CAPÍTULO IV: MARCO PROPOSITIVO
4.5. Verificación de Idea a Defender
M e d ia e m p h a s is refers to the extent to which the media pay attention to a
firm’s new product preannouncements. The scale of this construct consisted of four
measurement items developed from Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1994). Again, 7-
point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) were used to record
the scores of these items.
1. The preannouncement generated major media coverage.
2. The preannouncement attracted little attention from the media. (Reverse) 3. Most of the media highlighted the preannouncement.
4. The media emphasis on our preannouncement was relatively greater than on our competitors’.
Media favourability. The construct of media favourability was operationalised
as a 4-item, 7-point Likert scale. The scale measured how favourable the media
coverage was toward the new product preannouncement. The measurement items
were developed based on the relevant literature in public relations and mass
communication (e.g., Fill 1995; Marken 1988).
1. The media made supportive remarks about the focal product. 2. The media covered our new product preannouncement favourably. 3. The media had a high opinion of the preannounced product. 4. The media coverage was consistent with what we wanted to present. The operationalisation of the multi-item constructs in this study is summarised
in Table 4.2. The sources of respective measurement items are also provided for
reference.
Table 4.2
Multi-Item Constructs and Measurement Items_______ Constructs and Items Source Brand Strength
1. People tended to mention the brand name first when thinking of the product category.
2. People always stated that they had heard of the brand when they were given its name.
3. The level of quality customers associated with the brand was very high.
4. Customers regarded the brand as a very low-value brand. (Reverse)
5. Customers were highly willing to use the brand.
6. The brand had a loyal customer base.
Developed from Francois and MacLachlan (1995)
Developed from Francois and MacLachlan (1995)
Developed from Aaker and Keller (1990)
Developed from Aaker and Keller (1990)
Developed from Srivasta and Shocker (1991)
Developed from Srivasta and Shocker (1991)____________ Product Newness
91
2. It took a long time before customers could understand its full advantages.
3. The product concept was difficult for customers to evaluate or understand.
4. Customers were always engaged in advance planning for adopting it.
5. It involved high switching costs for the customer. 6. The product was one of the most complex products we
had ever introduced into the market._______________ Product Category Strength
1. We had one of the highest market shares in this product category.
2. We always followed larger competitors’ market moves. (Reverse)
3. Our competitors were relatively weaker in terms of competitive power in the product category.
4. We enjoyed a leading position in the product category.
Market Orientation
1. Business objectives were driven by customer
satisfaction.
2. Commitment to serving customer needs was monitored.
3. Our competitive strategies were based on understanding customer needs.
4. Strategies were driven by our beliefs about creating customer value.
5. Customer satisfaction was frequently and systematically measured.
6. Close attention was given to after-sales service.
7. Our salespeople shared information on competitors’ strategies.
8. We responded quickly to competitors’ actions.
9. Top Managers regularly discussed competitors’ strengths and weaknesses.
10. We targeted opportunities which led to competitive advantage.
11. Managers from different functional departments regularly visited customers.
12. Information about customer experiences was always communicated and shared among different functional departments.
13. Business functions were integrated to serve target
Atuahene-Gima (1995)
Atuahene-Gima (1995)
Atuahene-Gima (1995)
Atuahene-Gima (1995) Atuahene-Gima (1995)
Eliashberg, Robertson, and Rymon (1995)
Developed from Eliashberg and Robertson (1988) Developed from Eliashberg and Robertson (1988) Developed from Eliashberg and Robertson (1988)_____
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)
market needs.
14. Managers understood how everyone could contribute to creating customer value._______________________ Network Externality
1. A potential customer’s adoption of a new product was influenced by the number of current users of the existing or compatible products.
2. The risks of adopting a product for non-users decreased as the number of its current adopters increased.
3. Compatible designs were particularly desirable in the industry.
4. In the market, customers tended to stick to incumbent technologies.
5. A product in the market became more valuable as the number of adopters of the product increased._________ Competitive Hostility
1. Competition in the market was cut-throat. 2. Competitors were always able to match their
opponents’ market attacks readily.
3. Competition existed in a variety of aspects, e.g., pricing, quality, service, etc.
4. Price competition was a hallmark of the market. 5. There were frequent product introductions or
modifications.__________________________________ Market Turbulence
1. For this business, customers’ product preferences changed quite a bit over time.
2. Our customers tended to look for new products all the time.
3. New customers tended to have product-related needs that are different from those of our existing customers. 4. We actually catered to many customers that we have
served in the past. (Reverse)
5. Demand was fairly easy to forecast in this market. (Reverse)
6. The changes in customer preference over time were difficult to predict in this market.__________________ Technological Turbulence
1. The technology in our industry was changing rapidly. 2. Technological changes provided big opportunities in
our industry.
3. It was very difficult to forecast where the technology in our industry would be in the next 2 to 3 years. 4. A large number of new product ideas had come from
and Slater (1990)
Greenley (1995) and Narver and Slater (1990)_________
Developed from Church and Gandal (1993)
Developed from Farrel and Saloner (1986)
Developed from Church and Gandal (1993)
Developed from Katz and Shapiro (1992)
Developed from Thum (1994)__________________
Jaworski and Kohli (1993) Developed from Eliashberg and Robertson (1988) Developed from Slater and Narver (1994)
Jaworski and Kohli (1993) Developed from Atuahene- G im a(1995)_____________
Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
Gatignon and Xuereb (1997)
Gatignon and Xuereb (1997)
Jaworski and Kohli (1993) Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
93
technological breakthroughs in our industry.
5. Technological developments in our industry were only Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
minor. (Reverse)______________________________________________________ Visibility
1. We preannounced the product in the communication channels aimed at a broad audience.
2. We used informal communication channels for the preannouncement. (Reverse)
3. We sent the preannounced messages via media which were more visible in the marketplace.
4. The communication channels chosen were industry- specific. (Reverse)
Developed from Eliashberg, Robertson, and Rymon (1995)
Developed from Eliashberg, Robertson, and Rymon (1995)
Developed from Eliashberg, Robertson, and Rymon (1995)
Developed from Eliashberg, Robertson, and Rymon (1995)
Message Clarity
1. The preannouncements we made were kept Developed from Eliashberg,
ambiguous. (Reverse) Robertson, and Rymon
(1995)
2. We communicated the messages in a precise way. Developed from Heil and
Robertson (1991)
3. We avoided vague expression in the Developed from Heil and
preannouncements. Robertson (1991)
4. The preannouncements were stated as specifically as Developed from Eliashberg,
possible. Robertson, and Rymon
(1995)
5. Explicit information was conveyed in the Developed from Eliashberg,
preannouncements. Robertson, and Rymon
(1995) Message Uniformity
1. The preannounced messages were consistent with one Developed from Heil and
another from beginning to end. Robertson (1991)
2. We sent dissimilar messages in different Developed from Lilly and
preannouncements. (Reverse) Walters (1997)
3. We varied messages when they were conveyed to Developed from Lilly and
different audiences. (Reverse) Walters (1997)
4. In the meantime, the messages preannounced in Developed from Heil and
different markets were uniform. Robertson (1991)
5. Late preannouncements did not contradict early Developed from Heil and
preannouncements. Robertson (1991)
Message Truthfulness
1. We conveyed messages that reflected the facts about Developed from Heil and
the new product. Robertson (1991)
contained in the preannouncements. (Reverse)
3. The preannouncements were truthful indications of our future plan or actions.
4. The preannouncements contained false messages. (Reverse)
5. All the preannounced messages were verifiable.
Media Emphasis
1. The preannouncement generated major media coverage.
2. The preannouncement attracted little attention from the media. (Reverse)
3. Most of the media highlighted the preannouncement.
4. The media emphasis on our preannouncement was relatively greater than on our competitors’.__________ Media Favourability
1. The media made supportive remarks about the focal product.
2. The media covered our new product preannouncement favourably.
3. The media had a high opinion of the preannounced product.
4. The media coverage was consistent with what we wanted to present._______________________________ Preannouncing Effectiveness
1. Objective-Attainment Performance
2. Performance Relative to the Previous Preannouncements
3. Performance Relative to Key Competitors’ Preannouncements
Rymon (1995)
Developed from Eliashberg, Robertson, and Rymon (1995)
Developed from DePaulo (1988)
Developed from Eliashberg, Robertson, and Rymon (1995)_________________
Developed from Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1994) Developed from Cutiip, Center, and Broom (1994) Developed from Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1994) Developed from Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1994)
Developed from Fill (1995)
Developed from Marken (1988)
Developed from Fill (1995)
Developed from Fill (1995)
Developed from Dacin and Sharfman (1996)
Developed from Jaworski and Kohli (1993) Developed from Jaworski and Kohli (1993)________