Assessing adverse effects of inferior innovations with brand innovability: perspectives of consumer innovativeness

Joseph W Chang

doi:10.4067/s0718-27242017000400006

Abstract

This research examines the adverse effects of inferior innovative extensions on the brand innovability and quality of own parent brands from the perspective of consumer innovativeness. The results reveal that inferior radical innovations weaken the perceptions of brand innovability and quality of high-innovativeness consumers less than the perceptions of brand innovability and quality of low-innovativeness consumers. Conversely, inferior incremental innovations weaken the perceptions of brand innovability and quality of low-innovativeness consumers less than the perceptions of brand innovability and quality of high-innovativeness consumers. In comparison, brand innovability is less susceptible than brand quality to inferior innovation information. The threats of inferior innovations are less detrimental than expectation if the adverse effects are assessed with brand innovability, instead of brand quality. The findings suggest that brand innovability is a more justifiable indicator than brand quality in evaluating the adverse effects of inferior innovations.

Highlights

Wearable smart devices represent a major trend in high-tech markets, among which smart glasses were generating significant interest
The study uncovers that inferior radical innovations weaken the perception of brand quality of high-innovativeness consumers than the perception of brand quality of low-innovativeness consumers
Inferior incremental innovations weaken the perception of brand quality of low-innovativeness consumers less than the perception of brand quality of high-innovativeness consumers

Summary

Introduction

Wearable smart devices represent a major trend in high-tech markets, among which smart glasses were generating significant interest. Google Glass, the pioneer of smart glasses, was recognized as one of the “Best Invention of the Year 2012” (Time, 2012) and hailed as the “ big thing” in high-tech (Woollaston, 2014). To test the market and stimulate application developers’ interests, Google Glass strategically launched its Explorer version for developers in Feb. 2013 and publicly unveiled the conceptual Explorer version for consumers in May 2014. Industry experts were generally pessimistic about the future of Google Glass given the concerns of problematic product design, emerging substitutes (e.g., action cameras, smart watches), privacy intrusion (e.g., video recording), and augmented reality incapability (e.g., widespread adoption for the mainstream). The same industry experts predicted the death of and recommended Google abandon the Glass before its commercial launch. In response to the overwhelming criticism, Google reconfirmed its commitment to develop the Glass and announced indefinite postponement for the release of the consumer version originally scheduled for 2014 (Haydin, 2014; Metz, 2014; Rowinski, 2016; Sun, 2014)

Methods

Results

Conclusion