| Description |
These empirical papers contribute to both a body of academic research and to anecdotal trends in business. The first paper deals with the implications of the brand's existing portfolio structure for current new product performance. Marketing logic has long recommended keeping a brand focused and concise, but some recent analyses have brought some doubt on the validity of such strong recommendations. The first chapter of this dissertation builds on this conflicting evidence by showing that, on average, high quality positioned and proliferated brands enjoy higher new product success. Thus, the rich keep getting richer. Existing recommendations to avoid too much proliferation and expansion in the marketing literature are likely causing brands to under expand, rather than over expand. By following cautions of overexpansion, many large brands may actually be missing out on opportunities to expand. The second chapter of this dissertation takes a different perspective and considers the performance implications of being local versus being national. Thus, instead of focusing on the benefits of a large, proliferated brand, this essay tries to flip the coin and ask when the little guy can still compete and succeed. Anecdotally, small and local brands have appeared to have some measure of success in many industries. Retailers like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's have even capitalized on such emerging trends by focusing their product assortment strategies to include more of these product offerings. The marketing literature, however, offers little to no insight on the advantages and disadvantages of being local (versus being national). This essay theorizes and then shows that national product launches enjoy intense in-market retail distribution advantages, but that local product offerings actually sell better per retail outlet and command price premiums. Thus, certain retailers may stand to benefit from stocking more local product offerings. |
