Annexure 1

European Journal of Marketing
A contingency approach to marketing high technology products

David M. Gardner Frank Johnson Moonkyu Lee Ian Wilkinson
Article information:
To cite this document:
David M. Gardner Frank Johnson Moonkyu Lee Ian Wilkinson, (2000),"A contingency approach to marketing
Downloaded by NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HAMIRPUR At 22:22 07 June 2016 (PT)
high technology products", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Iss 9/10 pp. 1053 - 1077
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560010342476
Downloaded on: 07 June 2016, At: 22:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2973 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1995),"Marketing high-tech products: the emerging themes", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 Iss 10
pp. 45-58 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569510098492
(2011),"Marketing high-tech products in emerging markets: the differential impacts of country image and
country-of-origin's image", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 356-367 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111157883
(1988),"The Contingency Approach: Its Foundations and Relevance to Theory Building and Research
in Marketing", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22 Iss 7 pp. 37-64 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000005291
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:528853 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The research register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/mkt.asp http://www.emerald-library.com
A contingency approach to Marketing high

technology
marketing high technology products
products
David M. Gardner 1053
Department of Business Administration, University of Illinois at
Received March 1998

Urbana-Champaign, USA Revised Janaury 1999
Revised September 1999
Frank Johnson Accepted October 1999
School of Marketing, International Business and Asian Studies,
University of Western Sydney, Nepean, Australia
Moonkyu Lee
College of Business and Economics, Yonsei University,
Seoul, Korea, and
Ian Wilkinson
School of Marketing, Faculty of Commerce and Economics,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Keywords High technology, Marketing strategy, Product differentiation, Australia
Abstract Little conceptual and empirical effort has been directed toward differentiating high
technology from low technology products, and identifying effective strategic alternatives for
marketing technology-based products. The purpose of this paper is to answer such fundamental
questions as: what a high technology product is; what dimensions differentiate between high and
low technology products and their marketing strategies; and what types of marketing strategies
high technology companies should use. These issues are tackled from a contingency theory
perspective with the assumption that marketing of high technology products, compared to that of
low technology products, is influenced by different industry/market situations, and thus strategies
should be designed and used differently. The paper reports the results from a survey of over 100
Australian firms, which examined the environment-strategy-performance link for low versus high
technology-based products. It discusses the implication of the results for marketers of high-tech
products.
Introduction
The influence of high technology is pervasive. It affects our personal lives, how
business is conducted, how we spend leisure time, how we communicate and
the very products and services that we purchase. Not all products, however,
will be high technology products. In fact, the majority of products will continue
to be based on low technology. Nonetheless, the question of differentiation, at
least from a marketing strategy perspective, between high technology and
lower levels of technology and the resulting implications for marketing are
largely unanswered. While it may be true that ``you'll know it when you see it'',
a more precise understanding and definition of what high technology is and is
not would be very useful. It would be useful to address the question: is
marketing high technology different? And if there are differences, what are European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 34 No. 9/10, 2000, pp. 1053-1077.
those differences and do they make a difference? # MCB University Press, 0309-0566
European This paper addresses the possible differences in marketing strategy for
Journal of products characterized as ``high technology'' in comparison with those
characterized as ``low technology''. Specifically, it deals with the following basic
Marketing questions:
34,9/10
(1) What is a ``high technology'' product? What differentiates high from low
technology products?
1054
(2) What are the key environmental dimensions that differentiate between
low and high technology products?

(3) What types of strategies should organizations marketing high
technology products use? Should these be different from those used by
organizations marketing low technology products?
To answer these questions, a survey of over 100 Australian firms was
conducted, which measured the environmental and market characteristics,
technology levels, marketing strategies and performance of the companies'
products. This paper describes and discusses the findings from the survey.
Definition of high technology products

Is the marketing of high technology different?
Is the marketing of high technology different? If so, is the difference really
important? From Porter (1980) and his discussion on emerging industries, it
logically follows that marketing strategy for high technology should be
different. Specifically, Rosen et al. (1998) argue that ``there are specific features
of high tech markets that are believed to distinguish them from other product
categories'' (see also Shanklin and Ryans, 1984). But is marketing strategy for
high technology different? If it is different, what are the differences? And what
is the meaning of these differences for marketing strategies?
To address these questions, it will be necessary to first define what is high
technology and what is not. This seemingly simple task is more difficult than
one would think. We found that while the term is widely used, there is no
generalizable definition of high technology in either the technical or
management literature. In particular, there is no definition appropriate to guide
marketing strategy of high technology products. Without a solid definition of
high technology, any attempts are potentially misleading. Therefore, only after
formulating such a definition, will we be able to gather data to shed light on
any differences and the consequent implications.
Can high technology be defined?

Economists have attempted to define ``high technology'' industries. However,
the general emphasis on innovation-input measures, product-innovation
outputs and industrial growth, primarily based on aggregated government
statistics, is not generally helpful in defining high technology products[1].
However, several attempts have been made in the marketing and management
literature to define high technology products. For instance, Rexroad (1983, p. 3)
defined high technology as:
. . . the segment of technology considered to be nearer to the leading edge or the state of the Marketing high
art of a particular field. It is that technology inherent in emerging from the laboratory into
practical application.
technology
products
Similarly, Grunenwald and Vernon (1988, p. 61) defined high technology
products and services as:
Those devices, procedures, processes, techniques, or sciences that are characterized by state- 1055
of-the-art development and have typically short and volatile lives.
From a different perspective, Moriarty and Kosnik (1989, p. 10) suggest that:
. . . high-technology marketing involves high levels of both market and technological
uncertainty.
Unfortunately, other attempts either address the obvious or seemingly miss the
mark completely. For instance, Samili and Wills (1986, p. 23) suggest that high
technology is:
. . . a group of industries [that] stretches beyond electronic computers to a variety of research
industries such as biotechnology, pharmaceutical, chemical and aerospace.
In a similar vein, Riggs (1983) focuses on the distinguishing features of high

technology companies and suggests that:
. they tend to be well populated with engineers;
. their product life cycles are likely to be short;
. they are characterized by riskiness;
. they are more likely than low-technology companies to face rapid
growth or rapid decline.
In an attempt to side step the definition issue, Shanklin and Ryans (1984), in
their significant work on the marketing of high technology, fail to offer a
definition of high technology. They instead talk about the necessity of ``supply-
side'' marketing.
Finally, while many would sympathize with Link (1987, p. 10) when he
comments that ``high technology, by its inherent transience, almost defies
definition'', we must continue to strive toward a definition if we are to explore in
a meaningful fashion any differences that might allow us to conclude that high
technology products are different or not different compared to other products
from a marketing strategy perspective. Such a definition must be more
adequate than that finally offered by Link (1987, p. 11), probably in frustration:
High technology, then is a shifting label which must be removed from old products and
reaffixed to an ever widening group of complex business activities.
Unfortunately, the scientific literature is no more productive in yielding

definitions useful to marketing strategy. In other words, no definition was
found that would allow for a clear and consistent distinction between two
products as to their level of technology.
European Toward a working definition
Journal of The purpose of the research is to identify differences that have the potential to
distinguish between high and low technology products. To guide our research,
Marketing we used the definition of high technology offered by Gardner (1990a). Prior
34,9/10 definitions of high technology described above were rather narrow in scope and
certainly were not generalizable. Furthermore, these definitions offer little
1056 guidance for studying or crafting marketing strategy.
Gardner's definition of high technology is derived from the interaction of
levels of technology (Ansoff and McDonnell 1990, pp. 168-71) with the
perception of innovations from the consumer/user perspective (Robertson,
1967, p. 7). This articulation is consistent with Veryzer (1998, p. 138) where
product innovation is ``viewed as lying along dimensions reflecting changes in:
product benefits, technological capabilities, and consumption or usage
patterns''. The definition that follows from the interaction of levels of
technology and consumer/user perception of that technology is:
. . . products that are the result of turbulent technology and which require substantial shifts in
behavior of at least one member of the product usage channel.
From this definition we propose that traditional or low technology products are
those that employ familiar and accepted technology and whose acceptance and
use are generally understood. Likewise, high technology products are those
that employ turbulent technology in their use, manufacture and/or distribution,
and are seen to require significant changes in usage patterns. These are
products in which `òne or more basic technology substitutions take place
within the life span of the demand life cycle'' (Ansoff and McDonnell, 1990,
p. 169). However, it should be kept in mind that the distinction between high
versus low technology products is not a matter of type, but a matter of degree.
It is assumed that there is ``technology continuum''. Some products can be
placed at ``higher'' while others can be located at ``lower'' positions on the
continuum (see Oakey et al., 1988, pp. 75-6).
Gardner (1990a) proposed a 3 3 matrix as the basis for defining high
technology products as well as providing a guide for marketing strategy. As
shown in Figure 1, products in Cell 9 would be categorized as being the ``most''
high technology products, with products in Cells 6 and 8 being categorized as
slightly less, but still high technology. Products in Cell 7 may be categorized as
high technology while products in Cell 3 share some of the characteristics of
high technology products. Products in Cells 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Figure 1 are
categorized as traditional marketing.
Conceptual background
High technology marketing should be different
We conducted both a review of the literature and extensive interviews with a
number of knowledgeable experts and firms in Australia and the USA. These
interviews provided information on marketing strategy for high technology in
contrast with lower technology products. The careful and comprehensive
reviews of Yoon and Lilien (1985), Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1990), and
Gardner (1990a, 1990b) coupled with insights gained from the other literature Marketing high
also provided a valuable perspective. From this, we were able to generate technology
several variables that appear to offer the potential to differentiate between high
and low technology products and the resulting differences in marketing
products
strategy. These variables were used to guide our research.
We approached this research task with the assumption that high technology
products are not just ``new'' products. Capon and Glazer (1987) have suggested 1057
that ``the management of technology poses a set of issues and problems distinct
from those associated with the new product development and introduction
process''. Similarly, Yoon and Lilien (1985) found different market and strategy
characteristics for `òriginal new products'' relying on technological
breakthroughs and ``reformulated new products'' that are more likely product
line extensions or product modifications. From a sample of 500 French
industrial firms, they identified several findings relevant to our research
project, e.g:
(1) The strategic differences between original and reformulated new
products are considerable (Yoon and Lilien, 1985, p. 138).
(2) For original new products, ``variables related to market potential and
structure are critical''. For reformulated new products, ``variables related
to the level of customer satisfaction with the existing products and
strategy-product type fit are particularly critical'' (Yoon and Lilien, 1985,
p. 139)
(3) For both original and reformulated new industrial products, the
following three factors are important in determining long-run success:
. degree of expertise in marketing activity;
. marketing effectiveness for the new product diffusion;
. stage of product life cycle (Yoon and Lilien, 1985, p. 141).
Bahrami and Evans (1989), based on the case history data of medium-sized
high-technology firms, observed that the processes of strategy formulation and
implementation were very closely intertwined and fused together in an iterative
process. This close relationship between planning and implementation
Figure 1.
Technology/user-based
product classification
and examples
European processes is in sharp contrast to the traditional strategy and planning
Journal of literature. Similarly, Lynn et al. (1996), using case studies, reported a linkage
Marketing they labeled as ``probe and learn''.
In addition, Maidique and Hayes (1984) provided a wider range of guidelines
34,9/10 for high technology management, which were distinct from conventional
wisdom, and Firth and Narayana (1996) profiled the new product strategies of
1058 large, Fortune 500 firms. Finally, Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1990) conducted a
retrospective analysis of approximately 200 moderate-to-high technology new
product projects. As listed below, they identified eight key factors underlying
the success of technology-based projects. Interestingly, top management
support and the competitive situation were found to have a low impact on
success.
. a superior product that delivers unique benefits to the user;
. a well-defined product and project prior to the development phase;
. technological synergy;
. quality of execution of technological activities;
. quality of execution of pre-development activities;
. marketing synergy;
. quality of execution of marketing activities;
. market attractiveness;
Therefore, we assume that there are differences between low and high
technology-based marketing strategies. Some of the differences will be found to
be relatively insignificant; others will be large and significant. It is our basic
hypothesis that high and low technology products differ on the dimensions of
not only technology levels perceived by buyers and users but also market and
industry characteristics.
Contingency approach to marketing of high technology products

One important finding from the review of the literature and discussion with
experts and firms was that the proper format for dealing with the basic
questions in this study was in the context of the `ènvironment strategy
performance'' link. Underlying the link is the contingency theory in the
corporate/business strategy literature (Hofer, 1975; Ginsberg and
Venkatraman, 1985; Zeithaml et al., 1988). The contingency theory suggests
that there is no universal set of strategies which is optimal for all businesses or
firms, and thus different strategies should be designed for different
environmental contexts. This theoretical framework, compared to case
analysis, generates results that are generalizable to wider ranges of situations
(e.g. Bahrami and Evans, 1989). At the same time, the framework, when
compared to ``coarse-grained'' methodologies (Harrigan, 1983a), produces more
rigorous results in the sense that it focuses on determining ``mid-range''
relationships among variables that hold only within a particular context or for Marketing high
classes of settings, rather than searching for a ``grand theory'' or a `ùniversal technology
law'' of strategy.
The contingency framework has been widely accepted and used in many
products
empirical studies in the field of strategic management and marketing strategy
(e.g. Buzzell and Gale, 1987; Hambrick and Lei, 1985; Harrigan, 1980, 1983b).
Applied in the present research context, this framework implies that if high and 1059
low technology-based products are truly different from each other, the
differences stem from the industry and market characteristics. Furthermore,

the framework suggests that in this situation a different set of marketing
strategies should be designed and used for high technology products for the
survival and growth in the market.
Our research framework was built on this line of reasoning. Specifically, for
a particular product, we measured its technology level as perceived by the
producer and the consumer for the purpose of classifying the product as either
high or low technology. Then we measured the market/industry environment,
consumer evaluations, marketing strategies, and performance of the product.
Based on the contingency framework, we tried to relate the technology factor to
these variables to find out what differentiates between high versus low
technology marketing.
Research hypotheses and measures

Producer and consumer dimensions of technology. The first step toward the
contingency theory approach is to develop a good classification scheme for
products. Since the basic assumption of this paper was that products of
different technology levels were influenced by different environmental settings,
and thus should be marketed differently, the major dimension used to classify
products was their technology levels. As Gardner (1990a) suggests, product
technology is a two-dimensional construct, i.e. it can be defined from a
manufacturer's standpoint as well as from a consumer's viewpoint (see Figure
1). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: Product technology is a two-dimensional construct comprising the
degree of change required for the producer to make and sell the product,
and the degree of change required by the customer to buy, install, and
use the product.
Thus, measurement items were developed to capture both perspectives. They
are listed in Table I. The items comprise perceptions of change required to
make and sell or to install and use the product. They are based upon the past
literature indicating that the perception of required change by the consumer is
higher for higher levels of product technology (Ellen et al., 1991; Higgins and
Shanklin, 1992; Schein, 1985).
Market and industry environment measures. A set of items was developed to
measure the market and industry environment of the product. Some of the
items focused on the technological environment (e.g. rate of technological
change, frequency of introduction of new products/innovations, pressures from
customers for new technology, etc.) while others dealt with the competitive
European Producer and consumer technology variables
Journal of Producer technology
Magnitude of change required to manufacture the product (1 = none to 5 = very substantial)
Marketing Magnitude of change required to distribute and sell the product (1 = none to 5 = very
34,9/10 substantial)
Compatibility of the technology underlying the product with existing technology in the
market (1 = completely compatible to 5 = completely incompatible)
1060 Perceived financial risk (and/or opportunity cost) to your firm caused by the product (1 =
very low to 5 = very high)
Consumer technology
Financial risk (and/or opportunity cost) by the customer using the product (1 = very low to
5 = very high)
Magnitude of change required for customer to install and use the product (1 = none to
5 = very substantial)
Complexity of change required for customer to install and use the product (1 = ``plug in'' to
5 = complete redesign)
Ease (or difficulty) for customers in the primary market segment to understand product
benefits (1 = very easy to 5 = very difficult)
Market and industry environment variables
Stage in industry life cycle (1 = emergence to 5 = decline)
Rate of technological change (1 = very slow to 5 = very fast)
Frequency of introduction of new products/innovations relative to other industries (1 = very
infrequent to 5 = very frequent)
Pressures from customers for new technology (1 = very low to 5 = very high)
Rate of change in customer needs (1 = very slow to 5 = very fast)
Degree of product standardization in the industry (1 = very low to 5 = very high)
Degree of product differentiation in the industry (1 = very low to 5 = very high)
Stage in product life cycle (1 = emergence to 5 = decline)
Years on the market (years)
Market growth rate (1 = very low to 5 = very high)
Expected length of the product life cycle (1 = less than 18 months to 5 = over 10 years)
Visibility of the future for the product (1 = not-at-all to 5 = highly visible)
Visibility of the future for technology underlying the product (1 = not-at-all to 5 = highly
visible)
Competition in the target market (1 = very weak to 5 = very strong)
Ease of entry of new companies into the market (1 = very easy to 5 = very difficult)
Consumer reaction variables
Benefits perceived by the consumer in comparison to others in the market (1 = none to
5 = substantial)
Level of consumer involvement in the choice decision (1 = not-at-all to 5 = highly involved)
Level of consumer knowledge about the product category (1 = very limited to 5 = very
extensive)
Scope of consumer information search (1 = very limited to 5 = very extensive)
Evaluation process (1 = highly routinized; 2 = some, if not all, attributes as well as brand
name considered; 3 = product attributes examined very carefully and extensively)
Marketing strategy variables (These represent assessment of the firm's decisions during the
preceding 18-month period compared to the industry average for the specific product under
consideration)
Percentage of total product sales spent on marketing (1 = much less than industry average
to 5 = much more)
Percentage of total product sales spent on media advertising (1 = much less than industry
average to 5 = much more)
Table I. (continued)
Measured variables
Percentage of total product sales spent on sales promotion (samples, cash refunds, gifts, Marketing high
prizes, etc.) for customers (1 = much less than industry average to 5 = much more) technology
Percentage of total product sales spent on sales promotion (discounts, advertising
allowances, trade shows, etc.) for channel intermediaries (1 = much less than industry products
average to 5 = much more)
Change in sales people (1 = decreased to a great extent to 5 = increased to a great extent)
Percentage of total product sales spent on R&D (1 = much less than industry average to
5 = much more) 1061
Importance of warranties to customers (1 = not-at-all important to 5 = very important)
Relative price (1 = very low to 5 = very high)

Price change (1 = decreased to a great extent to 5 = increased to a great extent)
Change in members of the channel of distribution (1 = decreased to a great extent to
5 = increased to a great extent)
Change toward forward integration (1 = much less to 5 = much more)
Change toward backward integration (1 = much less to 5 = much more)
Performance variables
Change in market share in the last 18 months (1 = decreased to a great extent to
5 = increased to a great extent)
Increase (decrease) in ROI in the last 18 months (1 = decreased to a great extent to
5 = increased to a great extent) Table I.
environment (e.g. competition in the target market, ease of entry of new

companies into the market, degree of product standardization/differentiation,
etc.) or the market potential (e.g. market growth rate, expected length of the
product life cycle, visibility of the future for the product, etc.). The items are
also shown in Table I. The basic hypotheses underlying these measures are as
follows:
H2a: High technology products, compared to low technology products, are
at an early stage of the product life cycle and have been in the market
for a relatively short period of time.
H2b: High technology products are affected by a more turbulent
environment.
H2c: New companies have more difficulty in entering the market for high
technology products.
H2d: The market for high technology products shows greater product
heterogeneity, i.e. less standardization and more differentiation.
H2e: High technology products show higher market growth.
H2f: The future of the technology underlying high technology products is
less visible.
Consumer reaction measures. Consumer responses to high technology products
were also measured. As mentioned earlier, Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1990)
imply that high technology products should deliver unique benefits to the
consumer to be successful in the market. In addition, Rossiter and Percy (1997,
Chapter 7) suggest that the higher the level of technology, the higher the level
of consumer involvement with the product. This is consistent with the past
literature indicating that the level of perceived risk increases with the level of
European product technology (Davis et al., 1989; Gatignon and Robertson, 1989; Leonard-
Journal of Barton and Kraus, 1985; Moriarty and Kosnik, 1989). Thus, we propose that
Marketing purchasing a high technology product is a high-involving situation, which
usually entails wider scope of consumer information search and careful
34,9/10 attribute-by-attribute evaluation of the product. In fact, higher levels of
information are provided by the marketers of high technology products (Glazer,
1062 1991; Althaide et al., 1996). Therefore:
H3: The purchase of a high technology product is usually made in a high-
involving situation, which typically entails wider scope of information

search and careful attribute-by-attribute evaluation of the product.
To test this hypothesis, consumer reaction measures were developed, which
consisted of perceived benefits of the product, level of involvement, level of
consumer knowledge about the product category, scope of information search,
and consumer evaluation process (see Table I).
Marketing strategy. According to Dunn et al. (1991), ``push'' marketing
strategies with an emphasis on personal selling should be used by the marketer
of high technology products, whereas ``pull'' strategies with an emphasis on
advertising and sales promotion are effective in marketing low technology
products. Personal selling can be an effective marketing tool especially for high
technology products because, as Porter (1980) points out, there is often an
absence of existing channels or infrastructure for an emerging industry. Even if
there exists a channel structure, it should change rapidly to match the mutable
needs of manufacturers and buyers (Gardner, 1990b).
Another important issue is the pricing decision for high technology
products. Relying only on production costs can be risky because the product
can be either over-priced or under-priced. Grunenwald and Vernon (1988,
pp. 68-9) suggest that consumer perception-based pricing and value pricing are
useful alternatives to cost-based pricing. We hypothesize that since high
technology products usually provide some unique benefits for customers and
the customers tend to be less sensitive to price, an initial high price or
skimming pricing would work in this case. Thus, it is expected that:
H4a: Personal selling is used more in the marketing strategy for high
technology products whereas advertising and sales promotion are
used more for low technology products.
H4b: High technology products involve changes in distribution strategy.
H4c: Price skimming strategies are more likely to be used for high
technology products.
Other strategic variables were also included such as research and development
(R&D, hereafter) investment and product warranties. Such a wide range of
marketing strategy variables was developed based primarily on Buzzell and
Gale (1987) and Porter (1980). Those are listed in Table I.
Performance. One of the major purposes of this study was to determine
relative impact of marketing strategies on product performance. It was
hypothesized that:
H5: The impact of marketing strategy on performance depends on the Marketing high
technology levels of the product. technology
The performance of the product was measured by the change in market share and products
ROI (return on investment) in the last 18 months. The questions asked were:
``During the last 18 months, to what extent has the market share of this product
changed?''; and ``During the last 18 months, to what extent has the ROI (return on
investment; profit as a percentage of investment) changed for this product?''. In 1063
each case, a five-point rating scale was used which ranged from
1 = ``decreased to a great extent'' to 5 = `ìncreased to a great extent (see Table I)''.
Research methodology
To achieve the purpose of the study, a survey of firms in Australia was carried
out. Extensive informal interviews confirmed that Australia is typical of many
countries including the United States, Canada and most of Europe, in that there
is a wide and vibrant range of activity that can be classified as ``high
technology''[2]. In addition, as noted below, the range of firms is identifiable
with individual firms willing to share information in a questionnaire format.
Questionnaire
Based on the extensive literature review and interviews, a questionnaire was
designed and pretested. The questionnaire was a self-administered mail
questionnaire that included 84 items[3]. To increase reliability, respondents
were first asked to identify a product which served as a point of reference.
Specifically, they were asked to select a particular product that had been
recently introduced by their firm and to respond to various questions about:
. the market and industry environment for the product;
. the production and distribution technology involved;
. customer reactions to the product;
. the marketing strategies used; and
. the performance of the product in the marketplace.
Most items used a five-point scale as shown in Table I. Some questions
required the respondent to provide percentage estimates or other estimates. For
instance, respondents were asked, ``How long has this product been on the
market?'' Pretesting had shown that the requested information was readily
available without additional search on the part of the properly qualified
respondent. Furthermore, pretesting had indicated that the questions were
accurately understood.
Sample selection
A comprehensive list of Australian high technology companies was used,
which had been assembled by the Centre for Technology and Social Change
(TASC) at the University of Wollongong. The particular approach used by
TASC to develop its list of high technology companies is called ``core
European sampling''. Core sampling relies on the identification of ``seams'' judged to be
Journal of rich on a priori grounds. These grounds include such things as being most
Marketing advanced in the development or application of a particular innovation, or
having particular relevant characteristics such as perceived comparative
34,9/10 advantage. The selected seams were then mined by sampling across them. The
core samples included large R&D performing companies selected through
1064 membership of the Australian Industrial research group and the Australian
communications industry. The list developed by TASC was the most
comprehensive list available and has been used as the basis for major studies of
technology in Australian industries carried out for the government (e.g. Centre
for Technology and Social Change, 1990a, 1990b). The questionnaire was
mailed to all 350 organizations on the list with one follow-up reminder with a
resulting response rate of 35 per cent (n = 104).
A control group of low technology companies was sampled from the
furniture, textiles, carpet, food and metals industries. A commercially available
mailing list was obtained from Dunn and Bradstreet using the appropriate
ANZSIC/SIC codes and selecting organizations with more than 20 employees.
The response rate was much lower at 9 per cent (n = 150).
From the completed questionnaires, 254 products were identified. An
independent rating of these products was carried out to assess each reported
product's level of technology. A total of 55 graduate students were asked to
assess the ``level of technology'' for each product from low to high on a seven-
point scale. This rating produced a mean score for all products of 2.99 with a
standard deviation of 1.02.
Results
Measure validation
Producer and consumer dimensions of technology. Items were included in the
questionnaire to measure the degree of production/distribution innovation and
the degree of consumer adaptation involved in the focal products introduction.
These are referred to as the production and consumption dimensions of the
focal product's technology. The items comprising each scale are shown in
Table II. An exploratory factor analysis of the items shows good discrimination
and the reliability of the scales is acceptable. The correlation between the
resulting scales is 0.40.
Market and industry environment measures. A factor analysis was used to
identify and develop measures of key dimensions of the market and industry
environment of the focal product. Multi-item scales were developed to measure
some dimensions. In Table III, the resulting measures and their factor loadings
are described. The measures have been chosen based on the factor loadings.
Multi-item scales have been developed for items loading highly on one factor.
Single item measures are retained if an item is the single highest loading item
on a factor or if the item has low commonality and loads on none of the factors.
Non-loading items reflect additional dimensions not correlated with any of the
factors and are therefore, retained for the analysis[4]. For the market and
Scale items Factor 1 Factor 2 Marketing high
technology
Producer technology (alpha = 0.68) products
Magnitude of change required to manufacture the product 0.19 0.54
Magnitude of change required to distribute and sell the product 0.10 0.63
Compatibility of the technology underlying product with existing
technology in the market 0.16 0.51
Perceived financial risk (and/or opportunity cost) to your firm caused
1065
by the product 0.33 0.57
Consumer technology (alpha = 0.65)

Financial risk (and/or opportunity cost) perceived by the customer 0.44 0.19
Magnitude of change required for customer to install and use the
product 0.83 0.19
Complexity of change required to install and use the product 0.64 0.13 Table II.
Ease (or difficulty) for customer in primary market segment to Producer and consumer
understand product benefits 0.30 0.17 technology measures
Factors
Scale items 1 2 3 4 5
Stage in industry life cycle 0.18 0.86 0.11 0.17 0.21

Turbulence (alpha = 0.75)
Rate of technology change 0.64 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.09
Frequency of introduction of new products/
innovations relative to other industries 0.60 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.01
Pressure from customers for new technology 0.65 0.11 0.19 0.05 0.01
Rate of change in customer needs 0.66 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.06
Degree of product standardization 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.80 0.07
Degree of product differentiation 0.24 0.05 0.19 0.33 0.10
Years on the market 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.65
Market growth rate 0.23 0.10 0.37 0.02 0.21
Expected length of the product life cycle 0.35 0.03 0.22 0.09 0.25
Visibility of the future for the product 0.00 0.07 0.65 0.02 0.05
Visibility of future for technology underlying the
product 0.25 0.07 0.39 0.07 0.03
Competition in the target market 0.16 0.21 0.03 0.09 0.16
Ease of entry of new companies into the market 0.03 0.23 0.08 0.10 0.12
Notes: A number of measures of supplier and customer industrial network structure were
included, i.e.: percentage of purchases from the three largest suppliers (a question
asking for an estimate of the number of suppliers inversely correlates with this item
and also loads on the same factor); percentage of sales to the three largest Table III.
channel intermediaries (0 per cent if use direct sales force); and percentage of sales Market and industry
to the three largest end users environment measures
industry environment items, a five-factor solution was used as the basis for
developing measures based on a scree test and the interpretability of the
factors. The results are shown in Table III.
Consumer reaction measures. Consumer responses to the technology level of
the focal product were measured. Respondents evaluated the benefits of the
European product in comparison to other products in the market. They also rated their
Journal of level of involvement in making a purchase decision of the product, their level of
knowledge about the product category, the scope of product information
Marketing search, and the evaluation process. These measures were factor-analyzed. This
34,9/10 resulted in a single factor, as shown in Table IV.
Marketing strategy. A number of items were included in the questionnaire to
1066 measure different aspects of a firm's marketing strategy. An exploratory factor
analysis was used to develop measures of different dimensions of strategy,
with a scree test and factor interpretability used to determine the number of
factors. Multi-factorial items were excluded and the factor analysis was rerun.
Items with low communality were retained as single item measures. The
measures used for the analysis are summarized in Table V together with the
loadings of the five factor solution used.
Performance. Respondents were asked to rate the performance of the focal
product in terms of changes in market share and return on investment. The
correlation between the items was 0.60. Therefore, simple average ratings on
these items were used for the analysis.
Classification of low vs. high technology products

The mean ratings received for each product from the external rating sample act
as an external validity check on the measures of technology used. To examine
how well the measures of consumer and producer technology predicted the
external criterion measure, we regressed the mean ratings on the two measures.
The significance of an interaction between the two dimensions was tested by
introducing another variable into the regression equation, which was the
product of the two technology measures. The results are shown in Table VI,
Part A. These results show that both producer and consumer technology
measures are significant predictors of the mean technology ratings, which in
turn, provide support for the idea that both dimensions are important
components of high technology. The interaction term is also significant,
indicating that the high technology ratings involve more than a simple sum of
the producer and customer dimensions. This supports the conceptualization of
high technology proposed in the study.
To further examine the nature of the interaction effect, the mean technology
ratings were compared in regards to different levels of consumer and producer
technology. Products were split into low and high scoring groups for each scale
Scale items Factor 1
Benefits perceived by the consumer in comparison to others on market 0.20

Consumer involvement (alpha = 0.60)
Level of consumer involvement in the choice decision 0.48
Table IV. Level of consumer knowledge about the product category 0.43
Consumer reaction Scope of consumer information search 0.70
measures Evaluation process 0.54
Factor Marketing high
Scale items 1 2 3 4 5 technology
products
Promotion (alpha = 0.77)
Percentage of sales on marketing 0.57 0.34 0.13 0.07 0.10
Percentage of sales on media advertising 0.72 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.20
Percentage of sales on sales promotion 0.70 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.23
Percentage of sales on sales promotion for channel 0.64 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.05
1067
intermediaries
Change in sales people 0.01 0.32 0.08 0.19 0.52

Percentage of sales on R&D 0.28 0.80 0.07 0.12 0.05
Warranties offered to customer 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.60 0.04
Relative price 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.18 0.27
Price change 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.19
Channel
Change in channel intermediaries 0.04 0.03 0.74 0.22 0.03
Extent of forward integrationa 0.07 0.05 0.42 0.18 0.04
Extent of backward integration 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.20 Table V.
Measures of marketing
a
Notes: Item excluded from scale due to low reliability strategy
based on whether they scored less than or equal to 2 or greater than 2. This
split resulted in 35 per cent of products being assigned to the high scoring
group on the consumer technology scale and 54 per cent for the producer
technology scale (see Table VII). A division into high (greater than or equal to
3), medium (greater than 2 and less than 3), and low (less than or equal to 2)
scoring groups resulted in too few cases falling into particular cells and also
indicated that the main differences in the means occurred between the low
versus the medium and high groups. Therefore, the medium and high groups
were collapsed into one.
Producer Consumer
technology technology
Dependent variable (PT) (CT) PT CT R2 n
Part A
Mean high technology rating 0.41** 0.85*** 0.67** 0.22*** 237
Part B
Marketing strategy
Promotion 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.01 216
Change in sales people 0.34* 0.23 0.28 0.5*** 239
R&D 0.60** 0.45** 0.60** 0.12*** 235
Warranties 0.07 0.31 0.14 0.5** 239
Relative price 0.43** 0.45** 0.42 0.11*** 238 Table VI.
Price increase 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.0 234 Regression of producer
Channel 0.22 0.03 0.07 0.02* 231 technology, consumer
Backward integration 0.16 0.13 0.21 0.0 223 technology, and their
interaction (beta
Notes: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01 coefficients)
European Figure 2 shows the mean technology ratings for the low and high consumer
Journal of technology groups for each producer technology group. The mean technology
Marketing ratings are the highest for the products in the high customer and high producer
technology groups. An interaction effect is indicated by the greater difference
34,9/10 in ratings between low and high supplier technology groups for products that
are also in the low customer technology group. Thus, it appears that when
1068 customer technology is low, differences in producer technology seem to have a
greater impact on how ``high-tech'' a product is perceived to be. On the other
hand, when consumer technology is high, the impact of differences in producer

technology is not as great.
Market and industry characteristics of low vs. high technology products

The measures of producer and consumer technology as well as the mean
technology ratings were correlated with the measures of the market and industry
characteristics included in the survey. The results are shown in Table VIII.
While there are only a few differences in the correlations among the three
measures of technology, they are sufficient to indicate some discriminant
validity. For example, less product standardization is significantly correlated
with consumer technology but not producer technology. This most likely
reflects the impact of customer adaptations resulting from new products on
Producer technology
Consumer technology Low ( 2) High (> 2) All
Table VII. Low ( 2) 2.57 2.91 2.72

Mean technology (n) (85) (68) (153)
ratings for high- and High (> 2) 3.37 3.56 3.55
low-scoring producer (n) (24) (60) (87)
and consumer All 2.75 3.21 3.02
technology products (109) (128) (237)
Figure 2.
Mean technology rating
by producer and
consumer technology
Producer technology Consumer Mean technology Marketing high
technology rating technology
Market and industry measure R n R n R n
products
Stage in industry life cycle 0.23*** 250 0.19*** 246 0.25*** 247
Turbulence 0.15** 251 0.24*** 246 0.47*** 248
Product standardization 0.05 251 0.15** 246 0.19*** 248
Product differentiation 0.16** 250 0.18*** 245 0.16** 247
1069
Years on the market 0.19*** 210 0.11 205 0.03 205
Market growth rate 0.15** 249 0.09 244 0.13** 246

Expected length of PLC 0.05 251 0.07 246 0.23*** 248
Visibility of future for product 0.05 250 0.05 245 0.05 247
Visibility of future for 0.13** 248 0.13** 243 0.29*** 246
technology
Competition 0.02 251 0.00 246 0.03 248
Ease of entry 0.26*** 250 0.13** 245 0.13** 247
Percentage of purchases from 0.10 192 0.15** 187 0.16** 186
three largest suppliers
Percentage of sales to three 0.03 188 0.08 186 0.05 186
largest intermediatires
Percentage of sales to three 0.09 208 0.06 204 0.09 204 Table VIII.
largest customers Correlations of
Perceived benefits 0.03 248 0.03 243 0.02 245 technology measures
Consumer involvement 0.28*** 246 0.26*** 241 0.43*** 243 with market/industry
characteristics and
Notes: * p > 0.1; ** p > 0.05; *** p > 0.01 consumer reactions
perceptions of standardization. Changes in production and distribution

methods may not be obvious in the resulting product and the way it is bought
and consumed. Correlations with time on the market and market growth are
stronger and significant for the producer technology measure. This suggests
that newness and rapid market growth are hallmarks of such high technology
products. Adaptations in customer buying and consuming behavior become
more apparent as the market develops and the early majority and late majority
adopters come into the market. Thus, customer technology may not necessarily
be inversely correlated with time on the market and rapid growth.
Confirmation of this interpretation must await the results of further studies.
Technology and strategy

What factors influence the type of marketing strategy used? The association
between the two dimensions of technology and marketing/business strategy
was examined using OLS (ordinary least squares) regression. Table VI, Part B
shows the results of regressing each measure of strategy on the measures of
customer and producer technology as well as the interaction between them.
The estimated beta coefficients, their significance and the R2 are shown. Since
this is an exploratory study, significance levels at 10 per cent are considered in
interpreting the results.
European Only three of the strategy dimensions show a significant association with the
Journal of measures of technology, i.e. change in number of sales people, R&D and
relative price. Increase in the number of sales personnel is positively linked to
Marketing the extent of change in producer technology, which may reflect the need for
34,9/10 more personal service in these situations. As is to be expected, the percentage
of sales spent on R&D is directly associated with both the consumer and
1070 producer technology measures. This reflects the outcomes of R&D on the
technology of the resulting product. The R&D interaction term is also
significant. Last, ``relative price'' is strongly linked to the two measures of

technology indicating the opportunity to charge higher prices for more
advanced technological products.
Adding market and industry predictors of strategy

Other factors besides technology drive marketing strategy. Thus, regressions
were run with all the environmental variables including market and industry
characteristics as well as technology, as potential predictors of marketing
strategy. Stepwise regression was used to identify the main predictor variables.
Again, due to the exploratory nature of the research, the significance limits for
inclusion in the regression equation were set at 0.10. The results are shown in
Table IX.
No significant predictor variables were found for two strategy measures, i.e.
promotion and backward integration. The measures of the producer and
consumer technology enter the regression equation as significant predictors in
four of the six other strategy dimensions. Increase in the number of sales people
is positively associated with producer technology, market growth and the
percentage share of sales to the three largest channel intermediaries. All these
factors serve to increase the work required to be performed by sales staff and
hence lead to an increase in sales personnel. R&D is positively linked to
producer technology, but customer technology no longer enters the equation.
Technology, market, and industry measures

Strategy dimension A B C D E F G H R2 df
Promotion
Change in sales people 0.19** 0.19** 0.16** 0.09*** 3,147
R&D 0.24** 0.16** 0.17** 0.15*** 3,147
Warranties 0.15* 0.20** 0.15* 0.12** 3,147
Relative price 0.24** 0.13* 0.08** 1,148
Price increase 0.14* 0.13* 0.04** 2,148
Increase in number of 0.18** 0.03 1,149
intermediaries
Backward integration
Table IX. Notes: * p > 0.1; ** p > 0.05; *** p > 0.01;
Regression of strategy A = Product technology; B = Consumer technology; C = Consumer involvement;
on technology, market D = Market growth; E = Uncertainty; F = Product standardization; G = Perceived benefits;
and industry measures H = Percentage of sales to the three largest channel intermediaries
Instead, consumer involvement and uncertainty about the future for the Marketing high
product are significant predictors. These results seem to reflect the outcomes of technology
R&D and the resulting production technology on the problems of predicting the
market for such products. These are some of the characteristics of high
products
technology products (Gardner, 1990b).
The importance of warranties is predicted by consumer technology. In
addition, the measures of consumer involvement levels and perceived 1071
uncertainty enter the equation as significant predictors. The price relative to
competition is linked to the degree of producer technology and inversely related

to the degree of product standardization. The latter result reflects the degree to
which the product differentiates itself and hence can command a price
premium. The extent of price increase in the last 18 months is inversely related
to market uncertainty but directly related to the perceived benefits of the
product. Finally, increase in the number of channel intermediaries is directly
related to market growth, reflecting the need to expand distribution to access
and serve a growing market.
Technology, strategy and performance

The final part of the analysis examines the impact of strategy on performance
while controlling for technology. It is designed to test the hypotheses that
certain elements of strategy are more relevant in high, rather than low,
producer and consumer technology contexts. In order to test for differences in
the relationship between strategy and performance, we divided the sample into
high and low technology subsamples for each of the main measures of
technology separately and in combination. We also used the mean technology
ratings generated by the external raters in dividing the group as part of the
validity test of the technology measures. For each subsample the correlations
between the performance measure and each measure of strategy were
computed. The results are shown in Table X.
The subsamples were derived as follows. First, the sample was divided into
high and low producer and consumer technology groups according to whether
they scored above or below 2 on the respective scales. The value of 2 was
chosen based on the results of the analysis of the validity of the technology
measure as described earlier, and because it resulted in adequate subsample
sizes for the regression analysis. Second, products were divided into low (less
than or equal to 2), medium (greater than 2 and less than 3) and high (greater
than or equal to 3) technology groups based on their scores on each of the
technology dimensions. Combining these two groupings resulted in a 3 3
matrix, which approximated the technology matrix described earlier (see
Figure 1). Products were grouped into low technology and high technology
categories based on their position in this matrix. Cells 1, 2 and 4 were classified
as low technology and 6, 8 and 9 as high technology products. Lastly, products
were grouped into low and high technology groups based on the mean
technology ratings they received from the external ratings sample. Those with
a mean score greater than 3.5 (or the mid-point of the scale) were classified as
high technology, and those scoring less than or equal to 3.5 as low technology.
European Marketing strategy dimensions
Journal of Sample A B C D E F G H
Marketing
All 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.26*** 0.20*** 0.04
34,9/10 (n) (207) (225) (221) (226) (226) (226) (221) (213)
Producer technology
Low ( 2) 0.15 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.19* 0.21* 0.04
1072 (n)
High (> 2) 0.08 0.24*** 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.32*** 0.22** 0.10
(n) (107) (118) (116) (119) (119) (120) (117) (111)

Customer technology
Low ( 2) 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.24*** 0.22*** 0.03
(n) (132) (141) (140) (141) (142) (141) (140) (136)
High (> 2) 0.10 0.25** 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.33*** 0.20* 0.00
(n) (71) (79) (76) (80) (79) (80) (76) (72)
Combined technology
Low technology 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.15 0.25*** 0.22*** 0.07
(n) (122) (129) (126) (128) (129) (128) (126) (122)
High technology 0.10 0.26* 0.25 0.13 0.06 0.27* 0.32** 0.14
(n) (38) (42) (41) (43) (43) (43) (41) (40)
Mean external
technology ratings
Low ( 3.5) 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.21** 0.31*** 0.04
(n) (141) (151) (149) (150) (151) (151) (148) (146)
High (> 3.5) 0.27** 0.18 0.16 0.09 0.14 0.31*** 0.05 0.05
(n) (60) (68) (66) (70) (69) (70) (67) (62)
Table X.
Correlation of Notes: * p > 0.1; ** p > 0.05; *** p > 0.01
performance with A = Promotion; B = Increase in number of sales people; C = R&D;
strategy for different D = Warranties; E = Relative price; F = Price increase; G = increase in number of channel
technology situations intermediaries; H = Backward integration
Two measures of strategy were significantly correlated with performance in

nearly all situations, i.e. price increase in the last 18 months and increase in the
number of channel intermediaries. These results indicate the ability of a
successful product to command higher prices and the need to support further
success with additional channel resources. However, there appear to be no
systematic differences between high and low technology products with regard
to the impact of these two strategy elements. Promotion effort was significantly
correlated with performance in high technology situations defined by the mean
technology ratings. Increase in the number of sales people was significantly
associated with performance in high rather than low technology situations,
indicating the importance of this element of the marketing mix in
communicating more complex information regarding products involving
higher levels of technology. None of the correlations between performance and
other measures of strategy were significant, although R&D had consistently
stronger correlations with performance in high technology situations.
Using OLS regression, performance was regressed on the measures of
strategy to determine the extent to which in combination they predict
performance. The results are shown in Table XI. As is to be expected, they are Marketing high
similar to the results of the correlation analysis with the following additions. technology
First, relative price emerges as a significant inverse predictor of performance in products
low technology situations, indicating the greater importance of price
competition in these contexts. Promotion is significantly correlated with
performance in the low producer technology situation, which could indicate the
role of promotion as a source of product differentiation in such situations. 1073
However, the result should not be overgeneralized as it is only marginally
significant. Last, R&D is a significant predictor of performance in the combined

dimension of high technology situation, which focuses on products that are
more completely high technology. The result reflects the role of R&D in
generating such products.
Discussion
The main goal of this research was to determine the relationships among the
market environment, strategies and company performance for high technology
products. The results of the research, summarized in Table XII, lend support to
the conceptualization of high technology in terms of two underlying
dimensions reflecting the degree of change in technology and behavior required
on the production/supply side of the market and the customer/buyer side of the
market. The combination of these two dimensions defines the context within
which marketing strategy must be developed and impacts on the results of
different strategies. The measures developed for the producer and consumer
technology dimensions exhibit acceptable levels of internal reliability, and an
Marketing strategy dimensions

Strategy dimension A B C D E F G H R2 df
All 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.13* 0.27*** 0.20*** 0.05 0.14*** 8,198
Producer technology
Low ( 2) 0.20* 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.23** 0.21** 0.23** 0.01 0.15* 8,90
High (> 2) 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.33*** 0.17* 0.11 0.20*** 8,98
Consumer technology
Low ( 2) 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.15* 0.25*** 0.24*** 0.05 0.14** 8,123
High (> 2) 0.06 0.20 0.16 0.07 0.02 0.33*** 0.19 0.13 0.22* 8,60
Combined technology
Low technology 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.09 0.23** 0.30*** 0.25*** 0.06 0.19*** 8,113
High technology 0.11 0.19 0.31* 0.09 0.16 0.18 0.35** 0.20 0.31 8,29
Mean external
technology ratings
Low ( 3.5) 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.21* 0.32*** 0.07 0.15** 8,132
High (> 3.5) 0.25* 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.24* 0.07 0.06 0.22 8,49
Notes: * p > 0.1; ** p > 0.05; *** p > 0.01; Table XI.
A = Promotion; B = Increase in number of sales people; C = R&D; Regression of
D = Warranties; E = Relative price; F = Price increase; G = increase in number of channel performance on
intermediaries; H = Backward integration strategy measures
European Strategy-performance link
Journal of Strategy (strategies that should be
Environment (strategies that are used) used)
Marketing
34,9/10 Earlier stage in industry life Increased number of sales Increased number of sales
cycle people people
More turbulent More R&D investment More R&D investment
1074 Products less standardized Increased importance of More sales promotion
Products more differentiated warranties Increased price
Less years on the market Higher price More channel intermediaries

Higher market growth rate More channel intermediaries
Shorter PLC expected
Table XII. More visible future for
The environment, technology
strategy and Easier to enter the industry
performance link for Purchases from more diverse
high technology suppliers
products Higher consumer involvement
external validity check supports the validity of the measures as separate

dimensions predicting the extent to which the product is perceived as ``high-
tech''.
Several market and industry characteristics of high versus low technology
products were identified in the analysis, which conformed with expectations
about the nature of high technology products and reinforced the validity of the
sampling and measurement methods. The market environment for high
technology products, compared to that for low technology, was identified with
the earlier stage of the industry life cycle, greater degree of turbulence, higher
product differentiation, higher market growth rate, shorter expected life cycle,
more visible future for technology, easier entry into the market, more diverse
suppliers, and higher level of consumer involvement in purchase decisions.
Such market characteristics had significant impact on marketing strategies of
high technology products, resulting in increased number of sales people and
channel intermediaries, more R&D investment, increased importance of
product warranties, and a relatively higher price.
Our results also suggest that the impact of marketing strategy on product
performance is contingent on the technological context within which it
operates. While price and channel support emerged as key determinants of
performance in nearly all situations, the role of sales personnel and perhaps
promotion and R&D were emphasized in high technology situations. Price
competition was more important in low technology situations. Interestingly,
these strategies that high technology companies should use were consistent, to
a great extent, with those that they actually used. Thus, most of the research
hypotheses were confirmed in the study.
Conclusions Marketing high
We began this paper with the questions `Ìs marketing high technology technology
different?'' and `Ìf there is a difference, does it make a difference?'' In regard to
the first question, we have identified a number of ways in which the marketing
products
of high technology is different. First, we have identified two important
dimensions of high technology. One is related to the supply side of the market
and to the changes in production and supplying technology associated with 1075
new products. The second is related to the demand side of the market and to the
changes in buying and consuming technology associated with new products.

Each dimension creates a difference in marketing situation and associated
marketing problems for a firm. Second, our results demonstrate that the market
and industry environmental characteristics that marketers have to contend
with in relation to high versus low technology products differ in significant
ways. Third, the marketing strategy used by firms in high versus low
technology product contexts differs in significant ways.
Regarding the second question, ``Does it make a difference?'', we find that
while price and channel strategy elements are important predictors of market
performance in both the high and low technology contexts, the impact of other
elements of marketing strategy appear to depend on the technological context.
For example, the important role of sales people in high technology situations is
indicated (as well as possibly promotion in some situations) whereas the role of
price competition is much less important.
These results lend empirical support for the ideas about high technology
marketing developed earlier in this paper. However, as with any research of
this kind, we must call for further studies of this type to enable comparison of
results in other industries and national contexts. The measures of technology
and marketing strategy developed can also be improved through the use of
additional, possibly industry or firm-specific questions. Hopefully, this study
has provided a useful platform for further work to proceed in this area of ever-
increasing importance in marketing.
Notes
1. See Oakey et al. (1988, Ch. 4) for a discussion and critical evaluation of this approach.
2. See also comment on the early adoption of technology in Australia and technology
penetration rates in Australia (Horwith, 1997).
3. A copy of the questionnaire is available from the authors.
4. One item, ``stage in product life cycle'', was dropped from the analysis. It loaded highly on
the ``years on the market'' factor but was measured on a different type of scale. Hence, it
was inappropriate to combine the two items into one scale. The strongest loading item was
used to represent the factor.
References
Althaide, G.A., Meyers, P.W. and Wilemon, D.L. (1996), ``Seller-buyer interactions during the
commercialization of technological process innovations'', Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 13, pp. 406-21.
Ansoff, I. and McDonnell, E. (1990), Implanting Strategic Management, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall
International (UK), Hemel Hempstead.
European Bahrami, H. and Evans, S. (1989), ``Strategy making in high-technology firms: the empiricist
mode'', California Management Review, Winter, pp. 107-28.
Journal of Buzzell, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987), The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance, The
Marketing Free Press, New York, NY.
34,9/10 Capon, N. and Glazer, R. (1987), ``Marketing and technology: a strategic coalignment'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51, July, pp. 1-14.
1076 Centre for Technology and Social Change (1990a), Technology Strategies in Australian Industry,
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Centre for Technology and Social Change (1990b), Strategic Alliances in the Internationalisation
of Australian Industry, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1990), New Products: The Key Factors in Success, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), `Ùser acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models'', Management Science, Vol. 35, August, pp. 982-
1003.
Dunn, D.T. Jr, Friar, J.H. and Thomas, C.A. (1991), `Àn approach to selling high-tech solutions'',
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 20, pp. 149-59.
Ellen, P.S., Bearden, W.O. and Sharma, S. (1991), ``Resistance to technological innovations: an
examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction'', Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 297-307.
Firth, R.W. and Narayana, V.K. (1996), ``New product strategies of large, dominant product
manufacturing firms: an exploratory analysis'', Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 13, pp. 334-47.
Gardner, D.M. (1990a), `Àre high technology products really different?'', Faculty Working Paper,
No.90-1706, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Gardner, D.M. (1990b), `À strategic approach to high technology marketing'', Faculty Working
Paper, No.90-1707, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1989), ``Technology diffusion: an empirical test of competitive
effects'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, January, pp. 35-49.
Ginsberg, A. and Venkatraman, N. (1985), ``Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy:
a critical review of the empirical research'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 421-34.
Glazer, R. (1991), ``Marketing in an information-intensive environment: strategic implications of
knowledge as an asset'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, October, pp. 1-19.
Grunenwald, J. and Vernon, T.T. (1988), ``Pricing decision making for high-technology products
and services'', Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 3, Winter, pp. 61-70.
Hambrick, D.C. and Lei, D. (1985), ``Toward an empirical prioritization of contingency variables
for business strategy'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 763-88.
Harrigan, K.R. (1980), Strategies for Declining Businesses, D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA.
Harrigan, K.R. (1983a), ``Research methodologies for contingency approaches to business
strategy'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 398-405.
Harrigan, K.R. (1983b), Strategies for Vertical Integration, D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA.
Higgins, S.H. and Shanklin, W.L. (1992), ``Seeking mass market acceptance for high-technology
consumer products'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9, Winter, pp. 5-14.
Hofer, C.W. (1975), ``Toward a contingency theory of business strategy'', Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 784-810.
Horwitt, E. (1997), `Àustralia: a market with promise'', Computerworld, The Network, Marketing high
No. 25 (Supplement), 29 September, pp. 23-4.
Leonard-Barton, D. and Kraus, W.A. (1985), `Ìmplementing new technology'', Harvard Business
technology
Review, Vol. 63, November/December, pp. 102-10. products
Link, P.L. (1987), Marketing of High Technology: An Australian Perspective, Nelson Wadsworth,
Melbourne.
Lynn, G.S., Morone, J.G. and Paulson, A.S. (1996) ``Marketing and discontinuous innovation'', 1077
California Management Review, Vol. 3, Spring, pp. 8-37.
Maidique, M.A. and Hayes, R.H. (1984), ``The art of high-technology management'', Sloan
Management Review, Winter, pp. 17-31.
Moriarty, R.T. and Kosnik, T.J. (1989), ``High-tech marketing: concepts, continuity and change'',
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30, Summer, pp. 7-17.
Oakey, R., Rothwell, R. and Cooper, S. (1988), The Management of Innovation in High-Technology
Small Firms, Pinter Publishers Limited, London.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rexroad, R.A. (1983), High Technology Marketing Management, Ronald Press, New York, NY.
Riggs, H.E. (1983), Managing High Technology Companies, Lifetime Learning Publication,
Belmont, CA.
Robertson, T.S. (1967), ``The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 31, January, pp. 14-19.
Rosen, D.E., Schroeder, J.E. and Purinton, E.F. (1998), ``Marketing high tech products: lessons in
customer focus from the marketplace'', Journal of Consumer and Market Research [Online],
Vol. 98 No. 6.
Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1997), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Samili, A.C. and Wills, J. (1986), ``Strategies for marketing computers and related products'',
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 15, February, pp. 23-32.
Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Josey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Shanklin, W.L. and Ryans, J.K. Jr (1984), Marketing High Technology, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Veryzer, R.W. Jr (1998), ``Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new
products'', Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 136-50.
Yoon, E. and Lilien, G.L. (1985), ``New industrial product performance: the effects of market
characteristics and strategy'', Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 2,
September, pp. 134-44.
Zeithaml, V.A., Varadarajan, P. and Zeithaml, C.P. (1988), ``The contingency approach: its
foundations and relevance to theory building and research in marketing'', European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 37-64.
This article has been cited by:
1. Michelle Renton, Urs Daellenbach, Sally Davenport, Richard James E. 2016. Finding fit: An exploratory
look at SME brand orientation and brand management in the New Zealand food and beverage sector.
Journal of Brand Management . [CrossRef]
2. Raffaele FilieriHow Young Chinese Consumers Choose among Different Smartphone Brands: The
Importance of Socio-cultural and Marketing Factors 59-73. [CrossRef]
3. Gary Mortimer QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Larry
Neale QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Syed Fazal
E Hasan QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Benjamin
Dunphy QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia . 2015.
Investigating the factors influencing the adoption of m-banking: a cross cultural study. International
Journal of Bank Marketing 33:4, 545-570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Matti J. Haverila, Nicholas Ashill. 2014. Launch Effort and NPD Success: A Study of Technology Intensive
Companies in Finland. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 11:04, 1450024.
[CrossRef]
5. Niklas Arvidsson KTH Industrial Engineering and Management, Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
Stockholm, Sweden . 2014. Consumer attitudes on mobile payment services results from a proof of
concept test. International Journal of Bank Marketing 32:2, 150-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. D. C. Wimalachandra, B. Frank, T. EnkawaEnhancing NPD operational performance through B2B and
B2C customer involvement for varying degrees of product technology 714-718. [CrossRef]
7. Loke Siew-Phaik Faculty of Business Management, UiTM Perak Seri Iskandar Campus, Bota, Malaysia
Alan G. Downe Department of Management and Marketing, Curtin University, Sarawak, Malaysia Murali
Sambasivan Global Entrepreneurship Research and Innovation Center (GERIC), Universiti Malaysia
Kelantan, Kelantan, Malaysia and Taylor's Business School, Taylor's University Lakeside Campus, Sunway,
Malaysia . 2013. Strategic alliances with suppliers and customers in a manufacturing supply chain. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Business Administration 5:3, 192-214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Beom Suk Jin, Sol Hee Yoon, Yong Gu Ji. 2013. Development of a Continuous Usage Model for the
Adoption and Continuous Usage of a Smartphone. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
29:9, 563-581. [CrossRef]
9. Matti J. Haverila. 2013. Marketing variables when launching high-technology products into international
markets: An empirical study on Finnish technology firms. The Journal of High Technology Management
Research 24:1, 1-9. [CrossRef]
10. Amily FikrySenior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing, Retailing and Entrepreneurship, Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia Zaidi Abdul Ghani@MukhtarPrincipal Researcher in the
Department of Security, Intelligent Application and Multimedia, Telekom Research and Development Sdn
Bhd (TMR&D), Selangor, Malaysia. 2012. Unified communication: it's all between you and me. Business
Strategy Series 13:4, 168-172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Peter Gabrielsson, Mika Gabrielsson, Tomi Seppl. 2012. Marketing Strategies for Foreign Expansion
of Companies Originating in Small and Open Economies: The Consequences of Strategic Fit and
Performance. Journal of International Marketing 20:2, 25-48. [CrossRef]
12. Nikolaj AmbruseviAssessment Of Importance Of Academic Society Developing Sector Of High
Technology 41-56. [CrossRef]
13. Nikolaj AmbruseviDevelopment of the Sector of High Technology: Identifying Aspects of Process
Determination 299-309. [CrossRef]
14. Seunghyun Lee, Sejin Ha, Richard Widdows. 2011. Consumer responses to high-technology products:
Product attributes, cognition, and emotions. Journal of Business Research 64:11, 1195-1200. [CrossRef]
15. Nizar SouidenLaval University, Sillery, Canada Frank PonsLaval University, Sillery, Canada and Euromed
Management, Marseilles, France MarieEve MayrandLaval University, Sillery, Canada. 2011. Marketing
hightech products in emerging markets: the differential impacts of country image and countryoforigin's
image. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:5, 356-367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. , JaeHyeonPAE, . 2011. . 25:null,
5-25. [CrossRef]
17. Bo RundhDepartment of Business Administration, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden. 2011.
Development of customer value in a supply chain: managerial thinking about strategic marketing. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:4, 260-272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Olli Kuivalainen, Sanna Sundqvist, John W. Cadogan Entrepreneurial orientation and international
performance: A contingent approach 271-298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
19. Ilanit Gavious, Meir Russ. 2009. The valuation implications of human capital in transactions on and outside
the exchange. Advances in Accounting 25:2, 165-173. [CrossRef]
20. Johan GaddeforsDepartment of Business Studies, University of Gavle, Gavle, Sweden Alistair R.
AndersonThe Charles P. Skene Centre for Entrepreneurship, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen,
UK. 2009. Market creation: the epitome of entrepreneurial marketing practices. Journal of Research in
Marketing and Entrepreneurship 10:1, 19-39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Hyun-Joo Lee, Heejin Lim, Laura D. Jolly, Jieun Lee. 2009. Consumer Lifestyles and Adoption of High-
Technology Products: A Case of South Korea. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 21:2, 153-167.
[CrossRef]
22. Vinh La, Paul Patterson, Chris Styles. 2009. Client-perceived performance and value in professional B2B
services: An international perspective. Journal of International Business Studies 40:2, 274-300. [CrossRef]
23. Eugenijus Chlivickas, Neringa Petrauskaite, Nikolaj Ambrusevi. 2009. Leading priorities for development
of the high technologies market. Journal of Business Economics and Management 10:4, 321-328. [CrossRef]
24. Suechin Yang, Hsin-Hong Kang. 2008. Is synergy always good? Clarifying the effect of innovation capital
and customer capital on firm performance in two contexts. Technovation 28:10, 667-678. [CrossRef]
25. Tomi Dahlberg, Niina Mallat, Jan Ondrus, Agnieszka Zmijewska. 2008. Past, present and future of
mobile payments research: A literature review. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 7:2, 165-181.
[CrossRef]
26. Schaul Chorev, Alistair Anderson Chapter 15 Success Factors for High-Tech Start Ups: Views and Lessons
of Israeli ExpertsSchaul Chorev and Alistair AndersonSuccess Factors for High-Tech Start Ups: Views
and Lessons of Israeli Experts 239-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
27. Bibliography 243-310. [CrossRef]
28. Ruth Stock-Homburg, Harley Krohmer. 2007. Internationale Markenstandardisierung: Ganz oder gar
nicht?. Zeitschrift fr Betriebswirtschaft 77:10, 1065-1091. [CrossRef]
29. Ming-Hung Hsieh, Kuen-Hung Tsai. 2007. Technological capability, social capital and the launch strategy
for innovative products. Industrial Marketing Management 36:4, 493-502. [CrossRef]
30. Schaul Chorev, Alistair R. Anderson. 2006. Marketing in high-tech start-ups: Overcoming the liability
of newness in Israel. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 2:2, 281-297. [CrossRef]
31. Ming-Hung Hsieh, Kuen-Hung Tsai, Erik Jan Hultink. 2006. The Relationships between Resource
Configurations and Launch Strategies in Taiwan's IC Design Industry: An Exploratory Study. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 23:3, 259-273. [CrossRef]
32. Kim-Shyan Fam, Zhilin Yang. 2006. Primary influences of environmental uncertainty on promotions
budget allocation and performance: A cross-country study of retail advertisers. Journal of Business Research
59:2, 259-267. [CrossRef]
33. Schaul Chorev, Alistair R. Anderson. 2006. Success in Israeli high-tech start-ups; Critical factors and
process. Technovation 26:2, 162-174. [CrossRef]

34. Vinh Q. LaSchool of Marketing, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Paul G.
PattersonSchool of Marketing, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Chris W.
StylesUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 2005. Determinants of export performance across service
types: a conceptual model. Journal of Services Marketing 19:6, 379-391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Joze LapierreEcole Polytechnique of Montral, Montral, Canada Jimmy SkellingEcole Polytechnique of
Montral, Montral, Canada. 2005. Salesforce control system in hightech contexts: do environment and
industry matter?. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 20:6, 297-306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. K. SivakumarArthur Tauck Chair and Associate Professor, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,
USA Subroto RoyAssistant Professor of Marketing and International Business, University of New Haven,
West Haven, Connecticut, USA. 2004. Knowledge redundancy in supply chains: a framework. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 9:3, 241-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Minna MattilaProfessor of Marketing, University of Jyvskyl, School of Business and Economics
Marketing, Jyvskyl, Finland Heikki KarjaluotoSenior Teaching Assistant, University of Oulu, Finland
Tapio PentoProfessor of Marketing, University of Jyvskyl, School of Business and Economics Marketing,
Jyvskyl, Finland. 2003. Internet banking adoption among mature customers: early majority or laggards?.
Journal of Services Marketing 17:5, 514-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Annexure 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Annexure 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

European Journal of Marketing

A contingency approach to marketing high technology products

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A contingency approach to Marketing high

Received March 1998

low and high technology products?

Definition of high technology products

Can high technology be defined?

In a similar vein, Riggs (1983) focuses on the distinguishing features of high

Unfortunately, the scientific literature is no more productive in yielding

Contingency approach to marketing of high technology products

differences stem from the industry and market characteristics. Furthermore,

Research hypotheses and measures

Relative price (1 = very low to 5 = very high)

environment (e.g. competition in the target market, ease of entry of new

involving situation, which typically entails wider scope of information

1 = ``decreased to a great extent'' to 5 = ``increased to a great extent (see Table I)''.

Consumer technology (alpha = 0.65)

Stage in industry life cycle 0.18 0.86 0.11 0.17 0.21

Classification of low vs. high technology products

Scale items Factor 1

Benefits perceived by the consumer in comparison to others on market 0.20

Change in sales people 0.01 0.32 0.08 0.19 0.52

hand, when consumer technology is high, the impact of differences in producer

Market and industry characteristics of low vs. high technology products

Table VII. Low ( 2) 2.57 2.91 2.72

Market growth rate 0.15** 249 0.09 244 0.13** 246

perceptions of standardization. Changes in production and distribution

Technology and strategy

significant. Last, ``relative price'' is strongly linked to the two measures of

Adding market and industry predictors of strategy

Technology, market, and industry measures

competition is linked to the degree of producer technology and inversely related

Technology, strategy and performance

(n) (107) (118) (116) (119) (119) (120) (117) (111)

Two measures of strategy were significantly correlated with performance in

significant. Last, R&D is a significant predictor of performance in the combined

Marketing strategy dimensions

Less years on the market Higher price More channel intermediaries

external validity check supports the validity of the measures as separate

changes in buying and consuming technology associated with new products.

process. Technovation 26:2, 162-174. [CrossRef]

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Table VII. Low ( 2) 2.57 2.91 2.72

Market growth rate 0.15 249 0.09 244 0.13 246