success. Cronbach’s alphas for the launch factor groups are not calculated, because most of the launch factors groups are composed of factors that fall in the same category, but are supposed to measure different things (e.g. management and distribution skills and resources). Furthermore, the amount of respondents is too small to draw meaningful conclusions from calculating Cronbach’s alphas.

Concerning resources and skills launch factors, it seems that it is most critical to have a fit between Product Y product requirements and distribution and advertisement and promotion skills and resources (with a mean score of 8.00 and 7.75 respectively). The fit between the Product Y requirements and management skills and resources is the least critical to new product success (6.48). Cronbach’s alpha between the five resources and skills is 0.29. This is quite low, but the launch factors are supposed to cover different parts of skills and resources’ fit with the Product Y requirements, which is why they can still fit within one launch factor group.

All the product characteristics are very critical to new product success (ranking from 7.84 to 8.36), of which product innovativeness is most critical to new product success of all launch factors. Product quality is found least important (7.84), perhaps because product quality (e.g. durability) can only be assessed after purchase, while innovativeness and advantage over competitive products is assessed prior to purchase and therefore more important to new product success.

(40)

39 while market growth is much less critical to new product success (6.17). This might be because in a market growing slowly, by achieving lower targets, the new product launch may already be perceived as a success.

Concerning marketing mix factors, the marketing mix variable ‘place’ is most important to new product success (7.98), closely followed by promotion (7.84) and price (7.55) and product at a distance (6.73). This is remarkable, considering the product characteristics are very critical to new product success. However, marketing mix product is supposed to measure tactical activities (referring to choices made later in the process, which are relatively easy to change), like the right brand name. General marketing mix launch factors have a mean score of 7.54, and the combined score for all marketing mix launch variables is 7.53. Product availability and distribution, executing the advertisement strategy for this product and the advertising quality are the most critical of all marketing mix launch factors (all between 8.4 and 8.6). Service and technical support and finalizing the plans for marketing rank at the bottom (6.17 and 6.50 respectively).

Of launch timing factors, launch timing relative to major customers is least critical to new product success (7.27), but the difference is small compared to launch timing relative to direct competition (7.87) and on target relative to business unit goals (7.76).

Market information gathering activities is the least critical launch factor variable, along with management skills and resources (6.48). The market information gathering activities that occur during and after launch seem to be most critical, which is studying feedback from consumers (7.75). The other launch factors which describe information gathering before market launch are substantially less critical (5.50 to 6.75). The combined mean scores that compose the variables in the conceptual model are shown in Figure 6.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been performed to check for significant differences in the importance of launch factor variables, see

(41)

40 marketing research and management, are significantly less critical to new product success compared to all other launch factor variables. No other significant differences can be found.

Figure 6 Mean scores on importance of launch factor variables

5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8 8,5 9

Mean importance of market inf. gath. act. Mean importance of launch timing Right timing relative to major customers Right timing relative to direct competition Right timing relative to BU goals Mean importance of all marketing mix factors Mean importance of marketing mix place factors Mean importance of marketing mix promotion factors Mean importance of marketing mix price factors Mean importance of marketing mix product factors Mean importance of marketing mix general factors Mean importance of market characteristics Right choice of target group Mean importance of product characteristics Product advantage Product quality Product innovativeness to the market Mean fit of skills and res. w ith Arcitec requirements Management skills and resources Advertisement and promotion skills and resources Distribution skills and resources Sales force skills and resources Marketing research skills and resources

Score (shortened, 1=not critical at all - 9=very critical)

Table 8 Significant differences between launch factors importance (ANOVA using LSD test)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 X -0.91 -1.25 -1.00 -1.34 -1.26 -0.91 -0.92 -1.24 -0.83 -1.11 -1.23

2 0.91 X 1.05 0.60 1.25 0.83

(42)

41 4 1.00 X 1.14 0.69 1.34 0.92 5 -1.05 -1.39 -1.14 X -1.48 -1.41 -1.05 -1.06 -1.39 -0.97 -1.25 -1.37 6 1.34 1.48 X 1.02 1.67 1.26 7 1.26 1.41 X 0.95 1.60 1.18 8 -0.60 -0.94 -0.69 -1.02 -0.95 X -0.60 -0.61 0.65 -0.93 -0.79 -0.92 9 0.91 1.05 0.60 X 1.25 0.83 10 0.92 1.06 0.61 X 1.26 0.84 11 -1.25 -1.59 -1.34 -1.67 -1.60 -0.65 -1.25 -1.26 X -1.58 -1.17 -1.44 -1.57 12 1.24 1.39 0.93 1.58 X 1.17 13 -0.83 -1.17 -0.92 -1.26 -1.18 -0.83 -0.84 -1.17 X -0.75 -1.03 -1.15 14 0.83 0.97 1.17 0.75 X 15 1.11 1.25 0.79 1.44 1.03 X 16 1.23 1.37 0.92 1.57 1.15 X Notes:

1) Mean importance marketing research skills and resources 2) Mean importance sales force skills and resources

3) Mean importance distribution skills and resources

4) Mean importance advertisement and promotion skills and resources 5) Mean importance management skills and resources

6) Mean importance product characteristics 7) Mean importance targeting

8) Mean importance market characteristics 9) Mean importance marketing mix 10) Mean importance timing

11) Mean importance market information gathering activities 12) Mean importance marketing mix general

13) Mean importance marketing mix product 14) Mean importance marketing mix price 15) Mean importance marketing mix promotion 16) Mean importance marketing mix place

Each row shows the mean difference between the launch factor and the launch factor mentioned in each column. For example in row 1 the mean of marketing research skills and resources is 0.91 less than sales force skills and resources and 1.34 less than product characteristics.

Item mean replacement has been done for missing values. The mean differences shown are significant at the .05 level.

4.3.2 Difference between functions in terms of importance of factors

(43)

42

Table 9 Significant differences of launch factor importance between functions (a,b)

Respondents function

Launch factor

Falls under the responsibility of: Mar-keting Sales Logi-stics Distri-butor Re-tailer (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

Sales force skills and

resources Sales A . . .

Market growth . A

Branding (right brand name in eyes of

consumers from various countries)

Marketing B E .

Right choice of breadth of assortment (of new product)

Sales /

distributor A A

Quality of selling effort, e.g. the right people, properly trained, etc.

Sales / distributor /

retailer

A . A

Training sales force Sales A . A A

Right choice of

distribution channels Sales A

Relative to our business unit goals, the timing of the Product Y launch was on target

B . .

Right timing relative to

major customers A

Notes:

Results are based on two-sided tests assuming equal variances with significance level 0.05. For each significant pair difference, the letter of the category with a lower mean appears under the category with higher mean. For example, the B & E under marketing for branding shows that sales respondents and retailers found this less important than marketers did.

a Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.

b Cell counts in some sub tables are not integers. They were rounded to the nearest integers before performing pairwise comparisons.

(44)

43

4.3.4 Summary of findings on launch factor importance

To summarize, product characteristics are most important to new product success. Market information gathering activities are least critical to new product success, along with management skills and resources. Distribution is also highly critical to new product success (marketing mix place, and the fit between Product Y product requirements and skills and resources) as well as choosing the right target group. Furthermore and advertisement and promotion (marketing mix promotion, and the fit between Product Y product requirements and skills and resources) are also critical to new product success. Respondents generally see launch factors that fall under their responsibility as more critical to new product success, compared to respondents from other functions.

4.4 Market

performance of the Product Y

4.4.1 Perceived market performance

The perceived market performance of the Product Y in China is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Perceived market performance Product Y in China

(45)

44 profitability view point, and the most from market share view point. Analysis between differences in perception of market performance between functions shows (see Table 10) that marketing managers perceive sales growth goals were better met significantly higher than sales managers and distributors. It could be expected that sales managers tend to be more short term oriented compared to marketing managers, but clearly this is not the case. A reason might be that sales managers were given higher targets compared to marketing managers targets.

Table 10 Differences in perceived market performance between function (a,b)

Function general

Marketing Sales Logistics Distributor Retailer

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

Met sales growth goals B D .

Results are based on two-sided tests assuming equal variances with significance level 0.05. For each significant pair difference, the letter of the category with a lower mean appears under the category with higher mean.

a Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.

b Cell counts in some sub tables are not integers. They were rounded to the nearest integers before performing pairwise comparisons.

4.4.2 Objective market performance

Company X’ goals for the Product Y launch in China were to:

- increase the market share5 of the entire product category Z range by one per cent, and

- to increase high-end product category Z sales by ten per cent compared to the previous high-end product category Z (the Product W).

The market share of the entire product category Z range has increased 1.7 per cent from 63.9 per cent before the Product Y launch, to 65.6 per cent (see Figure 15 in the Appendix) when it comes to sales value. This is 70 per cent higher than the company set target. Compared to the same period one year before (October 2007 compared to October 2006), market share has increased 1.8 per cent from 63.7 to 65.5 per cent (as

5

(46)

45 can be seen in Figure 16 in the Appendix) when it comes to sales value. Using Table 5 from the methodology chapter it can be said concluded that from a market share point of view, the Product Y was launched very successfully. The sales increase of the Product Y compared to the Product W can be seen in Table 11, which is derived from Figure 17 up to and until Figure 20 in the Appendix.

Table 11 Product Y sales compared to Product W sales 2006

Product Y sales 2007 compared to Product W sales in:

Sell-in

quantity Sell-in value

Sell-out quantity

Sell-out value

2005 + 62 % + 52 % + 289 % + 317 %

Note: sell-in refers to sales value to distributors and sell-out refers to sales value from distributors to consumers. Positive percentages mean that the Product Y sales were higher than that of the Product W in 2005.

The Product W was launched in 2005 so it is best to compare that year’s sales with the Product Y sales. Regardless of looking at sell-in or sell-out, the company set target has been widely exceeded and the Product Y launch can be considered an extremely successful launch from a sales point of view (again using Table 5).

4.4.3 Summary of market performance

The Product Y was perceived to be a success in the market, especially from a market share and sales point of view (of which the latter is perceived to be a bit higher by marketing managers than sales managers and distributors). Company records show that the Product Y launch was very successful from a market share point of view, and extremely successful from a sales point of view.

4.5 Launch factors performance of the Product Y

4.5.1 Performance of launch factor variables

(47)

46

Table 12 Performance on launch factors (ranked in descending order per group of factors)

N Mean

Std. Deviation

To what extent was there a fit between existing skills and resources and

Product Y product launch requirements? (1=no fit at all, 5=average fit, 9=very significant fit)

Advertisement and promotion skills and resources 8 7.75 0.46

Management skills and resources 13 7.48 0.94

Sales force skills and resources 11 7.11 1.25

Distribution skills and resources 11 7.11 1.04

Marketing research skills and resources ₈ _6.25 _1.39

Mean fit of skills and resources with Product Y

requirements 7.14 1.02

How do the Product Y product characteristics compare to that of competing products in the same market segment? (1=much worse, 5=equal, 9=much better)

Product innovativeness to the market 19 8.76 0.44

Product advantage (relative superiority of the new

product over competition) 19 8.42 0.83

Product quality - lasted longer, more reliable, etc. 19 8.31 1.19

Mean performance of product characteristics 8.49 0.82 How did the following market strategy characteristics influence the Product Y success? (1=very negatively, 5=neutral, 9=very positively)

Right choice of target group 19 7.77 0.88

How would you rate the quality of each of the following elements in the launch of the Product Y? Please rate the level actually achieved. (1=very poor,

5=average, 9=excellent)

Establishing overall direction for this product launch 8 8.50 0.54 Launching this product into the marketplace 19 7.52 1.20

Finalizing plans for marketing 8 6.25 1.39

Mean performance of marketing mix general factors 7.42 1.04

Branding (right brand name in eyes of consumers from

various countries) 17 7.64 1.47

Right choice of breadth of assortment (of new product) 19 7.32 1.59 Service & technical support for the customer, e.g. right

people, qualified, responsive 17 6.30 2.44

Mean performance of marketing mix product factors 7.08 1.83

Price strategy (right choice between skimming,

Cutting Edge

Cutting Edge

The degree to which the new product launch factors

of Company X’ Product Y are critical to its success

in China

Preface

Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Research question

Research limitations

Thesis outline

2 Theoretical

background

2.1

New product success

2.2

New product launch

2.3

List of launch factors that determine success

Launch

factor group

& factor

Launch sub factor

Authors

2.4 Conceptual

model

2.5

New product development in China

2.6 Expected

findings

3. Methodology

3.1 Data

method

3.2

Data collection and sample

3.3

Research instrument and Measures

4. Empirical

results

4.1

Weighting the importance of answers of various actors

4.2 Overview

of

results

4.3

Importance of launch factors

4.4 Market

performance of the Product Y

4.5

Launch factors performance of the Product Y