drivers and pathways of npd success in the marketing ......kenzo and nina ricci called on karim...

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2019;36(2):196–223

Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing–External Design Relationship*Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot, Delphine Manceau, and Céline Abecassis-Moedas

Marketing often cooperates with external design in the new product development (NPD) process. While this relationship is crucial for NPD success and is a typical case of interorganizational collaboration between a business-oriented function (marketing) and a creative partner (external design), a comprehensive understand-ing of this relationship remains lacking. As the NPD field evolves to open systems that have changed concepts like functional integration into interorganizational integration, this study contributes to NPD literature by developing an integrated conceptual framework leading to a model of drivers and pathways of NPD success in the marketing–external design relationship. Building on the literature on NPD, design management and rela-tionship marketing, and on nine dyadic case studies from the luxury fragrance and cosmetics industry, a con-tent analysis was conducted, enriched by a crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). This research confirms several NPD success drivers suggested in the literature and reveals three new drivers: source of design expertise, designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages involving designer. The first new driver (source of design expertise) impacts the relationship process, which then impacts NPD success, while the other two drivers (designer brand commitment and number of NPD stages involving designer) directly influence NPD success. The paper also identifies the pathways of NPD success, showing that contact authority and designer brand commitment are necessary conditions for NPD success, especially when combined with a high number of NPD stages involving designer or a previous relationship. The results also indicate that pathways of NPD success may differ according to the source of design expertise. From a managerial perspective, this study provides recommendations to managers to select the right design partner and choose from a range of drivers and pathways to devise more effective ways to work with external designers, thereby leading to NPD success.

Practitioner Points

• When resorting to external design, branding, a major asset for marketing, has to be carefully managed, and designer brand commitment is a key element that the marketing department should follow closely.

• When resorting to external design, marketing depart-ments should consider two necessary conditions for NPD success: involving their key decision-makers with the designer (contact authority) and encouraging de-signer brand commitment.

• Whenever these two necessary conditions are met, the third condition favoring NPD success is either to involve external design in many NPD stages or to

choose a partner with whom the brand has previously worked.

• Marketing should adapt the relationship process to the source of external design expertise to promote NPD success. Particularly when resorting to star-based ex-ternal designers, marketers should create mechanisms to ensure consistency with brand identity.

Introduction

Many companies outsource design in the NPD process (Abecassis-Moedas, Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, Dell’Era, Manceau, and

Verganti 2012; Czarnitzki and Thorwarth, 2012; Perks, Cooper, and Jones, 2005). Heineken worked with Ora Ito to design its new aluminum beer bottle, Kenzo and Nina Ricci called on Karim Rashid and Philippe Starck, respectively, to design new fragrance bottles, and Tide worked with the Studio Davis agency for its new Excel gel. In major European countries,

Address correspondence to: Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot, Aix Marseille Université, CERGAM, IAE Aix, 13540, Puyricard, Aix-en-Provence, France. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +33 4 42 28 08 08.*The authors thank the editor Gloria Barczak, the Associate Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their comments and helpful advice.

© 2018 Product Development & Management Association DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12472

mailto:

mailto:[email protected]

J PROD INNOV MANAG2019;36(2):196–223

DRIVERS AND PATHWAYS OF NPD SUCCESS 197

such as France and the United Kingdom, up to 50% of companies’ design budgets are dedicated to exter-nal design (French Ministry of Economy, 2010). In such cases, marketing is often the company’s key con-tact with external designers (Chiva and Alegre, 2007; MacPherson and Vanchan, 2009), including both de-sign agencies and individual designers who collabo-rate on a project-by-project basis.1 Yet, a poor relationship with external design can lead to commer-cial failure (Luchs, Swan, and Creusen, 2016; Roy and Potter, 1993).

Although marketing–design integration in the NPD process within companies is an important field of in-vestigation (Luchs et al., 2016; Melewar, Dennis, and Kent, 2014) and appears among the 2016–2018 Marketing Science Institute’s research priorities,2 prior research has mainly analyzed the relationship between marketing and internal design (Beverland, 2005; Beverland, Micheli, and Farrelly, 2016; Zhang, Hu, and Kotabe, 2011). The literature dedicated to the marketing–external design relationship remains scarce (Borja de Mozota, 2003; Bruce and Cooper, 1997; Bruce and Daly, 2007). As resorting to external design implies an increase in complexity and uncer-tainty (Bruce and Morris, 1994; Luchs et al., 2016; Von Stamm, 2008), the marketing–external design rela-tionship is expected to differ from the internal design–marketing one by requiring specific relationship patterns in the NPD process. Yet, while marketing–internal design relationship benefits from specific the-oretical frameworks, such as sensemaking (Beverland et al., 2016) or inter-functional collaboration in NPD (Zhang et al., 2011), the literature on the marketing–external design relationship is practice-oriented and does not rely on a clearly defined conceptual frame-work. It provides managerial guidelines for the exter-nal design selection process, brief or output evaluations. Conditions of success in the relationship with external designers, and especially the influence of practices and types of designers are however still unclear (Ravasi and Stigliani, 2012).

This paper thus aims to fill this gap in the litera-ture by addressing the following research question: What are the drivers and pathways of NPD success in the relationship between marketing and external design?

1Throughout the article, the expressions “external design” and “external design-ers” are used interchangeably.

2www.msi.org/uploads/files/MSI_RP14-16.pdf.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot is an assistant profes-sor at Aix-Marseille University, Graduate School of Management—IAE. She holds a PhD in business ad-ministration from ESCP Europe and Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. Her research interests include marketing and innovation with a specific focus on new product develop-ment (NPD) process, interorganizational collaborations, design management, and co-creation. Before starting an academic career, she previously worked for eight years as innovation marketing manager in leading worldwide FMCG and luxury groups (Johnson&Johnson and LVMH).

Dr. Delphine Manceau is professor of marketing and the dean of Neoma Business School (France). She holds a PhD from HEC Paris (1996). She was a senior research fellow at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (1997). Her research focuses on the mar-keting of innovation, open innovation, the relationship between design and marketing, and new product pre-announcements. Her papers have been published in International Journal of Research in Marketing (IJRM), International Journal of Industrial Organization (IJIO), Creativity and Innovation Management, Customer Needs and Solutions, International Journal of Advertising, and others. She also published several books on marketing and innovation, and is the co-au-thor of the French edition of Marketing Management with P. Kotler & K. Keller (15th edition in 2015, Pearson Education).

Dr. Céline Abecassis-Moedas is an associate profes-sor in strategic and innovation management and the academic director of the Center for Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Catolica Lisbon School of Business and Economics (CLSBE), Universidade Catolica Portuguesa. She is also an affil-iate professor at ESCP Europe, Paris Campus, where she is the Academic Director of the Lectra Chair “Fashion and Technology.” She holds a PhD in man-agement from Ecole Polytechnique, Paris. Celine was as international faculty fellow at MIT Sloan School of Management. Her research focuses on the role of design and designers in innovation; the importance of learning, knowledge, and resource management in the innovation and entrepreneurial process, mostly in creative industries such as fashion, haute cui-sine, design, and dance. Her papers have been pub-lished in Journal of Product Innovation Management, Creativity and Innovation Management, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Strategy and Management, Innovation: Organisation & Management, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, and others.

www.msi.org/uploads/files/MSI_RP14-16.pdf


A. HEMONNET-GOUJOT ET AL.198

Building on the literature on NPD, design man-agement and relationship marketing and on a multi-ple dyadic case study from the luxury fragrance and cosmetics industry, which combines the richness of nine case studies with the benefits of the dyadic per-spective, a case content analysis was conducted, en-riched by a crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). All case studies were in the same industry to identify success drivers related to relationship dy-namics and partner characteristics rather than those related to industry differences.

From a theoretical point of view, this paper con-tributes to the NPD literature in three ways. First, former research underlined how much the NPD field evolves to open systems that have changed concepts like functional integration to more interorganiza-tional integration, thus requiring new theoretical ap-proaches to better capture the nature of new product development success drivers (Evanschitzky, Eisend, Calantone, and Jiang, 2012). By investigating more broadly NPD success drivers through the merging of three streams of research, this paper addresses this need and extends the NPD literature by developing an integrated conceptual framework of NPD success drivers adapted to interorganizational collaboration between a business-oriented function (marketing) and a creative partner (external design). Second, this study identifies new success drivers such as source of design expertise, designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages involving designer. Third, this paper argues that NPD success is linked to specific combinations of drivers, therefore providing a model of pathways of NPD success in the marketing–exter-nal design relationship.

This paper is organized as follows. The literature review presents the complexity of the marketing–external design relationship in the NPD process. Potential drivers of NPD success are suggested. The research methodology based on nine dyadic case studies enriched by a QCA is then presented. After presenting the results, the study implications and limitations are discussed.

Theoretical Framework

While design is a growing body of academic research in the field of management, a common definition remains lacking (Luchs et al., 2016). Design is de-fined as a process or set of activities that determines

properties of products (Ravasi and Stigliani, 2012), as the output of the process (product) (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl, 2015) or as a strategic tool (Borja de Mozota, 2006). This paper is built on the distinction between two aspects of design as defined by Luchs and Swan (2011, p. 338): (1) the product design process, defined as “the set of strategic and tactical activities, from idea generation to commer-cialization, used to create a product design,” and (2) its output, that is, the product design, defined as “a set of constitutive elements of a product that con-sumers perceive and organize as a multidimensional construct comprising the three dimensions of esthet-ics, functionality and symbolism” (Homburg et al., 2015, p. 44).

Similarly, marketing is a multi-faceted construct that refers to marketing departments (Verhoef and Leeflang, 2009), marketing actions, or marketing assets (brand and consumer equity) (Edeling and Fischer, 2016). This paper focuses on companies with dedicated marketing departments in charge of developing knowledge about customer needs to assess market potential and initiate NPD projects (Drechsler, Natter, and Leeflang, 2013).

Influence of the Marketing–Design Relationship on NPD Success

Because of complementary features, the market-ing–design relationship is crucial for NPD success (Beverland et al., 2016). This relationship enables (1) better knowledge of customers (Moorman and Rust, 1999; Verhoef and Leeflang, 2009), since design-ers help marketers to unravel latent needs and col-lect insights (Veryzer and Borja de Mozota, 2005); (2) differentiation from competition by providing higher consumer value and brand affection (Kumar, Townsend, and Vorhies, 2015) due to products that generate meaning, emotion, and delight (Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan, 2008; Ravasi and Lojacono, 2005; Verganti, 2009); and (3) assurance of brand renewal (Beverland, 2005) due to design-ers’ ability to reconfigure brands’ symbols and signs (Verganti, 2003).

Despite these synergistic features, the actors in the marketing–design relationship must overcome profound differences (Beverland, 2005; Beverland et al., 2016; Bruce and Daly, 2007). First, marketing and design do not evaluate performance similarly,



as marketing seeks commercial success and brand consistency (Beverland, 2005), while design values originality and awards (Ordanini, Rubera, and Sala, 2008). Second, they have a different sense of time. Marketing praises short lead times, while design ap-proach is based on exploration (Borja de Mozota, 2003). This difference results in discrepancies in managing uncertainty. While marketing is reluctant to take risks and extensively relies on reporting and quantified results (Borja de Mozota, 2003), design, as a creative activity, is intrinsically linked to un-certainty and risk-taking (Cooper and Press, 1995; Ordanini et al., 2008). Third, while marketers value control (Borja de Mozota, 2003), designers aspire to autonomy and freedom (Chaston, 2008). Due to designers’ creativity, often correlated with their out-going personalities, it is difficult to set up a classic management mode (Caves, 2000).

To reduce inherent tensions between these two entities while creating positive synergies in the NPD process, previous research identified several drivers: leadership support, intergenerational teams, simulta-neous control-autonomy coupling (Beverland, 2005), high integration between marketing and design in each NPD stage (Zhang et al., 2011), and adoption of a common framework through sensemaking practices (Beverland et al., 2016). Yet, despite their major contri-butions to the understanding of the marketing–design relationship, these papers focused on inter-functional collaboration between departments of the same com-pany (e.g., marketing and internal design) without analyzing the specificities of the relationship between marketing and external design.

Specificities of External Design Management: Innovativeness, Expertise, and Complexity

Resorting to external design in the NPD process tends to generate more radical innovation than the use of in-house or mixed approaches (Abecassis-Moedas et al., 2012; Perks et al., 2005; Von Stamm, 2008). Firms benefit from a new perspective, additional knowledge, and designers’ reputation (Abecassis-Moedas and Rodrigues Pereira, 2016). Residing out-side the boundaries of the firm, external designers are less hampered by company politics and internal rigidities and can bring fresh ideas (Dell’Era and Verganti, 2010; Ravasi and Lojacono, 2005). Working with clients from diverse industries, they also possess

rare innovative competencies due to their knowledge broker position (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997). This enables them to exploit a broad array of informa-tional cues and to build their expertise (Boudreau, Guinan, Lakhani, and Riedl, 2016).

Experts are individuals who are perceived to be comparatively outstanding in a particular domain because they possess greater knowledge, skills, and experience than nonexperts (Ericsson and Smith, 1991). This leads to the distinction between novices and masters (Cross, 2004; Lawson and Dorst, 2013; Zhang, 2015). While novices focus on product func-tionality and favor mental leaps, expert designers value product symbols, and analogy making (Chai, Cen, Ruan, Yang, and Li, 2015). While novices are problem-oriented through a problem definition focus and are more reactive, experts are solution- oriented through a problem scoping approach and an explicit problem-decomposing strategy and are more proactive (Cross, 2004; Ho, 2001; Ozkan and Dogan, 2013; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen and Hakkarainen, 2001). The extant literature in design is mostly lim-ited to expert/novice differences in problem-solving approaches (Chai et al., 2015). Yet, there is a diversity of expertise (Ericsson and Smith, 1991), especially in design, due to the existence of several modes of de-sign built on different design practices and different uses of knowledge in the creation approach taken by designers (Lawson and Dorst, 2013). This diversity calls for a distinction between the level of expertise (novice to master) and the source of expertise of ex-ternal designers, characterized by a complex collec-tion of skills (Lawson and Dorst, 2013), including their inherent key assets (Abecassis-Moedas et al., 2012). Abecassis-Moedas et al. (2012) distinguish three types of external designers: customer-based external designers are characterized by their prox-imity to customers and their organizational flexibil-ity, process-based external designers rely on specific creative processes and organizational capabilities, and star-based external designers rely on highly cre-ative and talented individuals who benefit from an international reputation. Sources of design expertise are diverse, and strategies that firms use to manage them are still missing in the literature (Ravasi and Stigliani, 2012).

Resorting to external design also leads to com-plexity and risk. Primary obstacles are difficulties selecting and managing external design, misunder-standings of company issues, and the potential loss



of secrecy (Von Stamm, 2008). Moreover, control of the relationship with external designers is crucial to improving new product sales and profitability (Roy and Potter, 1993; Von Stamm, 2008), and specific re-lationship patterns are required to consider appro-priate solutions between short-term versus long-term relationships and close versus distant relationships (Bruce and Morris, 1994). While design knowledge and design management in inter-firm alliances can generate a sustainable and distinctive competence (Bruce and Jevnaker, 1998), design is a complex pro-cess requiring thinking and working across different perspectives to produce an outcome (Lawson and Dorst, 2013). Thus, a “modus operandi” must be es-tablished for the relationship to be effective.

Initial NPD Success Drivers Suggested by the Literature

Research on NPD has used various indicators to evaluate success, and the literature is not consistent on the topic. Papers have addressed (1) new product outcomes with variables such as new product success (Troy, Hirunyawipada, and Paswan, 2008) and new product performance (Brockman, Rawlston, Jones, and Halstead, 2010), (2) NPD outcomes with vari-ables, such as NPD success (Coviello and Joseph, 2012; Griffin and Page, 1996; Sivadas and Dwyer, 2000) and NPD performance (Abecassis-Moedas and Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, 2008; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994; Song, Montoya-Weiss, and Schmidt, 1997), or (3) “performance” as a general variable (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995). As this re-search aims to identify the drivers of NPD success in the marketing–external design relationship, the second option, which focuses on NPD outcomes and success, was chosen.

To our knowledge, no previous paper has focused on identifying the drivers and pathways that affect NPD success in the marketing–external design rela-tionship, and a model is still needed. Since the rela-tionship between marketing and external design is a business-to-business relationship—marketing is the buyer of the service sold by external design—some drivers can be inferred from the relationship market-ing literature. A first stream of relationship research based on the social exchange theory (Morgan and Hunt, 1994) considers the best-performing exchanges to be those that abide by relational norms. Factors

such as trust and commitment are important drivers of the partnership dyad (Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman, 1993). Specifically, the holistic construct of relationship quality captures unique aspects of the relationship, including trust and commitment, an enduring desire to maintain a valued relation-ship, and reciprocity norms and exchange efficiency (Palmatier, 2008) (see Appendix A for construct definitions). Relationship quality is defined as an “overall assessment of the strength of a relationship, conceptualized as a composite or multidimensional construct capturing the different but related facets of a relationship” (Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, and Evans, 2006, p. 138). Relationship quality is influ-enced by previous relationship duration and contact authority (Palmatier, 2008; Palmatier et al., 2006). Contact authority captures the extent to which the seller (in our case, the external design) deals with the key decision-makers of the customer firm (in our case, the marketing department) to have ac-cess to valuable knowledge about the customer and its decision parameters and thus improve the deci-sion-making capabilities (Palmatier, 2008). Recently, the dynamic relationship marketing theory merged this first stream of research with a second stream fo-cusing on the influence of the relationship’s age on performance. This theory reveals the importance of previous relationship duration for commitment, and especially for commitment velocity, which refers to the rate and direction of change in commitment (Palmatier, Houston, Dant, and Grewal, 2013).

Relationship quality has been shown to influ-ence relationship effectiveness, measured as sales, word-of-mouth, and customer loyalty (Palmatier, 2008; Palmatier et al., 2006). Some papers suggest that relationship quality, measured by trust, rec-iprocity norms, and exchange efficiency, favors NPD success (Obal, Kannan-Narasimhan, and Ko, 2016, Rindfleisch and Moorman, 2001, Sivadas and Dwyer, 2000), yet the link between commitment, a sub-dimension of relationship quality, and NPD suc-cess remains unclear, especially in the relationships that are not continuous in nature (Badrinarayanan and Arnett, 2008; Bstieler and Hemmert, 2015; Sjoerdsma and van Weele, 2015; Walter, 2003).

As our literature review shows, external designers, as creative partners, require specific relationship patterns. Compared to the previous literature in re-lationship marketing (Rindfleisch and Moorman, 2001; Sivadas and Dwyer, 2000), the nature of the



seller is different, since it belongs to the creative industries that highly value the notion of talents who act according only to their inspiration (Caves, 2000). The nature of the relationship is also complex because it does not concern the transfer of tangi-ble goods with objective economic value as in the classic buyer–seller relationship; rather, it concerns designing a new product starting from intangible ideas. This involves strong uncertainty, since the design’s economic value is revealed only after mar-ket introduction (Caves, 2000). A single theoretical lens based on relationship marketing may thus be inappropriate.

References to the design management and NPD literature also appear to be relevant to identify other potential drivers that affect NPD success in the marketing–external design relationship. The design literature underlines the importance of re-spect, a common understanding of the final ob-jectives, clear role definitions (Cooper and Press, 1995), trust (Bruce and Jevnaker, 1998) and fre-quent discussions between partners (Von Stamm, 2008). More specific drivers are also suggested, such as nurturing a long-term relationship (Borja de Mozota, 2003), providing a dedicated area for freedom and independence (Chaston, 2008; Ravasi and Lojacono, 2005), maintaining top manage-ment support, and favoring knowledge transfer (Verganti, 2003). Other drivers of NPD success are also suggested by seminal works in the NPD litera-ture, especially in the area of inter-functional inte-gration (Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994; Song et al., 1997). Early product definition, existence of a formal NPD process, and top management sup-port favor success (Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994) as well as organizational drivers, such as a high degree of interpersonal interaction, intense communication (Song et al., 1997), and transfer mechanisms (Bailetti and Litva, 1995).

Although they provide additional insights into the phenomenon of interest, the potential drivers suggested by the design management and NPD lit-erature are neither exhaustive nor integrated into a model. Our topic of interest leads us to combine the results of these three streams of research (relation-ship marketing, design management, and NPD) to suggest a preliminary comprehensive view of NPD success drivers and to distinguish between two cat-egories of drivers: (1) relationship attributes, which are characterized by a previous relationship and the

existence of contact authority, and (2) the relation-ship process (Table 1).

Pratt (2008) guidelines were then followed to keep distance from the phenomenon and generate new insights to build a model of drivers and pathways of NPD success in the marketing–external design relationship.

Research Methodology

Rationale, Setting, and Sampling Approach

Because this research focuses on the scarcely ex-plored phenomenon of the marketing–external de-sign relationship in the NPD process, the multiple case study methodology appears particularly appro-priate to gain a precise understanding of this rela-tionship while generating new insights (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013). Qualitative research designs are also well suited for analyzing interactive processes (Langley, 1999). For each case, semi-structured inter-views and archival documents were combined, form-ing a dyadic perspective, including both marketing and external design viewpoints to provide a sound understanding of this relationship. This method treats the dyadic cases as a series of experiments that confirm or invalidate emerging conceptual insights (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). It strengthens the robustness of the study and draws out contextual dif-ferences (Yin, 2013). Furthermore , in the current study, the internal validity of the findings is strength-ened by a QCA.

To reduce heterogeneity and more easily draw comparisons, all cases were in the same industry: the luxury fragrance and cosmetics industry. It is fiercely competitive and characterized by several hundred product launches per year and increasingly crowded shelves. This context is characterized by frequent marketing–external design relationships in which design plays a critical role in new product differentiation and success. As noted by the CEO of ID Perfumes, quoted in the Wall Street Journal (Holmes, 2012), “Bottle design becomes increasingly important—certainly as important as the actual fragrance.” The importance of design is also em-phasized by the VP Creative Director of Elizabeth Arden: “Packaging holds the whole business. At launch, packaging is 70% of it. If your packaging doesn’t work, you are in trouble” (Matusow, 2012). In such activities, an effective relationship between



marketing and external design is crucial. Marketing departments are usually responsible for coordinat-ing the NPD process and often select external de-signers to develop bottles for fragrances and jars for cosmetics.

To select the cases, a retrospective approach was adopted, and theoretical rather than statistical sam-pling was followed (Eisenhardt, 1989). The ranking of the top 100 fragrance and cosmetics brands in the French luxury market, one of the leading markets in this industry worldwide, served as an initial ref-erence. First, cases addressing the launch of a new product brand (ex. Chanel Gabrielle) that entailed the creation of a new product design, such as a fra-grance bottle, were identified. Second, contact was made with marketers and external designers who were involved throughout the NPD process. Their willingness to participate and to provide access to information was confirmed. The marketers were senior managers in charge of the relationship with external designers and had an average of nine years of experience in multinational companies. The ex-ternal designers were project leaders, and most were owners of their design agency; these agencies were generally SMEs. Data collection ended when theo-retical model saturation was reached (nine dyadic cases). This number of cases follows Eisenhardt’s approach (1989, p. 545), which suggests conducting between four and ten case studies to obtain suf-ficient data while managing complexity. Table 2 contains details of the nine NPD cases and the in-formants’ profiles.

Data Collection

The data were collected through 18 face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Each member of the dyad was interviewed separately. Several measures were taken to mitigate potential retrospective biases. The interview guidelines required informants to de-scribe the project, the context, and the objectives. They were asked to relate chronologies of events; to describe how and when external design was in-tegrated into the NPD process; and to narrate pre-cisely the relationship at each stage to identify the respective roles, precise actions, and interaction processes. To encourage the accuracy of informants’ accounts, confidentiality was guaranteed. Each in-terview lasted between 45 and 90 minutes and was recorded and transcribed. Internal validity of the T

able

1.

Lit

erat

ure-

Bas

ed D

rive

rs o

f N

PD

Suc

cess

in th

e M

arke

ting

–Ext

erna

l Des

ign

Rel

atio

nshi

pR

elat

ions

hip

Mar

keti

ngD

esig

n M

anag

emen

tN

PD

Lit

erat

ure

Lit

erat

ure

Lit

erat

ure

Rel

atio

nshi

p at

trib

utes

Pre

viou

s re

lati

onsh

ipP

revi

ous

rela

tion

ship

Lon

g-te

rm r

elat

ions

hip

(Pal

mat

ier,

2008

; Pal

mat

ier

et a

l., 2

013)

(Bru

ce a

nd M

orri

s, 1

994;

Bor

ja d

e M

ozot

a, 2

003;

V

on S

tam

m, 2

008)

Con

tact

aut

hori

tyC

onta

ct a

utho

rity

(Moo

rman

et

al.,

1993

; Pal

mat

ier,

2008

)To

p m

anag

emen

t su

ppor

t(V

erga

nti,

2003

)To

p m

anag

emen

t su

ppor

t(M

onto

ya-W

eiss

and

Cal

anto

ne,

1994

; Son

g et

al.,

199

7)R

elat

ions

hip

proc

ess

Rel

atio

nshi

p qu

alit

yT

rust

Tru

st(M

orga

n an

d H

unt,

199

4; S

ivad

as a

nd D

wye

r, 20

00;

Pal

mat

ier

et a

l., 2

006;

Oba

l et

al.,

2016

)(B

ruce

and

Jev

nake

r, 19

98)

Exc

hang

e ef

fici

ency

Com

mu

nic

atio

n qu

alit

yIn

form

atio

n sh

arin

gC

onta

ct f

requ

ency

(Siv

adas

and

Dw

yer,

2000

; Rin

dfle

isch

and

Moo

rman

, 20

01; P

alm

atie

r, 20

08; O

bal e

t al

., 20

16)

Com

mon

und

erst

and

ing

(Coo

per

and

Pre

ss, 1

995)

Kno

wle

dge

tran

sfer

(V

erga

nti,

2003

)F

requ

ent

dis

cuss

ions

(V

on S

tam

m, 2

008)

Cle

ar r

ole

defi

nit

ions

(Coo

per

and

Pre

ss, 1

995)

Tra

nsfe

r m

echa

nis

m (

Bai

lett

i and

L

itva

, 199

5)In

tens

ity

of c

omm

un

icat

ion

(Son

g et

al.,

199

7)H

igh

degr

ee o

f in

terp

erso

nal

inte

ract

ions

(Son

g et

al.,

199

7)R

ecip

roci

ty n

orm

s(R

indf

leis

ch a

nd M

oorm

an, 2

001;

Pal

mat

ier,

2008

)V

alue

sha

ring

(V

erga

nti,

2003

)R

esp

ect

(Coo

per

and

Pre

ss, 1

995)

Giv

e-an

d-ta

ke r

elat

ions

hip

(Son

g et

al.,

199

7)



Tab

le 2

. L

ist a

nd C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f C

ase

Stu

dies

Cas

eIn

terv

iew

sB

rand

Des

crip

tion

New

Pro

duct

D

escr

ipti

on

Pro

file

of

Mar

kete

rs’

Res

pond

ents

aP

rofi

le o

f G

roup

s O

wn

ing

the

Bra

ndsb

Pro

file

of

Des

igne

rs’

Res

pond

ents

a

Sou

rce

of D

esig

n E

xper

tise

(N

um

ber

of

Em

ploy

ees)

S12

Chi

nese

bra

nd in

trod

uced

in

Eur

ope

and

owne

d by

a

mul

tina

tion

al C

hine

se g

roup

Skin

care

pro

duct

s,

glob

al r

ange

, fem

ale

targ

etC

onte

mpo

rary

jars

in

spir

ed b

y C

hine

se

phar

mac

opoe

ia

Seni

or p

rodu

ct

man

ager

(7)

Turn

over

: 356

M€

Inte

rnat

iona

l: ye

sIn

dust

ry: P

erfu

me

and

cosm

etic

s

Des

ign

agen

cy

CE

O (

19)

Pro

cess

-bas

ed

(11–

50)

S22

Inte

rnat

iona

l lux

ury

jew

elry

br

and

laun

chin

g a

new

fr

agra

nce

owne

d by

a

mul

tina

tion

al F

renc

h gr

oup

Per

fum

e, f

emal

e ta

rget

Bot

tle

shap

e in

spir

ed

by p

reci

ous

ston

e

Mar

keti

ng

man

ager

(10

)Tu

rnov

er: 3

06 M

€In

tern

atio

nal:

yes

Indu

stry

: Per

fum

e an

d co

smet

ics

Des

ign

agen

cy’s

top

exec

utiv

e (1

5)

Pro

cess

-bas

ed

(100

–200

)

S32

Fre

nch

high

-end

per

fum

ery

bran

d w

ith

stro

ng in

tern

a-ti

onal

pos

itio

n an

d ow

ned

by

a m

ulti

nati

onal

Fre

nch

grou

p

Skin

care

pro

duct

s,

anti

-agi

ng, f

emal

e ta

rget

Bot

tle

shap

e in

spir

ed

by a

lveo

lus

Seni

or p

rodu

ct

man

ager

(6)

Tur

nove

r: 2

0 32

0 M

€In

tern

atio

nal:

yes

Indu

stry

: Per

fum

e an

d co

smet

ics,

alc

ohol

, fa

shio

n…

Des

ign

agen

cy

CE

O (

9)C

usto

mer

-bas

ed

(11–

20)

S42

Fre

nch

high

-end

per

fum

ery

bran

d w

ith

stro

ng in

tern

a-ti

onal

pos

itio

n an

d ow

ned

by

a m

ulti

nati

onal

Fre

nch

grou

p

Mak

eup,

lips

tick

, fe

mal

e ta

rget

New

lips

tick

sha

pe a

nd

mec

hani

sm

Mar

keti

ng

man

ager

(9)

Tur

nove

r: 2

0 32

0 M

€In

tern

atio

nal:

yes

Indu

stry

: Per

fum

e an

d co

smet

ics,

alc

ohol

, fa

shio

n…

Des

ign

agen

cy

CE

O (

15)

Cus

tom

er-b

ased

(1

–10)

F1

2It

alia

n fa

shio

n br

and

wit

h in

tern

atio

nal p

osit

ions

in

trod

ucin

g a

new

fra

gran

ce t

o it

s po

rtfo

lio

Per

fum

e, m

ale

and

fem

ale

targ

etT

rans

pare

nt b

ottl

e

Mar

keti

ng d

irec

tor

(25)

Tur

nove

r: 6

20 M

€In

tern

atio

nal:

yes

Indu

stry

: Per

fum

e an

d co

smet

ics,

fas

hion

Des

ign

agen

cy

CE

O (

16)

Cus

tom

er-b

ased

(1

–10)

F2

2In

tern

atio

nal l

uxur

y br

and

wit

h Ja

pane

se o

rigi

ns o

wne

d by

a

mul

tina

tion

al F

renc

h gr

oup

Per

fum

e, f

emal

e ta

rget

Bot

tle

shap

e in

spir

ed

by in

fini

ty s

ymbo

l

Seni

or p

rodu

ct

man

ager

(6)

Tur

nove

r: 2

3 65

9 M

€In

tern

atio

nal:

yes

Indu

stry

: Per

fum

e an

d co

smet

ics,

alc

ohol

, fa

shio

n…

Des

ign

agen

cy

CE

O (

29)

Star

-bas

ed

(11–

50)

F3

2F

renc

h fa

shio

n an

d pe

rfum

ery

bran

d w

ith

inte

rnat

iona

l po

siti

on a

nd o

wne

d by

a

mul

tina

tion

al F

renc

h gr

oup

Per

fum

e, y

oung

fem

ale

targ

etB

ottl

e sh

ape

insp

ired

by

a p

owde

r ja

r

Mar

keti

ng

man

ager

(8)

Tur

nove

r: 1

7 50

0 M

€In

tern

atio

nal:

yes

Indu

stry

: Per

fum

e an

d co

smet

ics

Des

ign

agen

cy

CE

O (

20)

Star

-bas

ed

(11–

50)

F4

2W

ell-

know

n G

erm

an f

ashi

on

bran

d in

trod

ucin

g a

new

fr

agra

nce

owne

d by

a

mul

tina

tion

al F

renc

h gr

oup

Per

fum

e, f

emal

e ta

rget

Cyl

indr

ical

bot

tle

shap

e

Mar

keti

ng

man

ager

(13

)T

urno

ver:

4 1

00 M

€In

tern

atio

nal:

yes

Indu

stry

: Per

fum

e an

d co

smet

ics

Des

ign

agen

cy

CE

O (

25)

Cus

tom

er-b

ased

(1

–10)

F5

2F

renc

h br

and

wit

h lim

ited

in

tern

atio

nal a

ctiv

ity

owne

d by

a U

.S. m

ulti

nati

onal

gro

up

Per

fum

e, f

emal

e ta

rget

Bot

tle

shap

e in

spir

ed

by a

wom

an’s

hat

Pro

duct

man

ager

(4

)T

urno

ver:

82

000

M€

Inte

rnat

iona

l: ye

sIn

dust

ry: P

erfu

me

and

cosm

etic

s, fo

od,

hous

ehol

d pr

oduc

ts

Des

ign

agen

cy

CE

O (

19)

Cus

tom

er-b

ased

(1

–10)

a The

num

ber

in p

aren

thes

es c

orre

spon

ds t

o th

e nu

mbe

r of

yea

rs o

f pr

ofes

sion

al e

xper

ienc

e.b T

he s

tudi

ed b

rand

s’ t

urno

ver

is n

ot s

yste

mat

ical

ly m

ade

publ

ic a

nd is

oft

en a

ggre

gate

d w

ith

the

grou

p’s

turn

over

. Rel

ease

d fi

gure

s ar

e th

ose

of t

he g

roup

s. T

hey

corr

espo

nd t

o th

e ye

ar o

f th

e st

udie

d ne

w p

rodu

ct’s

laun

ch.



findings was increased through triangulation with secondary data from different sources (panel data for commercial success; website analysis and trade press papers to gain additional insight on brands, external designers and NPD projects; and internal sources, such as marketing files or designers’ draw-ings and presentations).

To evaluate NPD success, a subjective assess-ment was made based on the managers’ percep-tions, following methodologies used in previous research (Coviello and Joseph, 2012; Sivadas and Dwyer, 2000; Troy et al., 2008). Building on criteria used in the NPD literature (Abecassis-Moedas and Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, 2008; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994; Song et al., 1997) and on the typol-ogy of success indicators used by Griffin and Page (1996), the following criteria were assessed: cus-tomer measures through market share and fit with the consumer needs; financial measures through profitability; and program measures through team satisfaction with the outcome measured by the in-tention to conduct a new NPD process with the same external designers (“expectation of relation-ship continuity”).

Data Analysis Process

To identify NPD success drivers, a methodology similar to that of Coviello and Joseph (2012) was adopted. Cases were polarized according to mana-gerial perceptions of NPD success and failure, lead-ing to the identification of two polar sets (Table 3). Success cases were defined as cases that met three or four of the success criteria (four cases). Failure cases met none or only one of these four criteria (five cases).

Although interviews were conducted with indi-viduals, the unit of analysis was the organizational dyad (marketing and external design) rather than the individuals. To understand the marketing–ex-ternal design relationship during the NPD process, the relationship was first analyzed using the se-quence of events approach (Langley, 1999). Based on Cooper’s (2008) stage-gate approach—idea gen-eration, concept generation, early design, late de-sign and launch—a precise chronology of events was built for each case. The data were analyzed, sorted, and codified using the NVivo10 qualitative software program. An initial analysis was based

on deductive thematic codes derived from the rela-tionship marketing, design management, and NPD literature, such as “contact authority,” “trust,” and “previous relationship.” Then, following Miles and Huberman’s approach (1994), a second round of analysis refined the coding and included, when necessary, new codes extracted from the empirical material (such as “designer brand commitment”).

After conducting an in-depth within-case analysis to obtain a sound understanding of each case under study, a cross-case comparison technique was ad-opted (Eisenhardt, 1989). This process helped to identify specific drivers and pathways for each cate-gory (NPD success and failure). A model emerged from the comparison of NPD successes and failures (Yin, 2013). The results were then further enriched by a QCA, which was used to provide cross-case analysis with logical rigor (Berg-Schlosser, De Meur, Rihoux, and Ragin, 2009) and to analyze the combi-nations of various NPD success drivers. QCA aims to identify all the necessary and sufficient condi-tions that lead to a specific outcome (Ragin, 2008).3 This analysis helps to identify causal complexity be-tween several conditions causally related to an out-come while acknowledging the possibility that multiple paths may lead to that outcome (Berg-Schlosser et al., 2009). Specialized software fsQCA 2.5 was used to test and identify which NPD success drivers in the marketing–external design relation-ship identified through the nine dyadic case study analysis were necessary and/or sufficient conditions for NPD success. This QCA also helped to refine the causality analysis in terms of the combinations of variables. To reduce the complexity of the data sets, a logical minimization was performed based on the construction of a truth table (Appendix B) (Woodside, 2013).

For the remainder of this paper, the following stan-dard designations are used: the successful cases are referred to as S (S1, S2, S3, and S4) and the failure cases as F (F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5). The distinction between marketers and external designers is pre-sented as follows: S1M for marketers and S1D for ex-ternal designers.

3If membership in a specific category is binary (i.e., the cases are either members or nonmembers of this category), the respective set is called a “crisp set” (Ragin, 2008).



Tab

le 3

. N

PD

Suc

cess

Eva

luat

ion

Cu

stom

er M

easu

res

Fin

anci

al M

easu

reP

rogr

am M

easu

re

Cas

eaM

arke

t Sh

ares

/Sal

esF

it w

ith

Con

sum

er N

eeds

Pro

fita

bilit

yE

xpec

tati

on o

f C

onti

nuit

yb

S1“W

e ac

hiev

ed o

ur o

bjec

tive

s. O

ur g

row

th r

ate

is +

40%

.” (

S1M

)c“O

ur c

usto

mer

s lik

ed t

he

desi

gn v

ery

muc

h.”

(S1 M

)“A

genc

y he

lped

us

to im

prov

e pr

ofit

abili

ty.”

(S

1 M)

“Aft

er t

hat

proj

ect,

we

mad

e th

e st

ore

desi

gn a

nd s

pas

proj

ect.

A

nd t

his

year

, we

also

invi

ted

them

to

join

the

new

cou

nter

de

sign

pro

ject

.” (

S1M

)S2

“Ful

ly in

line

wit

h ou

r ex

pect

atio

ns in

ter

ms

of t

urno

ver

and

sale

s vo

lum

es.”

(S2

M)b

“You

sho

uld

not

rely

too

m

uch

on c

onsu

mer

s’

feed

back

(…

) T

here

wer

e no

con

sum

er t

ests

.” (

S2D

)

“Pro

fita

bilit

y le

vels

wer

e co

nsis

tent

wit

h w

hat

was

init

ially

dec

ided

.” (

S2M

)“W

e th

en w

orke

d w

ith

them

on

a ne

w m

ascu

line

frag

ranc

e bo

ttle

, so

thi

s is

pro

of t

hat

we

wer

e sa

tisf

ied

wit

h th

eir

wor

k.”

(S2 M

)S3

“Thi

s pr

ojec

t en

able

d us

to

gain

mar

ket

shar

e.”

(S3 M

)b“T

his

pack

agin

g w

as u

niqu

e an

d w

as a

ttri

bute

d to

br

and

3. A

ccor

ding

to

fem

ale

cons

umer

s, ‘N

o ot

her

bran

d co

uld

have

do

ne it

exc

ept

bran

d 3.

’”

(S3 M

)

“It

is a

com

mer

cial

and

fin

anci

al s

ucce

ss

beca

use

we

reac

hed

and

even

exc

eede

d ta

rget

s.”

(S3 M

)

“The

y ha

ve a

lrea

dy b

een

assi

gned

to

oth

er p

roje

cts.

Tha

nks

to t

his

succ

ess,

the

y ar

e w

orki

ng o

n ot

her

skin

care

and

fra

gran

ce

pack

agin

g, a

nd t

hey

have

bee

n br

iefe

d fo

r m

erch

andi

sing

to

ols.

” (S

3 M)

S4“M

arke

t sh

are

resu

lts

are

posi

tive

.” (

S4M

)b“T

hey

appr

ecia

ted

the

func

tion

al, p

ract

ical

and

m

oder

n as

pect

of

it. A

lit

tle

piec

e of

art

, gol

den,

st

ill q

uite

luxu

riou

s.”

(S4 M

)

“It

was

bel

ow t

he p

rofi

tabi

lity

targ

et.”

(S4

M)

“We

are

now

wor

king

tog

ethe

r on

a

new

mak

eup

pow

der

com

pact

de

sign

.” (

S4M

)

F1

“Was

it in

line

wit

h th

e ob

ject

ives

? N

o. I

t w

as

a pa

rtia

l suc

cess

.” (

F1 M

)c“A

bot

tle

like

this

one

ca

nnot

ple

ase

ever

yone

.”

(F1 M

)

“In

term

s of

mar

gins

, it

was

pos

itiv

e.”

(F1 M

)“W

e on

ly w

orke

d to

geth

er o

n an

ex

tens

ion

proj

ect

for

the

sam

e fr

agra

nce.

We

have

not

bee

n se

lect

ed t

o de

sign

the

ir n

ew

frag

ranc

e.”

(F1 M

)F

2“O

ur t

arge

t w

as t

o be

in t

he t

op 1

0 of

fr

agra

nces

dur

ing

the

laun

ch.”

(F

2 M)

Not

co

nfir

med

by

pane

l dat

ab

A: “

Did

you

org

aniz

e co

nsum

er t

ests

?”“W

e im

prov

ed o

ur p

rofi

tabi

lity.

” (F

2 M)

“No

new

pro

ject

has

bee

n de

velo

ped

wit

h hi

m.”

(F

2 M)

F2 M

: “C

once

rnin

g th

e bo

ttle

de

sign

? N

o.”

F3

“It

was

bel

ow o

ur e

xpec

tati

ons.

We

did

not

achi

eve

the

obje

ctiv

es in

itia

lly s

et.”

(F

3 M)b

“The

bot

tle

desi

gn w

as w

ell

perc

eive

d.”

(F3 M

)“I

t w

as b

elow

our

exp

ecta

tion

s. W

e di

d no

t ac

hiev

e th

e ob

ject

ives

init

ially

set

.” (

F3 M

)“N

o fu

ture

col

labo

rati

on is

pl

anne

d w

ith

our

bran

d.”

(F3 M

)F

4“T

here

was

no

obje

ctiv

e in

ter

ms

of m

arke

t sh

are.

” (F

4 M)c

A: “

Did

you

org

aniz

e co

nsum

er t

ests

on

the

bott

le d

esig

n?”

“Did

we

reac

h th

e m

argi

n ta

rget

? Y

es.”

(F

4 M)

Fut

ure

colla

bora

tion

was

co

nsid

ered

, but

no

new

pro

duct

is

und

er d

evel

opm

ent

wit

h th

is

agen

cy o

r ha

s be

en la

unch

ed s

o fa

r.F

4 M: “

No,

and

it w

as a

n as

set.

”F

5“T

he p

roje

ct d

id n

ot m

eet

the

obje

ctiv

es o

f bu

sine

ss p

erfo

rman

ce.”

(F

5 M)c

–“T

he p

roje

ct d

id n

ot m

eet

the

obje

ctiv

es o

f bu

sine

ss p

erfo

rman

ce.”

(F

5 M)

“No

new

pro

ject

is p

lann

ed. W

e ha

ve n

ot b

een

wor

king

for

them

fo

r m

any

mon

ths.

” (F

5 M)

a Suc

cess

cas

es w

ere

defi

ned

as c

ases

tha

t m

et a

t le

ast

thre

e of

the

se c

rite

ria.

Fai

lure

cas

es w

ere

defi

ned

as c

ases

tha

t m

et n

one

or o

nly

one

of t

hese

cri

teri

a.b I

nfor

mat

ion

was

che

cked

usi

ng p

anel

dat

a.c P

anel

dat

a pr

ovid

ed b

y N

PD

Gro

up n

ot a

vaila

ble

for

this

bra

nd in

yea

rs N

and

N +

1.



Results

The data analysis aided in the understanding of the complex marketing–external design relationship through confirmation of the drivers suggested in the literature, the identification of new drivers, and the disclosure of pathways leading to NPD success. The findings are grouped into two categories: (1) identi-fication of new drivers through (a) the influence of relationship attributes on the relationship process and (b) the influence of the relationship process on NPD success and (2) identification of pathways of NPD success (Figure 1). Following Pratt (2008), the most compelling data, also called “power quotes,” are pre-sented in the body of the paper. “Proof quotes” that are used to show the prevalence of a point are pre-sented in tables.

Influence of Relationship Attributes on the Relationship Process

Each relationship began with the same process: se-lection of the external designer, formal agreement, and a briefing session. None of the external designers held long-term contracts with the marketing depart-ments. Each project was a one-shot contract, even though some dyads had previously worked together on other projects. External designers were paid for the delivery of a precise project. None of them re-ceived a share in the product’s future success (such as royalties on sales). The nine relationships lasted from

one to two years. The analysis of the relationship at-tributes confirmed that a previous relationship and contact authority influence relationship quality, as suggested in the literature, but also influence the ex-ternal designers’ commitment to brand identity. The analysis also brought to light another key driver that influences the relationship process: the source of ex-ternal designers’ expertise (further named “source of design expertise”).

Influence of Previous Relationship and Contact Authority on Relationship Quality. In the success cases, three dyads (out of four) had a previous relationship (S2, S3, and S4), while in the failure cases, only two dyads (out of five) had such a relationship (F2 and F5). Data analysis suggests that a previous relationship favored trust and improved fluidity of the marketing–external design working process, influencing relationship quality. Thus, the results confirm the positive link between a previous relationship and relationship quality. Our findings also confirm the theoretical framework conclusion that contact authority strengthens relationship quality (Table 4).

Influence of Previous Relationship and Contact Authority on Designer Brand Commitment. In three success cases (S2, S3, and S4), the external designers had a long-term relationship with the marketing departments, as they had worked together on other NPD projects. External designers thus had deep

Figure 1. Model of Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing–External Design Relationship

NPD SUCCESS

SOURCE OF DESIGN EXPERTISE

PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP

CONTACT AUTHORITY

RELATIONSHIP ATTRIBUTES RELATIONSHIP PROCESS NPD SUCCESS

NUMBER OF NPD STAGES INVOLVING DESIGNER

- TRUST- EXCHANGE EFFICIENCY - RECIPROCITY NORMS - DESIGNER BRAND COMMITMENT

Existing drivers and interactions suggested by former research

New drivers and interactions

RELATIONSHIP QUALITY



brand knowledge regarding brand identity and values. They were better able to meet marketing’s expectations, suggesting designs that echoed brand values. This analysis revealed the influence of a previous relationship on a new driver of relationship quality: designer brand commitment, characterized by designers’ ability to go the extra mile to build on brand values, roots, and positioning to innovate (see Appendix A). This brand commitment was essential to creating a product design that fit the brand identity while increasing product differentiation.

We chose to work with this designer because she knows the brand by heart; she knows its heritage perfectly… Consumers liked this luxurious, artis-tic, gold product. (S4M)

This product is inspired by the brand’s heritage. It gives prestige and value to the brand. (S4D)

They [designers] already knew the brand very well since they had worked previously on project X… This packaging was unique and immediately attributed to brand Y. According to consumers, “no other brand could have done it.” (S3M)

We had already worked for this prestigious house (...) We tried to propose a story that was legiti-mate for this brand. (S3D)

In contrast, in the failure cases (F2 and F5), when a previous relationship existed, it was shorter and fo-cused on smaller-scale projects (graphic design for F5 or limited edition for F2), limiting the transmission of brand values and identity.

The brief was very factual: “here is the target, here is the positioning,” with a succinct presenta-tion of the brand history. (F5D)

These findings also revealed the positive influ-ence of contact authority on the designer brand commitment:

It is very comfortable for an agency to work di-rectly with the CEO.... When we have the oppor-tunity to work directly with the decision-maker who agrees or disagrees with our proposals, as was the case for this brand, he told us precisely his vision for the project and that created al-chemy. (S2D)

When the VP said, “bottle cap must be shiny,” we were so involved in the project, and we told ourselves “it is not a good direction”… Then, we made the mock up, and we recognized the fit with the other products of the brand, telling ourselves, “It’s not so stupid.”(S3D)

Influence of the Source of Design Expertise on Designer Brand Commitment. When analyzing the relationship attributes, the data suggested that the source of design expertise—that is, the specific resources and skills of external designers—was a criterion that marketing used in the selection phase (Table 5).

Source of design expertise was crucial in the selec-tion phase but also appeared to have a major influ-ence on the relationship process.4 Customer-based external designers (S3, S4, F1, F4, and F5) adapted their proposals to their clients’ needs and requests. Yet, this attitude resulted in weaker brand commit-ment, especially in the absence of a previous relation-ship (F1, F4, and F5), because the designers were

4The classification of the source of design expertise was built on the typology of Abecassis-Moedas et al. (2012) and based on designers’ quotations triangulated with their websites and the professional press (Appendix C). It was double-coded by two of the authors.

Table 4. Influence of Previous Relationship and Contact Authority on Relationship Quality

Influence of … on Relationship Quality Quotation

Previous relationship I wanted to work with people I trusted (F1M). We have been working with her for years… In terms of the smoothness of the relationship, it was much easier, and it was very helpful (S4M).

Contact authority There was a close relationship between the marketing director and us, and so we worked twice as hard (…) (S3D).

The marketing director managed the design of the bottle directly. She bypassed the established order because product managers are usually assigned to it. But, for us, it was far more efficient (F1D).

I am sure that the shorter the decision-making process, the smoother the relationship, because it avoids having 25 different people giving their advice and then changing their minds. So, yes, I think it clearly helped (F4M).



unwilling to challenge the marketers’ interpretation of brand identity:

I had a very precise vision of what I wanted even though I don’t know how to draw. I transmitted the brand values, vision and a clear concept. (F1M)

You can always question the brief, but it was not our objective. (F1D)

Process-based external designers (S1 and S2) ad-opted specific methods to immerse themselves in the brand’s values:

We wanted to position the brand in high-end perfumes while being consistent with the jewelry universe. Then, the design agency was left free to work, and it submitted different creative propos-als. (S2M)

In-depth work on the brand is fundamental. The first thing to do is to understand it. We analyzed its DNA, its main characteristics, to build the creative strategy. From these characteristics, we identified stylistic attributes that were then trans-lated into bottle shapes... We truly believe in the history of brands, and we absolutely do not want to distort or influence it with the style of our de-signer. (S2D)

Finally, star-based external designers’ activities (F2 and F3) were initially based on object creations (such as furniture) sold under their own signature. They pos-sessed strong creative skills and did not seek to adopt existing brand values or to develop brand values.

He creates from scratch. He likes innovative things that never existed before. He did not adopt

a marketing approach (...) He just wants to have fun and create a new shape. (…) He does not care if it fits your brand and your target. (F2M)

I know nothing about the perfume world. What I am doing is offering a new way of looking at an object. I do not invent a typology that already exists; I just offer a different view (...) It is a dif-ferent object, that’s all. (F2D)

Influence of the Source of Design Expertise on the Number of NPD Stages Involving Designer. The analysis revealed that the number of NPD stages involving designer was influenced by designers’ source of expertise. Customer-based external designers were not involved in the concept generation stage but only later, in the early design stage, and were given very precise directions. For example, in F1, the concept was clearly defined, and the marketer even sent designers an amber-colored vase to show the specific shade desired for the packaging. On the other hand, process-based and star-based external designers were involved in many different stages (Table 6).

Process-based external designers were integrated into many stages, although they were not officially mandated for this. They took the lead in the early stages of the NPD process, especially in the concept stage, during which they did not hesitate to chal-lenge the initial brief and to suggest new directions for the brand. They thus remained involved longer than expected (Table 7). Star-based designers were systematically involved in both the early design and launch stages. The designers’ strong auras were viewed as added value to the press conference, a key event in this industry (Table 7).

Table 5. Influence of the Source of Design Expertise on the Selection Process

Source of Design Expertise Quotation

Customer-based I knew precisely what I expected from the designer. Otherwise, if I hadn’t had the idea, I would have hired a famous designer (F1M).

Process-based We wanted to build a new strategy for the brand… We thought that it could be beneficial to work with a design agency that had previously worked on a new brand design (S2M).

Star-based The impetus for this project was primarily the desire to work with designer X… X is an artist… He creates so much out of nothing. He enjoys creating innovative things that have never existed before (F2M). He is a famous designer (…) We wanted to work with someone who has a new and original approach, (…) who never designed a fragrance bottle (F3M).



Influence of the Relationship Process on NPD Success. Following the examination of the relationship attributes and their influence on the relationship process, the influence of the relationship process on NPD success was assessed.

Influence of Designer Brand Commitment on NPD Success. A deeper analysis of the success cases showed that in these cases, external designers fully grasped the marketing vision and brand identity. According to the marketers, success was mainly due

to consistency between the new product design and brand identity.

Nowadays, the packaging is the main element in our luxury industry … This packaging was so strong and embodied the brand mix so well that we used it everywhere: in TV and press advertis-ing, on point-of-sales material visuals, on folding boxes … Thanks to this project, we gained mar-ket share. (S3M)

My job is to try and bring a design that is consis-tent with the brand. (S3D)

Table 7. Influence of the Source of Design Expertise on the Number of NPD Stages Involving Designer

Source of Design Expertise Quotation

Process-based Concept Stage. First of all, we made the brief (…). We described the brand positioning and the brand philosophy. Then, we had a discussion with the agency about the new packaging (S1M). We helped them to define new objectives for the brand ... We deeply analyzed the brand through what we call a ‘brand platform.’ Sometimes there already is one, but in this case, there wasn’t. We thus got them to trust us, telling them, “We will bring out the main features of this brand” (S1D).

The brief was loose in terms of final object but tight concerning the high-end jewelry universe (…) The concept was developed thanks to the agency’s “fragrance-jewel” proposition (S2M). We suggested the concept of “fragrance-jewel” and its territory (S2D).

Late Design Stage. Concerning the design, glass bottle production and all the elements, we were responsible for; there was extreme rigor around quality. On top of our creative work, we also referred them to suppliers (S1D).

Our job is to challenge the engineers, not the opposite. We must find ways to achieve the best possible quality, taking into account both manufacturing costs and client budgets (S2D).

Star-based Late Design Stage. The agency intervened when we were stuck industrially to give us its impressions in terms of feasibility and of esthetic adaptation (...) The agency was very present and very involved not only in the early design stage (F3M). After, in the industrialization phase, I always try to push the technical limits to the maximum. This was particularly true on this project (F3D).

Launch Stage. Journalists are pleased to interview a star and to ask him questions directly. It is like a press event with guest stars, and therefore it ensures broad media coverage (F2M).

Table 6. Involvement of the External Designers in Each Stage of the NPD Process

NPD Stages

Design AgencyIdentification of

the Need Concept GenerationEarly Design and

DevelopmentLate Design and

Development Launch

Process-basedS1 x x x xS2 x x x xStar-basedF2 x xF3 x x xCustomer-basedS3 x xS4 xF1 x x*F4 xF5 x

*This specific case is explained by the absence of internal engineers in the client company.



In contrast, in the failure cases, the external de-signers were not always fully committed to integrat-ing brand values, which led to products that were not consistent with brand identity. In F3, for instance, the designer recognized that he had not fully inte-grated the brand requirements in terms of market target and brand identity:

I wanted to suggest alternative designs, not an-other classical fragrance bottle, but something different... I think that at the end of the day, this fragrance bottle was slightly too intellectual for the target of the fragrance market, where you have to appeal to women and to be girly. Personally, I am not used to focusing on this anecdotal dimen-sion … The bottle is a little bit too cold because it is plain white. We could have added some orna-mentation; it looks a little bit old fashioned … It may be slightly too simple. (F3D)

The bottle was slightly too retro; we would have liked it to be more modern. (F3M)

Influence of the Number of NPD Stages Involving Designer on NPD Success. Further comparison of relationship patterns between success and failure cases highlighted the importance of the number of NPD stages involving designer. An event analysis showed that successful relationships were those in which the external designers were the most intensively integrated. More specifically, the involvement of external designers in various stages of the NPD process, not only in early design stage but also in concept generation or late design stages, was prevalent in successful cases (Table 8).

Pathways of NPD Success

The QCA was used to establish whether the driv-ers that were identified through the multiple dyadic case studies were necessary and/or sufficient condi-tions for NPD success. In its crisp-set version, QCA is based on Boolean logic. To conduct the analysis, the values of the conditions and the outcome of in-terest are dichotomized into values of 0 and 1, with 1 indicating that a given condition/outcome is pres-ent and 0 indicating its absence. Computation of the complex solution revealed that both the consistency of the data, i.e., the extent to which condition X is necessary for outcome Y (analogous to a correla-tion coefficient), and the coverage of the data, i.e., the size of the relationship between the outcome set and the condition set (analogous to the coefficient of determination R2) (Woodside, 2013), were very high (Table 9). In line with Ragin (2006, p. 299), the con-sistency is high and above the minimum threshold of .75, while no threshold exists for the coverage value in the crisp-set QCA. These values indicate, with a high degree of certainty, that the combination of the iden-tified drivers was necessary to produce NPD success.

Two pathways led to NPD success. The first path-way indicates that contact authority combined with designer brand commitment and with a high number of NPD stages involving designer led to NPD suc-cess. Conversely, if external designers were involved in many NPD stages with contact authority but no brand commitment, NPD failure occurred (Table 9). The second pathway indicates that a previous rela-tionship combined with contact authority and de-signer brand commitment resulted in NPD success. These two pathways were fully consistent (consis-tency = 1) and explained a satisfactory number of cases of NPD success (coverage = .75). This complex

Table 8. Link between the Number of NPD Stages Involving Designer and NPD Success

Success Failure

NPD Stages S1 S2 S3 S4 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Identification of the need

Concept generation x xEarly design x x x x x x x x xLate design x x x (xa) (xb)Launch x x x x

aTotal Delegation. No engineering department in the marketing department’s company.bPartial Integration of Designer. Consulting role.



solution analysis thus shows that four conditions—namely, a previous relationship, contact authority, number of NPD stages involving designer, and de-signer brand commitment—lead to NPD success. Contact authority and designer brand commitment appeared in both pathways, indicating that they are necessary conditions, i.e., that they must be present for a successful outcome to occur, but are not suffi-cient to ensure NPD success. A condition (here called a driver) is necessary when it is always present when the outcome occurs. It is sufficient when on its own it explains the resulting outcome (Berg-Schlosser et al., 2009).

To better consider the influence of different de-signer types on the relationship, sources of design expertise were then introduced into the complex solution (Table 9). The results reveal that the first pathway was especially relevant in the case of pro-cess-based external designers (consistency = 1; cov-erage = .5). The second pathway was particularly

confirmed in the case of customer-based external designers. Conversely, two pathways led to NPD failure, including customer-based and star-based ex-ternal designers. These results suggest that the path-ways of NPD success may differ according to the source of design expertise. Yet, due to the limited number of each type of designer in our sample, one cannot at this stage identify NPD success pathways for all types of designers, and especially for star-based ones.

The content analysis of the multiple dyadic case study combined with QCA however provided a deeper understanding of the pathways of NPD suc-cess (Table 10).

Discussion and Propositions

Building on the literature on related topics (NPD, design management, and relationship marketing) and on nine dyadic case studies analyzed through a

Table 9. Complex Solution to Truth Table Minimization

Outcome Causal Configuration, Coverage, and Consistency Raw Coveragea Unique Coverageb Consistency

NPD success Model: npdsuccess = f(dsgncommit, prevrel, npdstage, bdcontact)

npdstage*dsgncommit*bdcontact .75 .25 1prevrel*dsgncommit*bdcontact .75 .25 1solution coverage: 1.00; solution consistency: 1.00

NPD failure Model: npdfailure = f(npdstage, prevrel, dsgncommit)

~prevrel*~dsgncommit*~npdstage .6 .6 1npdstage*~dsgncommit*bdcontact .4 .4 1solution coverage: 1.00; solution consistency: 1.00

Causal Configuration, Coverage and Consistency Including source of Design Expertise

Raw Coverage Unique Coverage Consistency

NPD success Model: npdsuccess = f(npdstage, starag, customag, processag, prevrel, dsgncommit, bdcontact)

npdstage*~starag*~customag*processag*dsgncommit*bdcontact

.5 .5 1

~starag*customag*~processag*prevrel*dsgncommit*bdcontact

.5 .5 1

solution coverage: 1.00; solution consistency: 1.00NPD failure Model: npdfailure = f(npdstage, starag, customag,

processag, prevrel, dsgncommit, bdcontact)npdstage*starag*~customag*~processag*~dsgncom

mit*bdcontact.4 .4 1

~npdstage*~starag*customag*~processag*~prevrel*~dsgncommit

.6 .6 1

solution coverage: 1.00; solution consistency: 1.00

Notes: bdcommit = designer brand commitment; prevrel = previous relationship; NPD stages = number of NPD stages involving designer; contact = contact authority; starag = star-based external design; customag = customer-based external design; processag = process-based external design; ~ is absence of the driver.aRaw coverage is the extent to which each combination can explain the outcome.bUnique coverage is the proportion of cases that can be explained exclusively by that combination.



content analysis combined with a QCA, this research provides a model of drivers and pathways of NPD success in the marketing–external design relation-ship (Figure 1). First, it introduces three new NPD success drivers: source of design expertise, designer brand commitment, and number of NPD stages in-volving designer. Second, our results reveal the path-ways leading to NPD success that are the basis of the research propositions. It especially shows that contact authority and designer brand commitment are necessary conditions for NPD success, especially when combined with a high number of NPD stages involving designer or a previous relationship. The re-sults also indicate that pathways of NPD success may differ according to the source of design expertise.

This study is distinct from the literature examining the advertising agency–client relationship (ACR) that also addresses creative partners.5 First, ACR is not linked to the NPD process and does not impact tangible aspects of the product. NPD commits the company to a much longer term, requires more coop-eration, and implies greater investments than a com-munication operation. Second, our study addresses the direct relationship between a business-oriented function (marketing) and a creative partner (external designer), while ACR focuses on an indirect relation-ship with creative partners, since it analyzes the rela-tionship with noncreative account directors who are mediators between the marketing and creative roles (Beverland, Farrelly, and Woodhatch, 2007; Keegan, Rowley, and Tonge, 2017). Finally, the marketing– external design relationship is discontinuous and project-based, while ACR is continuous and focuses

on long-term contracts. Consequently, the focus is different. While our study identifies the conditions that favor NPD success, the ACR literature focuses on relationship longevity. Our study therefore leads to several new research propositions.

First, it shows that NPD success can occur even though external designers are not involved in the idea generation stage. This can be partly explained by past research on NPD, which indicates that in-ter-functional cooperation is a critical determinant of NPD success due to communication, similar task orientation, and interpersonal relations (Song et al., 1997). These results suggest that when working with external design, NPD success is less impacted by the early involvement of external design (Cooper, 2008) than by the involvement of designers in a high number of NPD stages and by the implementation of mechanisms that lead to a high level of brand com-mitment, such as contact authority. One possible ex-planation is that such NPD stages involving designer and brand commitment are a means to ensure prod-uct consistency with brand values, thereby leading to NPD success. Indeed, if designers are involved in a high number of NPD stages but not committed to brand identity, NPD failure occurs. This leads to the following proposition:

P1: The combination of (1) contact authority, (2) designer brand commitment, and (3) a high num-ber of NPD stages involving designer leads to NPD success.

Our findings also show that a previous relationship is a driver of relationship quality, in line with prior re-search which suggests it is a means to foster familiarity, 5We thank one of the reviewers for raising this point.

Table 10. Pathways of NPD Success

NPD Success NPD Failure

Combination of driversContact authority*Designer brand commitment*Number of NPD stages involving

designerx

Previous relationship*Contact authority*Designer brand commitment xContact authority*Lack of designer brand commitment*Number of NPD stages

involving designerx

Combination of drivers including source of design expertiseProcess-based external design* Contact authority*Designer brand commitment* Number

of NPD stages involving designerx

Customer-based external design* Previous relationship*Contact authority*Designer brand commitment

x

Star-based external design*Contact authority* Number of NPD stages involving designer x



mutual understanding, respect, trust, stability, and continuity of the relationship (Borja de Mozota, 2003; Bruce and Cooper, 1997; Bruce and Morris, 1994; Verganti, 2003; Von Stamm, 2008). Our study also re-veals that a previous relationship combined with con-tact authority and designer brand commitment leads to NPD success. This result can be explained by the fact that external designers might already be familiar with the appropriate brand values and have a refined knowledge of the brand customers’ needs, which in-fluence their brand commitment. Furthermore, con-tact authority favors decision-making that ensures respect of brand identity. This leads to the following proposition:

P2: The combination of (1) previous relationship, (2) contact authority, and (3) designer brand com-mitment leads to NPD success.

This paper also reveals that the source of design ex-pertise, when combined with other drivers, may influ-ence NPD success. Our data indicate that resorting to customer-based external designers leads to NPD suc-cess when a previous relationship exists, when design-ers benefit from contact authority, and when designers are committed to brand identity. In the case of a long-term and close relationship (previous collaboration and contact authority), the advantages of resorting to customer-based external designers can be compared to those when collaborating with internal design.

This study also shows that due to their specific creative and organizational processes, process-based external designers are more likely to be committed to brand, which is strengthened by contact author-ity. They are also involved in a high number of NPD stages, especially in the concept stage (Table 6). These findings lead to the following propositions:

P3a: When the source of external design expertise is customer-based, the combination of (1) previous relationship, (2) contact authority, and (3) de-signer brand commitment leads to NPD success.

P3b: When the source of external design expertise is process-based, the combination of (1) contact authority, (2) designer brand commitment, and (3) a high number of NPD stages involving designer leads to NPD success.

Finally, while the literature suggests that resort-ing to star-based designers enhances firm perfor-mance (Gemser and Wijnberg, 2002), our results do not confirm this link. Star-based external designers whose source of expertise is built on their individual creativity are attractive resources for marketing de-partments, since they provide a competitive advan-tage in terms of creativity, innovation, and branding (Abecassis-Moedas et al., 2012). The introduction of radical innovations is frequently associated with designers’ own individual interpretative capabilities (Verganti, 2009). Their creativity can be evaluated through the number and nature of the design awards they have earned, which is considered an indicator of innovativeness (Dell’Era and Verganti, 2010; Gemser and Wijnberg, 2002; Walsh, Roy, and Bruce, 1988). Awards act as a trigger of purchase (Sung, Nam, and Chung, 2010) and are positively linked to design firm performance (Gemser and Wijnberg, 2002). Yet, in our data, star-based designers do not lead to NPD success. One possible explanation for this result is that star-based designers’ will to nurture a new prod-uct design is based on their individual creativity rather than the brand’s history and values, leading to low brand commitment. As a consequence, their new product creation might be disconnected from the brand’s identity—which might occur even though the external designers are involved in a high number of NPD stages. These findings lead to the following proposition:

P3c: When the source of external design exper-tise is star-based, (1) contact authority and (2) a high number of NPD stages involving designer are essential but not sufficient conditions for NPD success.

Our findings thus suggest that the source of design expertise may matter. They also show that while the number of NPD stages involving designer clearly mat-ters, other elements might impact NPD success, such as the nature of the NPD stages in which the design-ers are involved (Table 6). Due to their specific orga-nizational processes, process-based designers are, for example, more prone to be involved in the concept gen-eration stage than other designers. Yet, based on our data, it cannot be clearly determined whether source of design expertise matters more than the number of NPD stages involving designer or the nature of NPD



stages in which designers are involved in pathways of NPD success.

Conclusion

Theoretical Implications

At a theoretical level, this study heeds the call for a better understanding of the conditions required for NPD success in the marketing–external design relationship (Ravasi and Stigliani, 2012), which is a typical case of interorganizational collaboration between a business-oriented function (marketing) and a creative partner (external design). A model of drivers and pathways of NPD success was developed through a research design based on multiple case studies of NPD successes and failures, a dyadic per-spective and QCA, which has seldom been used in the innovation field. This approach allows for theory development, and it thus contributes to and extends existing literature in four distinct ways.

First, this study enriches the NPD literature in several ways. As the NPD field evolves to open sys-tems that have changed concepts like functional in-tegration to more interorganizational integration leading to the emergence of new success factors (Evanschitzky et al., 2012), this study managed to identify new NPD success drivers. By merging three streams of research, confirming the importance of investigating more broadly NPD success factors (Evanschitzky et al., 2012), this research therefore proposes an integrated conceptual framework to bet-ter capture the nature of NPD success drivers in the marketing–external design relationship.

Furthermore, while earlier studies have indi-cated that successful NPD requires various drivers (Cooper, 2008; Evanschitzky et al., 2012; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994; Song et al., 1997; Zhang et al., 2011), they provided little guidance on how firms can achieve that. By arguing that NPD success is linked to specific pathways of the different success drivers, this study proposes a dynamic approach thus providing new knowledge on the interactions between different drivers. It reveals combinations of drivers that lead to NPD success as well as showing how some individual drivers influence others.

It especially shows that involvement in the idea generation stage is not always a major driver of NPD success as suggested by Cooper (2008). Our findings

indicate that when marketing departments work with external design, designers must be involved in many stages of the NPD process, late stages being as im-portant as early stages. By revealing the importance of the number of NPD stages involving designer, this study also establishes the link between market-ing–external design integration and NPD success, thereby extending the results of Zhang et al. (2011). In addition to number of NPD stages involving de-signer, this research extends the NPD literature by identifying designer brand commitment as a new driver of NPD success.

Second, this study contributes to deepening the marketing–design literature and especially the emerging knowledge on marketing–external design relationship (Borja de Mozota, 2003; Bruce and Cooper, 1997; Bruce and Daly, 2007). Previous re-search on marketing–design relationship focused on the importance of ensuring new product consistency with brand core values and heritage (Beverland, 2005; Beverland, Wilner, and Micheli, 2015; Karjalainen and Snelders, 2010), revealing how design practices enable the renewal of the brand while preserving its identity (Beverland et al., 2015; Karjalainen and Snelders, 2010). Yet, these prior papers focused on internal designers who are already immersed in the brand and did not establish a link with NPD success. While confirming the importance of branding in the marketing–design relationship, this study shows that external designers do not systemically integrate this dimension. It reveals that branding, a major asset for marketing, has to be carefully managed when resort-ing to external design and that external designers’ commitment to brand cannot be taken for granted, even though it is a necessary condition for NPD success. Furthermore, while internal designers are within the company and easily available throughout the NPD process, our results underline the impor-tance of integrating external designers in a high num-ber of NPD stages.

Third, this research enriches literature on design expertise, which is an under-researched area in the NPD and design literature (Cross, 2004; Lawson and Dorst, 2013; Zhang, 2015). While the literature on de-sign expertise mostly embraces the concepts of nov-ice and expert (Ozkan and Dogan, 2013), with level of expertise often measured by years of experience (Ericsson and Smith, 1991), this study shows that considering the level of expertise is not sufficient in



the marketing–external design relationship. Indeed, even when external designers have the same level of expertise (Table 2), the pathways to NPD success may differ according to their sources of expertise, which are based on methodological assets (customer-based or process-based) or personal assets (star-based). By distinguishing the source of expertise from the level of expertise, this research offers a finer-grained un-derstanding of what constitutes design expertise and suggests a new dimension of this construct.

Finally, this research enriches the relationship marketing literature (Palmatier, 2008; Palmatier et al., 2006; Sivadas and Dwyer, 2000) by refining the understanding of the link between commitment and NPD success in the context of external design part-nership that is discontinuous and project-based. Our research especially reveals another dimension of commitment, the designer brand commitment that is the commitment in the partner’s strategic vision. This commitment relies on the desire to value the brand identity of the partner, which is a specific way to maintain a valued relationship (Appendix A). This research also shows that designer brand commitment is a driver of NPD success. The study identifies three drivers that influence designer brand commitment and that are linked to relationship attributes: a pre-vious relationship, contact authority, and source of design expertise.

Managerial Implications

Marketing department innovativeness is a means to increase innovation performance (Drechsler et al., 2013; Verhoef and Leeflang, 2009), and marketing de-partments are looking for new ways to generate ideas that lead to stronger competitive advantage. The fre-quency of relationships with external creative part-ners, and especially external designers, makes it vital for marketing managers to better understand the NPD success drivers in such situations. This research shows that in the relationship between a business-ori-ented function and a creative partner, the quality of the relationship and a common understanding of each party’s objectives are just as important driv-ers of NPD success as the creative characteristics of the partner and its reputation. The model developed here can guide marketing managers in choosing the right partner, handling the relationship, and choos-ing from the range of drivers and pathways to devise more effective ways to work with external designers

in the NPD process. Our study therefore provides key recommendations to managers.

First, this study suggests that managers should consider two necessary conditions for NPD success: contact authority and strong brand commitment. This means that the company should appoint C-suite members or at least senior marketing executives to be external design’s contact to ensure efficient and fast decision-making capabilities. They should also choose an external designer who seems highly com-mitted to understanding and respecting the brand identity and who can adapt its creativity to the brand characteristics, and this constraint should be re-called at each stage of the creativity process. Note that key decision-makers will also be able to put more pressure on the design agency to respect the brand identity.

Second, this study proposes two pathways lead-ing to NPD success. The first pathway implies that the three conditions of contact authority, designer brand commitment, and high number of NPD stages involving designer are met. The second pathway im-plies that the three conditions of having a previous relationship with the chosen external designers, con-tact authority, and designer brand commitment are met. This means that whenever the two necessary conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph are met, the third condition to foster NPD success can ei-ther be to involve the external designer in many NPD stages or to choose a partner with whom the brand has worked before.

Third, this study emphasizes the importance of considering the source of design expertise to adapt the relationship process and thus promote NPD success. Once the company has chosen an external designer and identified its profile in terms of design expertise, the marketing department should empha-size different aspects of the collaboration. If it is a customer-based external designer, marketing manag-ers should stimulate even more designer commitment to brand identity, especially when the marketers and designers have not collaborated before. When the ex-ternal designers are process-based, marketers should involve them as soon as possible in the NPD process, especially during upstream activities, such as need identification or concept generation, and throughout the entire NPD process. When it is a star-based ex-ternal designer, special precautions should be taken. While star-based designers are attractive to market-ing departments, our results suggest that managers



should handle this relationship very carefully and create mechanisms for control and to ensure consis-tency with brand identity. Brand monitoring should be included in the checklist of the go/kill decision at each stage of the NPD process (Cooper, 2008).

Limitations and Future Research

The results must be viewed in light of the study’s lim-itations. First, the initial purpose of this research was to obtain an in-depth understanding of the drivers and pathways of NPD success in the marketing–ex-ternal design relationship using a multiple dyadic case study enriched with the crisp-set analysis. Our research would benefit from larger-scale replication to test our results, measuring the respective weight of each factor in its contribution to performance and al-lowing further exploration of NPD success pathways with more cases for each source of design expertise. This would also help to distinguish whether the num-ber of NPD stages matters more than the nature of the NPD stages in which designers are involved in the pathways of NPD success. Moreover, while the literature suggests that resorting to external design increases product innovativeness, further research could determine the extent to which source of exper-tise moderates this link.

Second, this research focuses only on the luxury fra-grance and cosmetics industry, in which marketing– external design relationships are frequent, marketing and design play critical roles in product differentia-tion, and brands are considered key assets. While this research benefits from examining a relatively homo-geneous group of firms, its conclusions require some caution. Because the effects of external relationships on NPD success are stronger for low-tech than for high-tech sectors (Evanschitzky et al., 2012), and be-cause this study lends support to some findings from previous studies, it is expected that the model is gener-alizable to other low-tech sectors (such as fast-moving consumer goods and the fashion industry). Yet, given the peculiarities of this empirical context (high-inter-est products, mass production, business-to-consumer sector), further research in other industries is needed to determine whether the model can be applied to other settings. The study should also be replicated in other industrial sectors where branding is less import-ant. Finally, while this study reveals the importance of contact authority, replication of this study in other

sectors may reveal other relevant drivers linked to the customer-focused dimension.

References

Abecassis-Moedas, C., and S. Ben Mahmoud-Jouini. 2008. Absorptive capacity and source-recipient complementarity in designing new products: An empirically derived framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (5): 473–90.

Abecassis-Moedas, C., S. Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, C. Dell’Era, D. Manceau, and R. Verganti. 2012. Key resources and internation-alization modes of creative knowledge-intensive business ser-vices: The case of design consultancies. Creativity and Innovation Management 21 (3): 315–31.

Abecassis-Moedas, C., and J. Rodrigues Pereira. 2016. External design for reputation, perspective and exposure. Creativity and Innovation Management 25: 396–07.

Badrinarayanan, V., and D. B. Arnett. 2008. Effective virtual new product development teams: An integrated framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 23 (4): 242–48.

Bailetti, A. J., and P. F. Litva. 1995. Integrating customer require-ments into product designs. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12 (1): 3–15.

Berg-Schlosser, D., G. De Meur, B. Rihoux, and C. C. Ragin. 2009. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as an approach. In Configurational comparative methods, 1–18. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Beverland, M. 2005. Managing the design innovation-brand mar-keting interface: Resolving the tension between artistic creation and commercial imperatives. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (2): 193–207.

Beverland, M., F. Farrelly, and Z. Woodhatch. 2007. Exploring the dimensions of proactivity within advertising agency–client rela-tionships. Journal of Advertising 36 (4): 49–60.

Beverland, M. B., P. Micheli, and F. J. Farrelly. 2016. Resourceful sensemaking: Overcoming barriers between marketing and de-sign in NPD. Journal of Product Innovation Management 33 (5): 628–48.

Beverland, M. B., S. J. Wilner, and P. Micheli. 2015. Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: Design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (5): 589–609.

Borja de Mozota, B. 2003. Design management: Using design to build brand value and corporate innovation. New York: Allworth Press.

Borja de Mozota, B. 2006. The four powers of design: A value model in design management. Design Management Review 17 (2): 44–53.

Boudreau, K. J., E. C. Guinan, K. R. Lakhani, and C. Riedl. 2016. Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science 62 (10): 2765–83.

Brockman, B. K., M. E. Rawlston, M. A. Jones, and D. Halstead. 2010. An exploratory model of interpersonal cohesiveness in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27 (2): 201–19.

Brown, S. L., and K. M. Eisenhardt. 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review 20 (2): 343–78.

Bruce, M., and R. Cooper. 1997. Marketing and design management. London: Intl Thomson Business Press.



Bruce, M., and L. Daly. 2007. Design and marketing connections: Creating added value. Journal of Marketing Management 23 (9–10): 929–53.

Bruce, M., and B. H. Jevnaker. 1998. Management of design alli-ances: Sustaining competitive advantage. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Son Ltd.

Bruce, M., and B. Morris. 1994. Managing external design profes-sionals in the product development process. Technovation 14 (9): 585–99.

Bstieler, L., and M. Hemmert. 2015. The effectiveness of relational and contractual governance in new product development collab-orations: Evidence from Korea. Technovation 45: 29–39.

Caves, R. E. 2000. Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chai, C., F. Cen, W. Ruan, C. Yang, and H. Li. 2015. Behavioral analysis of analogical reasoning in design: Differences among designers with different expertise levels. Design Studies 36: 3–30.

Chaston, I. 2008. Small creative industry firms: A development di-lemma? Management Decision 46 (6): 819–31.

Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2008. Delight by de-sign: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing 72 (3): 48–63.

Chiva, R., and J. Alegre. 2007. Linking design management skills and design function organization: An empirical study of Spanish and Italian ceramic tile producers. Technovation 27 (10): 616–27.

Cooper, R. G. 2008. Perspective: The stage-gate idea-to-launch process–update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (3): 213–32.

Cooper, R., and M. Press. 1995. The design agenda: A guide to suc-cessful design management. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Coviello, N. E., and R. M. Joseph. 2012. Creating major innova-tions with customers: Insights from small and young technology firms. Journal of Marketing 76 (6): 87–104.

Cross, N. 2004. Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies 25 (5): 427–41.

Czarnitzki, D. and S. Thorwarth. 2012. The contribution of in-house and external design activities to product market performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29 (5): 878–95.

Dell’Era, C., and R. Verganti. 2010. Collaborative strategies in de-sign-intensive industries: Knowledge diversity and innovation. Long Range Planning 43 (1): 123–41.

Drechsler, W., M. Natter, and P. S. Leeflang. 2013. Improving mar-keting’s contribution to new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30 (2): 298–315.

Edeling, A., and M. Fischer. 2016. Marketing’s impact on firm value: Generalizations from a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 53 (4): 515–34.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and M. E. Graebner. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25–32.

Ericsson, K. A. and J. Smith. 1991. Toward a general theory of ex-pertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Evanschitzky, H., M. Eisend, R. J. Calantone, and Y. Jiang. 2012. Success factors of product innovation: An updated meta-anal-ysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29 (S1): 21–37.

French Ministry of Economy. 2010. The design economy. Paris: French Ministry of Economy. Direction Générale de la

Compétitivité de l’Industrie et des Services (DGCIS), Ministère de l’Economie de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi.

Gemser, G., and N. M. Wijnberg. 2002. The economic significance of industrial design awards: A conceptual framework. Academic Review 2 (1): 61–71.

Griffin, A., and A. L. Page. 1996. PDMA success measurement proj-ect: Recommended measures for product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13 (6): 478–96.

Hargadon, A., and R. I. Sutton. 1997. Technology brokering and in-novation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (4): 716–49.

Ho, C.-H. 2001. Some phenomena of problem decomposition strat-egy for design thinking: Differences between novices and ex-perts. Design Studies 22 (1): 27–45.

Holmes, E. 2012. Perfume bottles gone wild. Wall Street Journal (Europe Edition). June 7.

Homburg, C., M. Schwemmle, and C. Kuehnl. 2015. New product design: Concept, measurement, and consequences. Journal of Marketing 79 (3): 41–56.

Karjalainen, T. M. and D. Snelders. 2010. Designing visual recog-nition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27 (1): 6–22.

Keegan, B. J., J. Rowley, and J. Tonge. 2017. Marketing agency–cli-ent relationships: Towards a research agenda. European Journal of Marketing 51 (7/8): 1197–223.

Kumar, M., J. D. Townsend, and D. W. Vorhies. 2015. Enhancing consumers’ affection for a brand using product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management 32 (5): 716–30.

Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 691–710.

Lawson, B., and K. Dorst. 2013. Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Luchs, M., and K. S. Swan. 2011. Perspective: The emergence of product design as a field of marketing inquiry. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (3): 327–45.

Luchs, M. G., K. S. Swan, and M. E. H. Creusen. 2016. Perspective: A review of marketing research on product design with directions for future research. Journal of Product Innovation Management 33 (3): 320–41.

Lusch, R. F., and J. R. Brown. 1996. Interdependency, contract-ing, and relational behavior in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing 60 (4): 19–38.

MacPherson, A., and V. Vanchan. 2009. The outsourcing of indus-trial design services by large US manufacturing companies. International Regional Science Review 33 (1): 3–30.

Matusow, J. 2012 Beauty company of the year-excellence in pack-aging: Elizabeth Arden. Available at: https://www.beauty packaging.com/issues/2012-01/view_features/beauty-company- of-the-year-excellence-in-pack/

Melewar, T. C., C. Dennis, and A. Kent. 2014. Global design, mar-keting and branding: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Research 67 (11): 2241–42.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., and R. Calantone. 1994. Determinants of new product performance: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 11 (5): 397–417.

Moorman, C., R. Deshpande, and G. Zaltman. 1993. Factors af-fecting trust in market research relationships. The Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 81–101.

https://www.beautypack

https://www.beautypack

aging

.com/issues/2012-01/view_features/beauty-company-of-the-year-excellence-in-pack/

.com/issues/2012-01/view_features/beauty-company-of-the-year-excellence-in-pack/



Moorman, C., and R. T. Rust. 1999. The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue): 180–97.

Morgan, R. M., and S. D. Hunt. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (3): 20.

Obal, M., R. Kannan-Narasimhan, and G. Ko. 2016. Whom should we talk to? Investigating the varying roles of internal and exter-nal relationship quality on radical and incremental innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 33: 136–47.

Ordanini, A., G. Rubera, and M. Sala. 2008. Integrating functional knowledge and embedding learning in new product launches: How project forms helped EMI Music. Long Range Planning 41 (1): 17–32.

Ozkan, O., and F. Dogan. 2013. Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice de-signers. Design Studies 34 (2): 161–92.

Palmatier, R. W. 2008. Interfirm relational drivers of customer value. Journal of Marketing 72 (4): 76–89.

Palmatier, R. W., R. P. Dant, D. Grewal, and K. R. Evans. 2006. Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing 70 (4): 136–53.

Palmatier, R. W., M. B. Houston, R. P. Dant, and D. Grewal. 2013. Relationship velocity: Toward a theory of relationship dynam-ics. Journal of Marketing 77 (1): 13–30.

Perks, H., R. Cooper, and C. Jones. 2005. Characterizing the role of design in new product development: An empirically derived tax-onomy. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (2): 111–27.

Pratt, M. G. 2008. Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluat-ing and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods 11 (3): 481–509.

Ragin, C. C. 2006. Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis 14 (3): 291–310.

Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ravasi, D., and G. Lojacono. 2005. Managing design and designers for strategic renewal. Long Range Planning 38 (1): 51–77.

Ravasi, D., and I. Stigliani. 2012. Product design: A review and re-search agenda for management studies. International Journal of Management Reviews 14 (4): 464–88.

Rindfleisch, A., and C. Moorman. 2001. The acquisition and utiliza-tion of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing 65 (2): 1–18.

Roy, R., and S. Potter. 1993. The commercial impacts of investment in design. Design studies 14 (2): 171–93.

Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., and K. Hakkarainen. 2001. Composition and construction in experts’ and novices’ weaving design. Design Studies 22 (1): 47–66.

Sivadas, E., and F. R. Dwyer. 2000. An examination of organiza-tional factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing 64 (1): 31–49.

Sjoerdsma, M., and A. J. van Weele. 2015. Managing supplier re-lationships in a new product development context. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 21 (3): 192–203.

Song, X. M., M. M. Montoya-Weiss, and J. B. Schmidt. 1997. Antecedents and consequences of cross-functional cooperation: A comparison of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing perspec-tives. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14 (1): 35–47.

Sung, W. O., K.-Y. Nam, and K.-W. Chung. 2010. Strategic use of in-ternational product design award schemes. Design Management Journal 5 (1): 72–86.

Troy, L. C., T. Hirunyawipada, and A. K. Paswan. 2008. Cross-functional integration and new product success: An empirical investigation of the findings. Journal of Marketing 72 (6): 132–46.

Verganti, R. 2003. Design as brokering of languages: Innovation strat-egies in Italian firms. Design Management Journal 14 (3): 34–42.

Verganti, R. 2009. Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Verhoef, P. C., and P. S. Leeflang. 2009. Understanding the market-ing department’s influence within the firm. Journal of Marketing 73 (2): 14–37.

Veryzer, R. W., and B. Borja de Mozota. 2005. The impact of us-er-oriented design on new product development: An examina-tion of fundamental relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (2): 128–43.

Von Stamm, B. 2008. Managing innovation, design and creativity. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Walsh, V., R. Roy, and M. Bruce. 1988. Competitive by Design. Journal of Marketing Management 4 (2): 201–16.

Walter, A. 2003. Relationship-specific factors influencing supplier involvement in customer new product development. Journal of Business Research 56 (9): 721–33.

Woodside, A. G. 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research 66 (4): 463–72.

Yin, R. K. 2013. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zhang, D. 2015. Industrial designers: Are you ready for foreign mar-kets? Assessing designer confidence and prediction accuracy in a transnational marketing context. Creativity and Innovation Management 24 (3): 449–63.

Zhang, D., P. Hu, and M. Kotabe. 2011. Marketing-industrial de-sign integration in new product development: The case of China. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (3): 360–73.



App

endi

x A

. Con

stru

cts

Def

init

ion

Rel

atio

nsh

ip A

ttri

bute

s

Con

stru

ctP

revi

ous

Rel

atio

nsh

ipC

onta

ct A

utho

rity

Sou

rce

of D

esig

n E

xper

tise

Def

init

ion

It is

rel

ated

to

the

exte

nt t

o w

hich

the

ex

chan

ge p

artn

ers

(in

our

case

m

arke

ting

and

ext

erna

l des

ign)

hav

e pr

evio

usly

don

e bu

sine

ss t

oget

her.

It c

aptu

res

the

exte

nt t

o w

hich

the

se

ller

(in

our

case

, the

ext

erna

l des

ign)

kn

ows

the

key

deci

sion

-mak

ers

of t

he

cust

omer

fir

m (

in o

ur c

ase,

the

m

arke

ting

dep

artm

ent)

and

dea

ls w

ith

them

. Con

tact

aut

hori

ty e

nabl

es t

he

exte

rnal

des

ign

to h

ave

acce

ss t

o va

luab

le in

form

atio

n an

d no

nred

un-

dant

kno

wle

dge

abou

t th

e cu

stom

er,

prov

ided

by

high

-lev

el d

ecis

ion-

mak

-er

s of

the

cus

tom

er t

hat

is c

riti

cal t

o pr

oduc

t in

nova

tion

. It

incr

ease

s th

e un

ders

tand

ing

of t

he k

ey d

ecis

ion

para

met

ers

and

help

s to

ada

pt t

he

offe

ring

s.

The

sou

rce

of e

xper

tise

of

exte

rnal

des

igne

rs is

cha

ract

eriz

ed b

y a

com

plex

co

llect

ion

of s

kills

and

by

thei

r in

here

nt k

ey a

sset

s: p

roxi

mit

y to

cus

tom

ers

and

thei

r or

gani

zati

onal

fle

xibi

lity

(cus

tom

er-b

ased

), s

peci

fic

crea

tive

pr

oces

ses

and

orga

niza

tion

al c

apab

iliti

es (

proc

ess-

base

d), h

ighl

y cr

eati

ve

and

tale

nted

indi

vidu

als

who

ben

efit

fro

m a

n in

tern

atio

nal r

eput

atio

n (s

tar-

base

d).

Pro

of q

uote

sW

e ha

ve b

een

wor

king

wit

h he

r fo

r ye

ars,

not

alw

ays

but

ofte

n (S

4 M).

We

have

kno

wn

each

oth

er fo

r 15

yea

rs. W

e co

llabo

rate

d on

ple

nty

of o

ther

pro

duct

de

sign

pro

ject

s be

fore

and

got

alo

ng

very

wel

l (S

4 D).

Whe

n yo

u ha

ve t

he c

hanc

e to

be

in

dire

ct c

onta

ct w

ith

the

fina

l dec

isio

n-m

aker

, thi

s is

the

bes

t si

tuat

ion

for

a pr

ojec

t.(S

2 D)

Cus

tom

er-b

ased

: T

hey

tend

ed t

o do

eve

ryth

ing

I as

ked

them

to

do, w

itho

ut

nece

ssar

ily t

ellin

g m

e if

the

y ag

reed

or

not

(F5 M

). W

e ar

e fi

rst

and

fore

mos

t th

ere

to r

espo

nd t

o w

hat

the

cust

omer

wan

ts. T

here

is a

tim

e w

hen

we

do

acco

rdin

g to

wha

t th

e cu

stom

er w

ants

; i.e

., yo

u ar

e ob

liged

to

take

into

ac

coun

t th

eir

rem

arks

, eve

n if

you

do

not

100%

agr

ee w

ith

them

. (S

4 D).

Pro

cess

-bas

ed:

“The

y re

ally

had

an

expe

rtis

e an

d a

know

-how

in b

rand

de

sign

, so

we

thou

ght

we

wer

e in

goo

d ha

nds”

(S

2 M).

Sta

r-ba

sed:

“H

e is

a fa

mou

s de

sign

er”

(F3 M

). “

In g

ener

al, a

nd I

say

it w

ith

a lo

t of

mod

esty

, if

we

com

e he

re, w

e kn

ow t

hat

ther

e is

a d

iffe

rent

poi

nt o

f vi

ew a

nd t

hat

we

do n

ot c

ome

look

ing

for

an a

genc

y, w

e co

me

to g

et a

n au

thor

”(F

3 D).

For

mor

e de

tails

, ple

ase

also

ref

er t

o A

ppen

dix

C.

Lin

k to

ext

ant

liter

atur

eR

elat

ions

hip

mar

keti

ng (

Luc

hs a

nd

Bro

wn,

199

6; P

alm

atie

r et

al.,

200

6;

Pal

mat

ier

et a

l., 2

013)

; des

ign

man

agem

ent

(Bru

ce a

nd M

orri

s, 1

994;

B

orja

de

Moz

ota,

200

3; V

on S

tam

m,

2008

).

Rel

atio

nshi

p m

arke

ting

(M

oorm

an e

t al

., 19

93; P

alm

atie

r, 20

08);

NP

D

colla

bora

tion

(E

vans

chit

zky

et a

l.,

2012

).

Des

ign

expe

rtis

e (C

ross

, 200

4; L

awso

n an

d D

orst

, 201

3; C

hai e

t al

., 20

15;

Zha

ng, 2

015)

; des

ign

man

agem

ent

(Abe

cass

is-M

oeda

s et

al.,

201

2).

Dif

fere

ntia

tion

fr

om t

he

liter

atur

e

——

Pre

viou

s re

sear

ch fo

cuse

d pr

imar

ily o

n th

e le

vel o

f de

sign

exp

erti

se (

novi

ce

to m

aste

r) a

s m

easu

red

by y

ears

of

expe

rien

ce, a

nd n

ot o

n th

e so

urce

of

desi

gn e

xper

tise

and

the

ext

ent

to w

hich

it in

flue

nces

the

rel

atio

nshi

p pr

oces

s.



Con

stru

ct

Rel

atio

nshi

p P

roce

ss

Rel

atio

nshi

p Q

ualit

yD

efin

itio

nR

elat

ions

hip

qual

ity

is a

mul

tidi

men

sion

al c

onst

ruct

tha

t as

sess

es t

he s

tren

gth

of t

he r

elat

ions

hip

and

capt

ures

uni

que

aspe

cts

of t

he r

elat

ions

hip,

incl

udin

g tr

ust

and

com

mit

men

t as

wel

l as

reci

proc

ity

norm

s an

d ex

chan

ge e

ffic

ienc

y. I

t is

con

cept

ualiz

ed a

s a

high

er-o

rder

late

nt c

onst

ruct

wit

h m

ulti

ple

firs

t-or

der

fact

ors.

Tru

st r

efer

s to

con

fide

nce

in a

n ex

chan

ge p

artn

er’s

relia

bilit

y an

d in

tegr

ity.

Exc

hang

e ef

fici

ency

con

cern

s th

e as

sess

-m

ent

of t

he t

ime,

eff

ort,

and

res

ourc

es

need

ed t

o m

aint

ain

a re

lati

onsh

ip.

Rec

ipro

city

nor

ms

addr

ess

the

inte

rnal

ized

be

liefs

and

exp

ecta

tion

s ab

out

the

bala

nce

of

oblig

atio

ns in

an

exch

ange

. The

y ar

e ba

sed

on

norm

s of

rec

ipro

city

and

con

sist

of

help

ing

each

oth

er w

itho

ut e

xpec

ting

an

imm

edia

te

favo

r in

ret

urn.

Des

igne

r B

rand

co

mm

itm

ent

refe

rs t

o de

sign

ers’

abi

lity

to g

o th

e ex

tra

mile

to

build

on

the

bran

d va

lues

, roo

ts,

and

posi

tion

ing

to

inno

vate

.P

roof

quo

tes

The

re w

as a

rel

atio

nshi

p of

tru

st

betw

een

mar

keti

ng a

nd u

s. (

F1 D

)W

e w

orke

d ha

nd in

han

d w

ith

the

desi

gner

. H

e ha

s al

way

s be

en in

dia

log,

in e

xcha

nge,

he

wan

ted

to u

nder

stan

d w

hat

we

wan

ted.

(F

3 M)

It w

as n

ot a

wee

k be

fore

we

did

not

talk

(...

) W

e di

scus

s th

e dr

awin

gs, t

he

com

men

ts, w

e m

odif

y, w

e se

e ea

ch o

ther

. (F

3 D)

We

stro

ngly

pra

ised

him

wit

hin

the

com

pany

. It

was

sin

cere

bec

ause

he

wor

ked

very

wel

l (F

3 M).

We

prop

osed

a b

rand

po

siti

onin

g (.

..) I

t ha

s to

be

a c

onte

mpo

rary

bra

nd

but

wit

h a

resp

ectf

ul lo

ok

at it

s pa

st (

S1 D

).

I w

ante

d to

wor

k w

ith

peop

le I

tr

uste

d. (

F1 M

)T

here

was

a lo

ve o

f de

sign

in c

omm

on b

etw

een

them

and

me

(S3 M

). W

e ha

d th

e sa

me

atte

ntio

n to

det

ail (

S3 D

).

Lin

k to

ext

ant

liter

atur

eR

elat

ions

hip

mar

keti

ng (

Pal

mat

ier

et a

l., 2

006;

Pal

mat

ier,

2008

)

Dif

fere

ntia

tion

fr

om t

he

liter

atur

e

Our

con

stru

ct o

f re

lati

onsh

ip q

ualit

y is

link

ed t

o ex

isti

ng c

once

pts

in t

he r

elat

ions

hip

mar

keti

ng li

tera

ture

and

is c

onfi

rmed

by

the

desi

gn m

anag

emen

t an

d N

PD

lite

ratu

re.

Com

mit

men

t is

def

ined

as

an

endu

ring

des

ire

to

mai

ntai

n a

valu

ed

rela

tion

ship

and

is

appl

ied

to d

iffer

ent

type

s of

bus

ines

s-to

-bus

ines

s re

lati

onsh

ips.

The

asp

ect

that

is s

peci

fic

to

mar

keti

ng–e

xter

nal

desi

gn r

elat

ions

hips

is

the

desi

gner

’s de

sire

and

ab

ility

to

brin

g va

lue

to

the

rela

tion

ship

thr

ough

im

mer

sion

in t

he b

rand

.

App

endi

x A

(Continued

)



App

endi

x B

. Tru

th T

able

s

Tru

th T

able

a (N

PD

suc

cess

)

Con

tact

A

utho

rity

Bra

nd

Com

mit

men

tP

revi

ous

Rel

atio

nsh

ipP

roce

ss-B

ased

D

esig

ner

Star

-Bas

ed

Des

igne

rC

usto

mer

-Bas

ed

Des

igne

rN

PD

Sta

ges

Invo

lvem

ent

NP

D S

ucce

ssN

um

ber

of

Cas

esR

aw

Con

sist

ency

11

01

00

11

11.

001

11

00

10

11

1.00

11

10

01

11

11.

001

11

10

01

11

1.00

Tru

th T

able

a (N

PD

fai

lure

)

Con

tact

A

utho

rity

Bra

nd

Com

mit

men

tP

revi

ous

Rel

atio

nsh

ipP

roce

ss-B

ased

D

esig

ner

Star

-Bas

ed

Des

igne

rC

usto

mer

-Bas

ed

Des

igne

rN

PD

Sta

ges

Invo

lvem

ent

NP

D S

ucce

ssN

um

ber

of

Cas

esR

aw

Con

sist

ency

10

00

10

11

11.

001

01

01

01

11

1.00

10

00

01

01

11.

000

00

00

10

12

1.00

a The

tru

th t

able

rep

rese

nts

the

logi

cally

pos

sibl

e co

mbi

nati

ons

of c

ausa

l con

diti

ons

(row

s) le

adin

g to

the

out

com

e (R

agin

, 200

8)

App

endi

x C

. Cat

egor

izat

ion

of S

ourc

e of

Des

ign

Exp

erti

se

Sour

ce o

f D

esig

n E

xper

tise

Pro

cess

-Bas

edSt

ar-B

ased

Eva

luat

ion

crit

eria

Spec

ific

cre

ativ

e pr

oces

ses

and

orga

niza

tion

al c

apab

iliti

esH

ighl

y cr

eati

ve a

nd t

alen

ted

indi

vidu

als

who

ben

efit

fro

m a

n in

tern

atio

nal

repu

tati

onD

esig

n ag

enci

es’

acti

vity

S1S2

F2

F3

Pro

duct

, pac

kagi

ng, g

raph

ical

and

re

tail

desi

gn, a

nd b

rand

ing

Pro

duct

, pac

kagi

ng a

nd r

etai

l de

sign

, and

bra

ndin

gA

rchi

tect

ure,

fur

nitu

re, p

rodu

ct

desi

gn, a

nd g

raph

ism

Arc

hite

ctur

e, f

urni

ture

, and

pro

duct

de

sign

Des

ign

agen

cies

’ w

ebsi

te e

xcer

pts

TH

INK

FA

R D

O W

EL

L m

eans

:T

hink

ing

abou

t th

e fu

ture

of

bran

ds in

the

con

text

of

a co

n-ne

cted

eco

syst

em in

con

stan

t m

ovem

ent.

Mak

ing

them

uni

que,

inno

vati

ve,

desi

rabl

e an

d pr

oduc

tive

by

imag

inin

g th

eir

styl

e.

We

crea

te b

rand

exp

erie

nces

tha

t ar

e di

stin

ctiv

e, o

wna

ble,

eng

agin

g an

d th

at r

eson

ate

deep

ly a

nd

endu

ring

ly w

ith

cons

umer

s be

caus

e th

ey a

re r

oote

d in

fun

dam

enta

l em

otio

nal t

ruth

s. W

e of

fer

a co

mpr

ehen

sive

por

tfol

io o

f br

andi

ng a

nd d

esig

n se

rvic

es

incl

udin

g: b

rand

iden

tity

, str

uctu

ral

desi

gn, p

acka

ge d

esig

n, r

etai

l ex

peri

ence

and

arc

hite

ctur

e.

X’s

cons

tant

exp

erim

enta

tion

wit

h th

e po

ssib

iliti

es o

f m

ater

ials

suc

h as

st

eel,

alum

inum

or

poly

amid

e an

d hi

s ra

dica

l re-

conc

epti

on o

f th

e fo

rm a

nd s

truc

ture

of

furn

itur

e ha

s pu

t hi

m a

t th

e fo

refr

ont

of

cont

empo

rary

des

ign

and

arch

itec

ture

.

X is

a F

renc

h de

sign

er w

ho h

as w

on

inte

rnat

iona

l acc

laim

for

the

spec

trum

and

qua

lity

of h

is

crea

tion

s. A

rchi

tect

ure,

obj

ects

, fu

rnit

ure,

art

dir

ecti

on: h

is

sign

atur

e is

inva

riab

ly a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith

the

fine

st b

rand

s an

d pr

ojec

ts

of e

ver-

incr

easi

ng w

eigh

t an

d pr

esti

ge.(

...)

If a

“X

sty

le”

exis

ts, i

t is

in h

is a

bilit

y to

cry

stal

lize,

wit

hin

a pr

ojec

t, t

he e

xcit

emen

t of

a

prop

osit

ion.

X a

ccom

pani

es b

rand

s to

rev

eal t

heir

pe

rson

ality

thro

ugh

a m

ultid

isci

pli-

nary

and

tran

sver

sal a

ppro

ach.

(...)

It

relie

s on

a s

erie

s of

ow

n to

ols

that

ca

n de

velo

p re

leva

nt a

nd e

ffec

tive

crea

tions

(e.g

., B

rand

focu

s,

Bra

ndO

bser

ver,

SEN

SE).

X’s

wor

ks a

lso

indi

cate

a c

apab

ility

, st

ill r

are

in F

ranc

e, t

o ac

hiev

e re

cogn

itio

n on

a g

loba

l sca

le (

in

Japa

n, t

he U

.S.,

Gre

at B

rita

in).



Des

igne

rs’

quot

atio

ns“W

e re

ally

do

wor

k in

ref

lect

ion,

it is

w

hat

we

call

‘bra

nd p

latf

orm

’ and

‘s

tyle

pla

tfor

m’.

“‘B

rand

pla

tfor

m’

som

etim

es e

xist

s, b

ut in

thi

s ca

se it

di

d no

t ex

ist,

so

we

push

ed t

hem

to

trus

t us

by

telli

ng t

hem

, ‘he

re w

e ar

e,

we

will

des

crib

e w

hat

are

the

key

poin

ts o

f th

is b

rand

and

illu

stra

te it

, it

is w

hat

we

call

‘sty

le p

latf

orm

’.”

‘Bra

nd p

latf

orm

’ is

wha

t de

fine

s th

e m

eani

ng, b

asic

ally

the

pos

itio

ning

, an

d th

e ‘s

tyle

‘pla

tfor

m’ i

s w

hat

will

be

the

illu

stra

tion

of

the

‘bra

nd

plat

form

.’ W

e of

ten

talk

abo

ut t

he

mea

ning

and

the

sty

le.”

“Eve

ry ti

me,

we

shar

e th

e st

ory

of a

br

and

for

a w

hile

, and

the

firs

t thi

ng

to d

o is

to u

nder

stan

d it

wel

l, to

be

insp

ired

to tr

y to

get

its

quin

tess

ence

, al

way

s in

reg

ard

to th

e le

giti

mac

y th

at is

nec

essa

ry to

day

to e

mer

ge o

n a

mar

ket a

nd m

ake

a pr

oduc

t tha

t loo

ks

legi

tim

ate

to th

e br

and.

” “T

hree

pa

ram

eter

s se

em to

me

esse

ntia

l in

the

cons

truc

tion

of

a pr

ojec

t, th

e co

nstr

ucti

on o

f a

new

bra

nd. T

he fi

rst

is th

e D

NA

of

the

bran

d, a

nd th

e jo

b of

the

agen

cy is

rea

lly to

rev

eal t

his

DN

A (

...)

It is

impo

rtan

t to

find

, to

defi

ne th

is D

NA

at o

nce

stra

tegi

c an

d st

ylis

tic

(...)

The

sec

ond

is to

un

ders

tand

the

mar

ket w

ell (

...)

The

th

ird

is to

tell

a st

ory.

”

“Wha

t I’

m d

oing

is o

ffer

ing

a ne

w

way

of

look

ing

at a

n ob

ject

. I’m

not

in

vent

ing

a ty

polo

gy t

hat

alre

ady

exis

ts, I

’m ju

st s

how

ing

a ne

w lo

ok.

Thi

s co

llabo

rati

on is

not

hing

di

ffer

ent

from

wha

t I

am u

sual

ly

doin

g w

hen

I cr

eate

obj

ects

, tha

t is

, to

giv

e th

em a

new

iden

tity

in

harm

ony

wit

h th

eir

func

tion

, whi

ch is

no

rmal

for

me.

”

“Wha

t is

exp

ecte

d of

a d

esig

ner

is

his

look

, his

tal

ent,

his

han

d, h

is

visi

on, h

is p

oint

of

view

” (.

..) “

Me,

w

hat

I w

ante

d to

do

by n

ot b

eing

at

all s

peci

alis

t, it

was

a li

ttle

alt

erna

-ti

ve, w

hich

mea

ns n

ot t

o dr

aw t

he

n-th

sm

all b

ottl

e w

ith

perf

ume

in it

, bu

t tr

ied

to f

ind

som

ethi

ng t

hat

is a

di

ffer

ent

trac

k, a

gir

l’s o

bjec

t.” “

In

gene

ral,

and

I sa

y it

wit

h a

lot

of

mod

esty

, if

we

com

e he

re, w

e kn

ow

that

the

re is

a d

iffe

rent

poi

nt o

f vi

ew

and

that

we

do n

ot c

ome

look

ing

for

an a

genc

y, w

e co

me

to g

et a

n au

thor

.”

Oth

erD

esig

n ag

ency

is n

amed

aft

er t

he

nam

e of

the

des

igne

r.X

was

aw

arde

d th

e L

ondo

n D

esig

n W

eek

Med

al fo

r de

sign

exc

elle

nce

and

was

bec

ame

a R

oyal

A

cade

mic

ian

of th

e R

oyal

Aca

dem

y of

Art

s. X

won

the

Com

pass

o d’

Oro

A

war

d fo

r C

aree

r, on

e of

the

mos

t pr

estig

ious

des

ign

priz

es in

the

wor

ld.

Des

ign

agen

cy is

nam

ed a

fter

the

na

me

of t

he d

esig

ner.

X h

as b

een

appo

inte

d “D

esig

ner

of

the

Yea

r” a

nd h

as w

on t

he “

Red

dot

de

sign

” aw

ard,

one

of

the

mos

t pr

esti

giou

s de

sign

pri

zes

in t

he

wor

ld.

App

endi

x C

(Continued

)



Sou

rce

of D

esig

n E

xper

tise

Cu

stom

er-b

ased

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

aP

roxi

mit

y to

cu

stom

ers

and

orga

niz

atio

nal f

lexi

bili

ty

Des

ign

Age

ncie

s’

Act

ivit

yS3

S4F

1F

4F

5

Pro

duct

, pac

kagi

ng,

grap

hica

l and

ret

ail d

esig

nP

rodu

ct a

nd g

raph

ical

de

sign

, illu

stra

tion

Pro

duct

, pac

kagi

ng, g

raph

ical

de

sign

Pro

duct

, pac

kagi

ng,

grap

hica

l des

ign

Pro

duct

, pac

kagi

ng,

grap

hica

l and

ret

ail d

esig

nD

esig

n A

genc

ies’

W

ebsi

te E

xcer

pts

An

agen

cy o

f ar

t di

rect

ion

spec

ializ

ed in

str

ateg

y,

iden

tity

and

des

ign.

I cr

eate

d X

12

year

s ag

o,

wit

h th

e de

sire

to

deve

lop

a co

mpa

ny o

f pu

re c

reat

ive

desi

gn (

...)

X is

tod

ay a

10

0% c

reat

ive

agen

cy,

reco

gniz

ed, i

ndep

ende

nt,

part

icul

arly

use

d to

mar

ket

prem

ium

and

luxu

ry. M

y pa

ssio

n re

mai

ns s

tron

g,

the

desi

re t

o al

way

s be

tter

su

ppor

t m

y cl

ient

s, in

tact

.

As

a ra

ison

d’ê

tre,

X a

ccom

pa-

nies

the

luxu

ry b

rand

s al

ong

this

exc

epti

onal

pat

hway

, of

thei

r ex

peri

ence

of

luxu

ry. T

he

key

to t

he s

ucce

ss o

f th

is

com

mit

men

t lie

s in

the

pr

ecio

us a

bilit

y of

X t

o de

velo

p a

stro

ng a

ffin

ity

wit

h lu

xury

bra

nds.

Thi

s pa

rtne

r-sh

ip s

prin

gs f

rom

an

init

ial

enco

unte

r du

ring

whi

ch t

hey

expl

ore

valu

es o

r an

impo

rtan

t pr

oduc

t, a

s th

e fo

unda

tion

st

one

of t

he t

ask

befo

re t

hem

an

d th

e st

arti

ng p

oint

for

thei

r jo

int

crea

tive

ven

ture

.

Des

ign

agen

cy s

peci

aliz

ing

in c

osm

etic

s an

d fr

a-gr

ance

s fo

r m

ajor

in

tern

atio

nal l

uxur

y br

ands

.

Exp

erti

se b

uilt

on

the

perf

ume

/ cos

met

ics

mar

ket,

allo

win

g th

e ag

ency

, sin

ce it

s op

enin

g in

19

95, t

o co

ntin

ue t

hink

ing

abou

t is

sues

rel

ated

to

crea

tion

, com

mun

icat

ion

and

diff

usio

n.

Des

igne

rs’

Quo

tati

ons

"And

the

n ho

nest

ly c

all o

n us

, it’

s no

t to

app

eal t

o ag

ency

1, n

or t

o ap

peal

to

a cr

eato

r" (

...)

"I d

o no

t cl

aim

to

be a

n au

thor

... s

o w

hat

I’m

doi

ng is

bri

ngin

g va

lue,

not

rev

olut

ion.

"

"We

are

firs

t an

d fo

rem

ost

ther

e to

res

pond

to

wha

t th

e cu

stom

er w

ants

. The

re is

a

tim

e w

hen

we

do a

ccor

ding

to

wha

t th

e cu

stom

er w

ants

; i.e

., yo

u ar

e ob

liged

to

take

in

to a

ccou

nt t

heir

rem

arks

, ev

en if

you

do

not

100%

ag

ree

wit

h th

em"(

...)

"You

re

aliz

e w

hen

you

are

an

agen

cy y

ou d

o no

t m

aste

r ev

eryt

hing

, you

are

a

supp

lier,

you

act

acco

rdin

g to

the

dem

and

of y

our

clie

nt. Y

ou t

ry t

o ev

olve

the

pr

ojec

t th

e be

st p

ossi

ble

to

wha

t th

e cu

stom

er w

ants

."

"Any

way

, yes

, we

answ

ered

the

ir

brie

f. Y

ou c

an a

lway

s qu

esti

on

the

brie

f, b

ut t

hat

was

not

our

ob

ject

ive.

"

"If

the

good

idea

com

es

from

the

mar

keti

ng

man

ager

, we

do n

ot c

are.

T

he g

oal i

s to

hav

e a

nice

bo

ttle

at

the

end

and

to

wor

k in

telli

gent

ly a

s a

team

, so

we

pay

atte

ntio

n fo

r de

sign

ers

not

to h

ave

a to

o st

rong

per

sona

lity.

"

-

App

endi

x C

(Continued

)

drivers and pathways of npd success in the marketing ......kenzo and nina ricci called on karim...

Documents