I recently completed a major research project with 70 top-level marketing executives on best practices in market segmentation in 13 high-tech business sectors. The study was  conducted in California, Florida and nationwide. My findings were published in the Academy of Marketing Science and Society for Marketing Advances proceedings, as well as the Journal of Strategic Marketing (JSM) and Journal of Marketing Analytics (JMA).

I began exploring this fascinating B2B marketing arena in 1990 when I did my doctoral dissertation "Market Definition in Industrial High-Tech Markets". A quarter of a century later, I am still learning from the experts in the field and sharing the insights gained with academic, practitioner and student audiences. For example, this work was recently featured in presentations/webinars with organizations such as the Business Marketing Association of Northern California, Direct Marketing Association, Market Research and Intelligence Association of Canada, amongst others.

Here are 10 recent knowledge chunks I gained in this latest round of inquiry:

A.    Segmenting B2B Technology Markets via Psychographics (JSM, 2014)

1.    While psychographics has captured the imagination of consumer marketers, only 22% of B2B companies used psychographics as a segmentation dimension.

2.    The top 5 B2B segmentation dimensions were application, firmographics, geographics, benefits, and value (psychographics was rated 9th).

3.    Those firms that did use psychographics were richly rewarded. It was the most effective segmentation dimension resulting in a 24% increase in business performance.

4.    While only 1 in 5 companies used "formal" psychographics, 3 of 5 (59%) used "informal" analysis - i.e., many years of marketing experience is a good proxy information source for sound decision making. Using formal or informal analysis led to better insights than not using psychographic thinking.

5.    Barry and Weinstein's 3 component, 8 item B2B psychographics model was strongly supported by the respondents (Journal of Marketing Management, 2009).

B.  Target Market Selection in B2B Technology Markets (JMA, 2014)

1.    The 3 most important criteria for target market selection were opportunities in the industry, sustainable differential advantage and profitability.

2.    Market oriented firms were more successful in using technology than production oriented firms.

3.    75% of companies used a differentiation strategy (target 2 or more market segments with 2 or more strategies). 54% of these companies were successful or very successful in their marketing strategy.

4.    Competitive analysis was a strong predictor of target market success accounting for 22% of explained variance.

5.    Firms using creative market selection criteria were more successful than those companies using traditional approaches.

What has been your experience in segmenting and targeting business and technology markets? What are your major challenges in truly understanding your customers and designing winning marketing strategies? What questions do I need to ask marketing executives in follow-up studies?

Art Weinstein, Ph.D., is Chair and Professor of Marketing at NSU. He is an internationally known expert in B2B segmentation who has written four books and dozens of scholarly articles on this subject. He has provided segmentation research, consulting, and training to some of the largest technology companies in the world. Contact him at art@nova.edu to request a copy of articles A or B.

This entry was posted on July 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM and has received 4737 views. There are currently 30 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

The advent of the Internet has spurred a technological evolution that is transforming retail worldwide through rapidly emerging channels.  Social media, mobile devices with location-based applications and reality-based technologies create a “showroom without walls” that distorts traditional distinctions between online and offline channels.  One of the responses to this technological innovation has been a global proliferation of the multichannel consumer (MCC), a more knowledgeable consumer who gains information about the product by surfing and switching between channels such as brick and mortar stores, Websites, mobile devices and other emerging shopping outlets.  Recent research has suggested that more than eighty percent of United States consumers research online before they buy a product in a retail store and it has been reported that seventy-eight percent use two or more channels to research an item before making a purchase.  This type of consumer, who shops in more than one channel including brick and mortar stores, catalogs, Websites, or any other emerging channel, has been labeled the multichannel consumer (MCC).   MCCs are not limited to the United States, and in fact, have been studied as a growing global phenomenon with a recent survey comparing responses from over 11,000 MCCs from 11 different countries (Pwc, 2012).  However, it is still uncertain if MCCs are part of a converging or diverging global consumer culture. 

Specifically, it is unclear if MCCs across nations are converging in perceptions and sharing a uniformity in consumer experiences and purchase decisions, or if MCCs are diverging whereby national cultures cause a dissimilarity.  On the one hand, we know that culture affects consumer behavior and cultural biases influence the consumer purchasing evaluation process.  On the other hand, proponents for a convergent global consumer culture report that the diffusion of technology, especially the Internet creates a more homogenous environment.  Likewise, it is a diffusion of technology and the Internet that has surged the MCC.

What do you think?

Do you consider yourself to be a MCC?

Are MCC’s homogenous (similar) around the world or does their culture affect what they value?

Do they make purchase decisions in the same manner? 

Are salespeople influential in their decision making?

Would it be a mistake for marketers to treat them in the same manner?

What other factors may need to be taken into consideration?

[*This blog is based on a research paper co-authored by Suri Weisfeld-Spolter, PhD; Yuliya Yurova, PhD;  and Cindy Rippe, DBA, currently under review at International Marketing Review]

Suri Weisfeld-Spolter, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Marketing and Chair of Doctoral Programs in the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at sw887@nova.edu

This entry was posted on May 5, 2014 at 9:35 AM and has received 8039 views. There are currently 60 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

The BRIC countries, term formulated in 2001 by Jim O'Neill from Goldman Sachs, were identified as key targets for investment and growth for the future. In this context, analysts estimated that Brazil, Russia, India and China represent great investment destinations, whose long-term growth depends on their working population and labor productivity. South Africa was included afterwards by some analysts to form the BRICS.

While after 2001 these countries seemed to receive a boost, some more than others, in 2014 the situation is not as optimistic as predicted, due to country characteristics and the global economy recessionary issues. For example, China has experienced a significant increase in manufacturing due to Western companies’ outsourcing, with growth rates of up to 14% in previous years, but they decreased to around 5% in 2013. The same situation applies to Brazil and India.

Some of the major challenges of these countries include inflation, corruption, unstable policies and regulations, as well as significant inequalities between the rich and the poor is common. Just a few recent examples of what is happening in these countries make investors less excited about these prospects: signs of corruption and overspending have been signaled in Russia’s preparations for the Olympics, and in Brazil’s work for the Soccer World Cup. Instability in economic and financial policies in countries like Russia, India and China make investors worry about increased interest rates, inflation and taxes. Nevertheless, a better informed and organized workforce in China is starting to ask for higher wages and better work conditions, which led to increases in labor costs. Overall, the general characteristics of any developing country, such as corruption, unstable currency and policies, combined with other internal political and civil conflicts, have affected the BRICs.

In this context, at the beginning of the year, Jim O’Neill came up with another set of tempting countries, the MINT group: Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey. O’Neill underlined the fact that all four countries have very favorable demographics for at least the next 20 years, and their economic prospects are interesting.

One of their advantages is represented by their geostrategic position either near major economic players, such as Mexico and Indonesia, or in zones that allow for future penetration of other countries, such as Nigeria and Turkey. Especially considering Nigeria, investments in this country can represent a significant opportunity to penetrate a huge African market that has remained almost untouched by major companies. Regarding wealth, Mexico and Turkey are at about the same level, earning annually about $10,000 per person, while Indonesians earn $3,500 and only $1,500 per head is being earned in Nigeria (on a par with India). WealthInsight noted that the MINT countries are expected to rank within the top eight countries set to create the most millionaires this year. Led by Indonesia, which is expected to see a 22% increase in the number of millionaires this year, the list is followed by Nigeria with a 10% increase, Turkey with an 8.5% increase and Mexico with a 7% increase. However, as a general trait of developing countries, increases in the number of millionaires does not mean higher incomes for the general population, due to the high income disparities exhibited by these countries.

While the IMF estimates that MINTs could have growth rates in the double digits by 2050, this does not mean that businesses will not face the major issues accompanying any developing country: inflation, unstable currency and interest rates, taxation issues, corruption, unstable judicial system and politics. Moreover, each country has its own internal problems that need to be resolved before making them an attractive market. For example, Mexico’s war on drugs does not provide a safe environment for local and foreign businesses in many areas of the country. Turkey was faced with its own civil and political unrest recently and the situation does not seem to have been completely solved, while corruption and security issues in Nigeria are also high risks that need to be taken if investors expect high rewards.

Overall, statistics show a significantly positive evolution of the MINTs; however, investors who do not to their research and are unprepared will risk finding out that the actual situation is not as minty.

*Image source: World Bank

Maria Petrescu, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at mpetresc@nova.edu

This entry was posted on April 21, 2014 at 9:24 AM and has received 4007 views. There are currently 7 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Many of us are aware of Oscar Pistorius who is now on trial for murdering his girlfriend in South Africa. Pistorius made history at the London Olympic Games in 2012 by becoming the first double amputee to participate in the games.  He at one time received endorsements of $2 million a year. Oakley has cancelled its contract with Pistorius, and Nike has "no further plans" to use him in advertisements. This is not the first athlete who has run into problems. There are many examples of popular celebrities transgressing in some way. Michael Phelps lost a Kellogg’s endorsement for inhaling from a bong at a party, Michael Vick was dropped by Nike when he was charged with participating in dog fighting, and Lance Armstrong lost endorsements from Nike, UPS, Oakley, and RadioShack among others when he admitted to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Tiger Woods at one time was making over $100 million a year in endorsements before some of them dropped him after he was involved in a car accident outside his home following an argument with his wife. 

Marketers have for many years used popular athletes to endorse their products and services. Selecting the appropriate source or communicator to deliver the message is an important part of communication strategy. Marketers realize the value of this form of communication. But what happens when these athletes transgress in some way? No company can monitor its endorsers all the time. Can it have a negative effect on the brand? The quick answer to this question is that it depends on a number of things. The answer lies in the question: how does a company choose an athlete or some other celebrity to endorse their product or service?

First, the endorser must be credible and match with the target audience as well as the product or service. The athlete’s familiarity and likability with the target audience is important. Tiger Woods for example may not have any influence with non-golfers but is certainly a credible golfer. Second, the overall image of the athlete is important, as well as his trustworthiness. The target audience must find the athlete believable. Third, the cost of acquiring the celebrity must also be considered. They are not cheap.  Phil Mickelson made over $50 from endorsements in 2012, and Maria Sharapova is paid $22 million from her deals with Nike.

Celebrity endorsers are big business. They have large followings. They “sell” products. But they are also human. The Oscar Pistorius trial - likely to be a long one – serves as a reminder that some of the most admired athletes are only human and transgress like many of us.

Is it too risky, therefore, to use athletes to endorse products?

Do you think Oscar Pistorius is likely to get endorsement contracts if he is found not guilty by the court?

Reference
Belch, G., & Belch, A. (2014). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective, 10th Edition: McGraw-Hill.

Russell Abratt, Ph.D., is a Professor of Marketing in the H. Wayne Huizenga Business School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached at abratt@nova.edu 

This entry was posted on March 24, 2014 at 9:04 AM and has received 4057 views. There are currently 8 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

A business model describes how an organization designs and delivers value by providing stakeholders with a shared understanding of how the business operates. A strong business model offers a competitive advantage by demonstrating that the firm does something different, more innovative, and better than its rivals. The digital era has driven many recent business model transformations.

Apple’s iTunes is a great example of the changing music industry. In the past, record companies, distributors, and retailers controlled channels and profits, now the artist and platform (iTunes) has the market power.  Newspapers have struggled to become information providers as their readers aged and defected to other media. Google, Facebook, Apple, and Salesforce.com are examples of shapers since they open up platforms for third-parties and create new market space. Participants embrace and enhance shapers’ platforms and may include applications (apps) developers, service firms, or online e-tailers. For example, millions of Farmville gamers manage virtual plots of land, grow crops, raise animals, and use online tools such as tractors. It has been estimated that there are more than 20 times more people playing this Zynga app than there are actual farms in the U.S. Consider these ten business models as you develop your business strategy.

Digital Business Models

Bricks and clicks: Retail, e-tail (Examples: Best Buy, Target).

Internet pure-play: Online presence (Examples: Blue Nile, Overstock.com).

Software as a service (SaaS): Delivering applications over the Internet (Examples: Salesforce.com, ADP).

Community of users: Users generate knowledge, solve problems (Examples: eBay, Wikipedia)

Shaper: Open up new market space (Apple, Facebook).

Platform participant: Enhance platforms by creating user applications (Examples: Foursquare, Zynga).

Multi-sided markets: Serve multiple segments – e.g., readers and advertisers (Examples: USA Today, Visa).

Long tail: Millions of products offered, most sell very few (Examples: Amazon, Netflix)

Free as a business model: Products provided to users at no cost, revenues generated elsewhere (YouTube, Hulu).

Open business model: Companies share products for low cost [way below branded options] (Linux (Red Hat), Qualcomm).

Think about these seven questions as your management team assesses your business model and market performance.

1. Can you clearly explain your business model?
2. What is unique about your strategy?
3. How does it compare with your direct and indirect competitors?
4. Have you broken any industry rules lately?
5. Can you develop a more innovative and interesting business model?
6. Will your business model win in the market?
7. Does your organization truly deliver superior value for customers?

Art Weinstein, Ph.D., is Chair and Professor of Marketing at Nova Southeastern University and author of Superior Customer Value – Strategies for Winning and Retaining Customers. He may be reached at art@nova.edu or 954-262-5097; visit his website www.artweinstein.com     

This entry was posted on February 3, 2014 at 8:49 PM and has received 5735 views. There are currently 25 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

A firestorm has been brewing ever since Fred Reichheld claimed in his 2003 Harvard Business Review (“The One Number You Need to Grow”) article that the simple Net Promoter Score (NPS) measure of consumer recommendations was a good proxy of customer loyalty and an accurate predictor of business growth.  The publication of the HBR article was followed up with his bestselling book The Ultimate Question.  Many of the largest companies including GE, American Express, T-Mobile, Microsoft and Philips adopted the measure and in many cases, changed the way service is delivered to even tying employee and/or executive compensation to NPS scores.   The beauty of this measure is in its parsimony, consists of one simple question: “How likely is it that you would recommend us to your friends or colleagues?” Calculating NPS scoring is based on a 0-10-point “likely to recommend” scale ranging from “highly unlikely” to “highly likely.”  Those who score between 0 and 6 are considered “detractors”, those who score between 7 and 8 are “passives” and those scoring 9 or above are “promoters”.  The eventual NPS is then calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters.  For example, if 20% of Company X’s customers are detractors, and 60% are promoters, then Company X has scored an NPS of 40.

Companies have gravitated to NPS due to its straightforward approach to assessing loyalty and providing a clear measure of an organization’s performance through its customers’ eyes.  Further, the growing importance of word-of-mouth communications in driving future growth has made NPS more attractive.   Do higher NPS scores make a difference?   At American Express, for a promoter who is positive, the company sees a 10-15 percent increase in spending, and 4-5 times increased retention—both which drive shareholder value.   Research shows that sustained value creators—companies that achieve long-term profitable growth—have Net Promoter Scores (NPS) two times higher than the average company.  Further, NPS leaders outgrow their competitors in most industries—by an average of 2.5 times.

Yet, NPS has sparked considerable debate during the past 10 years as to the efficacy of the “ultimate question”, where a number of researchers have examined the construct’s validity and now the verdict on NPS is not quite as strong as when Reichheld first introduced the word-of-mouth metric back in 2003.   For example, in an excellent study by Keiningham, et. al (2007), their study’s results undermine a key supposition of NPS, i.e. that it is the single most reliable indicator of company growth.   Their findings, which contradict this supposition, have important implications for managers that have adopted the Net Promoter metric for tracking growth and have consequences as to the potential misallocation of resources.  Further, Mark Molenaar of TNS Research Surveys thinks that the score is too simple, too narrow and no better than other measures of satisfaction or advocacy.

This brings up an ongoing debate when it comes to measurement: “Are multi-item (MI) scales preferred over single-item (SI) scales such as NPS?”  According to conventional measurement theory, the (reflective) items comprising multi-item (MI) measure of a focal construct represent a random selection from the hypothetical domain of all possible indicators of the construct.  Using multiple items helps to average out errors and specificities that are inherent in single items, thus leading to increased reliability and construct validity.  Single-item (SI) measures seem to be a viable option in exploratory research situations where typically weaker effect sizes are expected and smaller samples are used.  Rossiter wrote that “when an attribute is judged to be concrete, there is no need to use more than a single item.”   Many scale development experts recommend following conventional wisdom and use MI scales when conducting survey research.  Back to NPS, Morgan and Rego suggest that if the NPS score is used, it should be supplemented with additional questions which would allow companies to further understand their customers and their reasons for recommending to friends and family.   Bain and Company suggests that research conducted using the Ultimate Question should be followed up with an open-ended question: “Why?”

*NPS Chart: www.davidmitz.com; by David Mitzenmacher, 2011.

William (Bill) Johnson, Ph.D., is a retired Professor of Marketing and Adjunct Professor in Marketing in the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached at billyboy@nova.edu

This entry was posted on January 6, 2014 at 8:57 AM and has received 5527 views. There are currently 45 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Happy employees, happy customers - This is what we keep discussing with managers and students, not only in the context of human resources, but also regarding internal marketing. As its name suggests, internal marketing focuses on the interior of the company, treating the employees as customers. Keeping employees well-informed, involved, and motivated has been proven to help them promote the company’s products and goals. It has also been shown that satisfied and happy employees are able to ultimately offer better customer value. It is not for charitable purposes that major companies, such as Google, ensure not only a great working environment for their employees, but also treat them as if they are the most important employees in the world, and with all the benefits and personal perks offered on the job.

In this context, it is surprising how many companies have been aggressively criticizing the regulations regarding the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. While it is expected for businesses to avoid and fight any additional taxes and expenses, this is related directly not only to the welfare of their employees, but also to the performance of business. Surprisingly, even some major companies from the food industry, including a well-known pizza chain, where employee health could be considered essential, have come forward complaining about the obligation to offer health care to their employees. While many managers might perceive employees with health issues as not being a major problem, especially if the company does not offer any paid sick days, they are, unfortunately, overlooking the importance of internal marketing and of treating employees as customers if we want them to perform their best. Moreover, if a company publicly shows disinterest in the welfare of their employees, why would I believe, as consumer, that they would care in any greater measure about their customers?

We obviously do not live in a socialist society that offers free universal healthcare or other similar social benefits. However, offering employees the opportunity to benefit from health insurance and other perks, even on their own dime, can improve their health, job performance and motivation.

Healthy employees, happy customers!

Maria Petrescu, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at mpetresc@nova.edu

This entry was posted on December 2, 2013 at 8:55 AM and has received 5270 views. There are currently 8 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) is a rapidly growing, quickly evolving and increasingly important extension of traditional face-to-face word-of-mouth (WOM) in the marketing and consumer environment, and most recently, a very important outcome of activity on social media. Indeed, social media have greatly changed the way in which firms and their constituents are able to communicate electronically, extending the possibilities of eWOM from the traditional one-to-many and one-to-one marketing communications, to the new many-to-many and many-to-one communications.

Social network sites in their essence are built on eWOM in various forms and guises.  While much literature has addressed some of the different types of eWOM and their differences, there has not been a consolidated conceptualization of such differences. We suggest a concise typology of eWOM communications based on the level of user interactivity and participation, and thus locate these forms in a 2 (communication: collective, individual) x 2 (C2C interactivity: low, high) framework below. Four distinct categories of eWOM emerge from our framework: many-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many, and one-to-one.

Many-to-one eWOM (e.g., the number of votes) represents the trend or explicit preference of a crowd. One-to-many text-based eWOM (e.g., product reviews) is descriptive and requires the audience to use more cognitive effort to read the reviews.  Many-to-many eWOM (e.g., online discussion groups) is a high involvement activity in which consumers continuously participate in the communication process. Finally, dyad-based one-to-one eWOM (e.g., instant messaging) is mostly private and non-transparent communications. The typology of eWOM presented in our figure not only depicts how different eWOM types are generated but also reflects how these different types are processed by users.

What are your thoughts on our suggested framework of eWOM types?

Do you think they are equal in their degrees of persuasiveness on the users of these eWOM?

Which eWOM category do you use most?            

Suri Weisfeld-Spolter, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Marketing and Chair of Doctoral Programs in the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at sw887@nova.edu

This entry was posted on November 25, 2013 at 9:05 AM and has received 18533 views. There are currently 28 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

What do you get when you have a great idea, mixed with passion and energy?  Some might say you have an invention or inventor, but in reality you only have a great idea.  Now, add in the ability to communicate the benefits of that great idea, the reasons the idea is important to stakeholders and why the great idea is valuable enough to pay for and you have an entrepreneurial idea.

Many great ideas never make it to market because the concept is never communicated effectively to potential investors and users.  Many entrepreneurs might cringe at the word “sales,” but successful entrepreneurs must be good sales people in order to take the idea to market.  Sales skills become most important for the entrepreneur in at least three areas:

1)      when searching for funding and partners,

2)      when hiring the first set of employees, and

3)      when working with buyers and customers.

Success in changing a great idea into an entrepreneurial idea is based on very basic, but crucial non-technical skills:

1. Time-management

2. Effective communication

3. Goal setting and achievement

4. Relationship building (networking)

Passion and a sense for business are essential to bring success to your ideas, but not enough when speaking to Venture Capitalists or investors about joining your team.  The skill sets needed to successfully communicate the benefits of your idea, to both the end user and the investor, include relationship building, identifying the gaps between “what is” and “what should be” and strong communication skills. What makes these skills so essential for entrepreneurs is the concept of customizing the communication so that is resonates with each individual stakeholder.

The message you deliver must be adapted or changed to fit the needs of each person you speak with.

Whether you are a new entrepreneur just starting, or a seasoned entrepreneur finding new barriers in your way, brushing up on your sales skills could prove to be the best return on your time and money.  Your salesmanship skills can be honed by participating in sales seminars, webinars, or taking some classes at your local university.  There is even a plethora of books available at your local bookstore.

Entrepreneurial ideas are the ones that change the world, make lives easier and bring forth financial rewards. Entrepreneurs will likely discover that sales courses provide the missing piece that can make an idea go from great to entrepreneurial.

Photo Credit: Filosofias filosoficas, Wikimedia Commons.

Dena Hale, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Marketing at Nova Southeastern University. Professor Hale is dedicated to providing a sales curriculum and consultative services that promote genuine salesmanship and integrity. She can be reached at dh1113@nova.edu

This entry was posted on November 11, 2013 at 9:01 AM and has received 3343 views. There are currently 7 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Dramatic shifts have occurred in technology and have transformed how firms do business and connect with their customers.  Innovation is enabling firms to organize in new ways, design better products, and manage supply chains. Winners in today’s economy will be those companies which can clearly define their processes, organize around those key processes, and work closely with their business partners.

      A key question is how do managers employ innovation as a best practice tool to effectively create maximum value for customers? There are three sources of technological “know-how”  --product technology (the set of ideas embodied in the product), process technology (the set of ideas embodied in the manufacture of the product), and management technology (the set of procedures associated with selling the product and administering the business unit).

      In a national study of 70 B2B technology companies, research found that process technology was the weak link with only 49% of firms mastering this activity (in contrast, product technology and management technology were successful in 81% and 70% of companies, respectively). Success rates were 67% for innovative cultures and 60% for research and development expertise. Medium and large companies were more successful in technology usage than smaller firms.

     There are many ideas on how to best innovate. Typically, various multi-step approaches are used to illustrate the innovation process. The accompanying video advocates a 5-step approach to innovation consisting of: 1) identifying the problem/challenge, 2) generate ideas, 3) find a solution, 4) test with customers, and 5) go to market/adjust.

     Innovation management can be studied as a process improvement technique across a spectrum of activities (R&D, new product management, cycle time reduction, creative personality types, etc.) and over the short-term and longer planning horizons. A variation in these findings may depend on organizational size, business or nonprofit, industry sector, environmental dynamics, or other considerations (management commitment to innovation, organizational capabilities, resources, etc.).

Video On Innovation

Reference

Weinstein, Art, Jin, Yan, and Barrett, Hilton (2013), “Strategic Innovation in B2B Technology Markets: A Need for a Process Perspective ,” Journal of Supply Chain and Operations Management,  11 (1), 64-76.    http://www.artweinstein.com/uploads/strategicinnovationB2Barticle.pdf

*Photo Credit: Forbes.com

 Art Weinstein, Ph.D., is Chair and Professor of Marketing and the co-creator/advisor for the Huizenga School Means Business Success!  Faculty Blog. He is the author of 7 books and more than 70 scholarly articles. His latest book is Superior Customer Value – Strategies for Winning and Retaining Customers, 3rd Edition, CRC Press (2012). More Info

This entry was posted on October 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM and has received 7819 views. There are currently 15 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.