Are you an ��������� Professional Certified Marketer®️? This training is worth 2 Continuing Education Units (CEUs) to maintain your PCM®️ certification.

��������� Members Get the Best Pricing

Not only do members get discounts on training like this, but they also receive exclusive content, downloadable tools, unlimited access to ��������� Journals, membership in networking communities and more.

Join & SAVE

Training Backed By Research

��������� training is unique because of its data-backed approach. The ��������� Competency Model Framework identifies the most impactful skills marketers need to advance their careers. It’s based on our research with more than 1,000 marketing professionals and academic leaders.

Learn More

The post Balancing Human Creativity with AI Efficiency appeared first on ���������.

Our research team uncovers how firms can strategically time their technology launches by aligning internal coordination with stakeholder readiness. Success comes when managers treat timing as a dynamic, strategic process that creates trust, clarity, and excitement among stakeholders.

Key Findings 

The Four Timing Scenarios

We identify four timing scenarios that shape the outcomes of tech launches: 

1. Antagonistic Timing: Low firm coordination and low stakeholder readiness create a “delegitimate” launch moment. For example, Google Glass failed in 2013 because of privacy concerns and cultural resistance. 

2. Synergistic Timing: High firm coordination and high stakeholder readiness lead to a successful launch. Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses exemplify this, entering a market now open to augmented reality eyewear. 

3. Flexible Timing: High stakeholder readiness but low firm coordination. Stakeholders drive the market, requiring firms to act swiftly to meet demand. 

4. Inflexible Timing: High firm coordination but low stakeholder readiness. Firms must work to build trust and align expectations to overcome skepticism. 

Timing as a Strategic Process

Timing is a social game that requires tact, patience, and foresight. Launching too early risks overwhelming stakeholders, while launching too late can result in missed opportunities. Success lies in calibrating firm actions to meet stakeholder readiness. 

Firms must build market readiness by addressing four key factors: utility, legislative standards, shared values, and interpersonal trust. These efforts ensure stakeholders view the launch as credible, relevant, and aligned with their needs. 

Lessons from Technology Markets

The journey from antagonistic to synergistic timing often involves reintroducing products that failed previously. For instance, the augmented reality market took a decade to mature after Google Glass, paving the way for current successes. Flexible and inflexible timing scenarios are transitional stages. Managers navigating these moments must focus on bridging gaps between stakeholder expectations and firm actions. For example, firms facing inflexible timing need to create boundaries and trust to make disruptive technologies more accessible. 

Practical Recommendations for Managers 

Understand the Timing Scenarios: Managers must assess whether their launch moment aligns with stakeholder readiness and internal coordination. Identifying the current scenario—antagonistic, synergistic, flexible, or inflexible—provides a roadmap for action.

Managers should be aware that individuals’ timing norms may differ by technology type, as evidenced by Google’s various product launches occurring in different market timing situations: Google Glass was launched in antagonistic timing, Google Gemini and its extension Google Lumiere are facing flexible timing, and Google Fitbit 6 was launched in an inflexible timing situation.

Build Stakeholder Readiness: Invest in education, marketing, and regulatory alignment to create a foundation of trust and familiarity. These steps help stakeholders understand the product’s value and reduce resistance. 

Treat Timing as a Continuous Process: Rather than viewing timing as a single decision, managers should approach it as a series of adjustments. This dynamic approach ensures launches remain aligned with evolving market conditions.

Decision Tree

So how can managers make the right decision? We provide a decision tree with suggestions for marketing research:

Before launching a product, managers must ensure alignment between their firm’s and stakeholders’ timing norms (e.g., consumers, influencers, regulators). This involves market research through surveys or interviews to identify optimal timing (see potential questionnaire below). If timing norms align, the market is ready and a launch date can be set immediately. Misalignment requires further analysis of stakeholders’ willingness to adapt, using specific questions to gauge flexibility.

If stakeholders are willing to adapt, managers should use strategies like preannouncements, demos, and soft releases to cocreate an ideal launch moment. Publicizing minor imperfections can help build readiness, especially in market-driving situations. For stakeholders unwilling to adapt, managers should focus on building trust by controlling the product’s scope and allowing gradual changes to prepare the market.

If these approaches fail, managers should consider waiting for the market to mature naturally before revisiting the decision-making process. However, if the market remains resistant, any launch risks failure, necessitating a revision of the product.

Sample Questionnaire

Questions to gauge if a firm’s employee and stakeholder timing norms are aligned:

1. Do you watch out for new technology releases?
   a. Probe: If so, for which product categories?
   b. Probe: If so, how do you hear about new tech product releases?
   
   
2. How do prospective technology innovation releases make you feel? (e.g., excited, horrified,
   worried, hopeful)
   a. Probe: What kinds of technologies are you most excited about?
   b. Probe: What kinds of technologies are you most scared of?
   • i. Probe: What changes would have to happen to switch your fear to enthusiasm
     for the new technology?
     
     
3. Do you feel equipped to incorporate prospective technology innovations at your workplace?
   a. Probe: How do you feel equipped or not?
   
   
4. Do you feel equipped to incorporate prospective technology innovations in your home?
   a. Probe: How do you feel equipped or not?
   
   
5. Do you feel equipped to incorporate prospective technology innovations in your hobbies and
   leisure activities?
   a. Probe: How do you feel equipped or not?
   
   
6. Is [the specific function] of [firm’s new technology] useful to you? (Question relates to
   pragmatic legitimacy pillar)
   a. Probe: If no, can you describe a future situation where [specific function] of this
   technology would become useful to you?
   
   
7. Does [specific function] of [firm’s new technology] make you feel anxious? annoyed? angry?
   displeased?
   a. Probe: If yes, can you describe a future situation where [specific function] of [firm’s
   new technology] would not make you feel positive emotions?
   
   
8. In your opinion, are there current laws and official regulations in place to regulate [specific
   function] of [firm’s new technology]? (Question relates to regulative legitimacy pillar)
   a. Probe: If yes, please describe the current laws and regulations that you think apply.
   b. Probe: If not, what laws and regulations should be put in place in the future to regulate
   [specific function] of this technology?
   
   
9. Do you think the world would be a better place overall with [firm’s new technology]?
   (Question relates to normative legitimacy pillar)
   a. Probe: Please describe your answer.
   
10. Do you think [specific function] of [firm’s new technology] can improve your standing
    among your peers at work? Among your family and friends? (Question relates to relational
    legitimacy pillar)
    a. Probe: If no, can you describe a future situation where [specific function] would not
    compromise you with your peers at work? At home and in your social circles?
    
    
11. Can you currently make sense of [specific function] of [firm’s new technology]? (Question
    relates to regulative cultural-cognitive legitimacy pillar)
    a. Probe: If no, can you describe a future situation where [specific function] of this
    technology would make sense to you?
    
    
12. When do you think [firm’s new technology] should be launched?
    a. Probe: Please justify your answer.

Questions to gauge if stakeholders are willing to change their timing norms:

1. Are you willing to change your practices and habits now if a new technology was created that
   significantly improved society?
   a. Probe: If no, can you imagine a future where you would change your practices and
   habits for this prospective technology? What would this future look like?
   
   
2. Are you willing to change your practices and habits now if a new technology was created that
   made your work routines easier and/or more efficient?
   a. Probe: If no, can you imagine a future where you would change your practices and
   habits at work for this prospective technology? What would this future look like?
   
   
3. Are you willing to change your practices and habits now if a new technology was created that
   made your home life and routines easier and/or more efficient?
   a. Probe: If no, can you imagine a future where you would change your practices and
   habits at home for this prospective technology? What would this future look like?
   
   
4. Are you willing to change your practices and habits now if a new technology was created that
   made your hobbies and leisure time more entertaining?
   a. Probe: If no, can you imagine a future where you would change your practices and
   habits during your leisure time for this prospective technology? What would this future
   look like?
   
   
5. Are there certain industries where you are comfortable with a company releasing an unfinished
   technological innovation for consumers to try and test?
   a. Probe: Which industries?
   
   
6. Are there specific industries where you think companies should never release a technological
   innovation before it is fully finished and thoroughly tested?
   a. Probe: Which industries?

Timing is not just about “when” but about “how.” Firms that treat timing as a strategic tool can transform innovation into market success. Whether rescuing a failed product or launching a groundbreaking new technology, aligning firm actions with stakeholder readiness is key to achieving synergistic timing. 

Source: Thomas Robinson and Ela Veresiu, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post How to Time Your Product Launch for Maximum Success appeared first on ���������.

The interconnected nature of modern technologies means that continued use depends on a products’ capacity to interact with other devices, objects, and infrastructures. Consider gaming consoles that interact with televisions, Bluetooth connections, internet connections, and electricity infrastructures. Their continued use is facilitated or disrupted depending on whether they can establish and maintain these connections.

In a new , we find that customers take active roles in extending a technology product’s lifecycle and that companies must consider this “entropy work” before limiting or encouraging these activities. Entropy work spans maintenance and repair activities, such as checking connections, resetting/cleaning devices, applying updates, replacing parts, and consulting others for help. When people cannot perform entropy work, they experience declines in the usefulness and ease-of-use of their devices.

The increasing prevalence of smart technologies means that these connectivity problems are increasing the amount of entropy work required from users. Moreover, technology companies often restrict users’ abilities to maintain and repair devices and connections. For instance, using third-party parts to replace failing displays or batteries tends to result in annoying notifications or reduced device functionality for iPhone users.

Continued Use Trajectories

By exploring this issue through the lived experiences of technology consumers, we identify four “continued use trajectories” that chart common events during the lifecycle of a variety of technology products from adoption to disposal.

1. First, some products enjoy a supporting trajectory in which devices work seamlessly with others, automatically connecting and functioning for long periods. For instance, Samsung partners with iFixit, a firm that empowers consumers to maintain their own devices through kits and guides. As such, Samsung sanctions its customers to maintain Galaxy smartphones with the support of a trusted third party.
   
   
2. Second, a decaying trajectory occurs when a tech product is easy to use in its early years but thereafter sees gradual declines in performance. Batteries drain faster, programs get slower, and connections to other tech products become complex.
   
   This situation can be caused by the nature of after-sales support: When consumers receive support to perform entropy work early on but this help recedes in later years, the usefulness of a device will likely decay. For instance, AppleCare is available for two to three years after purchase and, once that warranty ends, customers must consult costly certified technicians or attempt entropy work without support.
   
   
3. The third trajectory is a taxing trajectory in which tech products quickly fail to function as expected and consumers need immediate help. Famously, Samsung immediately recalled and replaced many of its smartphones in 2016 after reports of overheating and explosions. By immediately owning the problem, Samsung salvaged its brand image.
   
   
4. Finally, tech products can exist in oscillating trajectories, going back and forth between functioning properly and running into problems. These situations are frustrating because they force consumers to do unpredictable amounts and kinds of entropy work.

When users cannot derive the useful benefits of a device, they are more likely to abandon it, but they also get frustrated with brands. And if a company restricts consumers’ ability to receive help from outside sources and funnels them toward their own services, consumers can feel trapped.

To navigate these different trajectories, companies can provide resources such as guides for common recurring problems. Moreover, they can establish or endorse platforms that offer free troubleshooting advice, like Reddit communities and Adobe’s community, which offer support for products.

The Right to Repair

Given the worsening cost-of-living crisis, we can understand why consumers increasingly demand the “right to repair” their own devices via access to third-party services and parts. Oregon, Colorado, and the European Union have all enacted right-to-repair laws, illustrating a growing movement’s momentum to guarantee consumers’ ability to perform entropy work and maintain their devices.

Mindful of these movements, companies must consider how they support or limit consumers’ entropy work. We offer several suggestions for chief marketing officers:

• Keep in mind that as the connectivity of a tech product increases, the chances for these connections to enable problems to emerge increases.
  
  
• Incentivize customers to upgrade to a new device to improve ease-of-use when entropy work overwhelms them.
  
  
• Implement holistic investigations into which technologies, people, and other objects have the capacities to increase the entropy work customers must do to maintain their device’s continued use.
  
  
• Establish enduring service relationships when tech product issues are likely to recur to help customers maximize periods of stable continued use.

Source: Paolo Franco, Robin Canniford, Marcus Phipps, and Amber M. Epp, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post The Right to Repair: How Can Brands Benefit from Allowing Customers to Maintain and Repair Their Own Tech Products? appeared first on ���������.