Skip to main content
Log in

Rethinking the effect of perceived fit on customers’ evaluations of new products

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior research has demonstrated that customer evaluations of a new product are directly related to the degree to which a company’s skills are perceived to “fit” with those required to provide the new product. This finding has led to recommendations that firms focus on perceptually close new product areas. However, many firms have successfully entered perceptually distant markets. We reconcile this apparent contradiction by proposing that the effect of perceived fit on new product evaluation is not direct, but is mediated by the certainty a customer has that a company can deliver the proposed new product. Our findings indicate that, by itself, perceived fit has a positive impact on industrial product evaluations. However, the relationship between fit and new product evaluations, previously held to be direct, is instead mediated by customer certainty. That is, when the effect of customer certainty is considered, the direct effect of fit disappears. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller. 1990. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions.”Journal of Marketing 54 (January): 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.”Psychological Bulletin 103 (March): 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, H. Igor. 1965.Corporate Strategy: An Analytical Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.”Journal of Marketing Research 14 (August): 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi. 1988. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (Spring): 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P., Youjae Yi, and Lynn W. Phillips. 1991. “Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research.”Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (September): 421–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1985). “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 11 (4): 629–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, Peter M. 1989.EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1990. “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models.”Psychological Bulletin 107 (2): 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggadike, Ralph E. 1977.Entering New Markets: Strategies and Performance. Report No. 77–108. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boush, David M. and Barbara Loken. 1991. “A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation.”Journal of Marketing Research 28 (February): 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robert G. 1980. “Project NewProd: Factors in New Product Success.”European Journal of Marketing 14 (5/6): 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robert G. and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 1987. “Success Factors in Product Innovation.”Industrial Marketing Management 16 (August): 215–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, Peter A. and Daniel C. Smith. 1994. “The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions.”Journal of Marketing Research 31 (May): 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, Hubert, Barton Weitz, and Pradeep Bansal. 1990. “Brand Introduction Strategies and Competitive Environments.”Journal of Marketing Research 27 (November): 390–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson. 1992. “Monte Carlo Evaluations of Goodness of Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models.”Sociological Methods and Research 21 (November): 132–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black. 1992.Multivariate Data Analysis Third Edition. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Joel and John McCann. 1982. “The Impact of Inferential Beliefs on Product Evaluations.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (August): 324–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, Frank and Chris Allen. 1991. “Perceived Variability and Inferences about Brand Extensions.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Eds. Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 392–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Kevin L. and David A. Aaker. 1992. “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions.”Journal of Marketing Research 29 (February): 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kihlstrom, Richard E. and Michael H. Riordan. 1984. “Advertising as a Signal.”Journal of Political Economy 92 (31): 427–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, Amna. 1990. “The Effect of Perceived Advertising Costs on Brand Perceptions.”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September): 160–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, Amna and Peter Wright. 1989. “Money Talks: Perceived Advertising Expense and Expected Product Quality.”Journal of Consumer Research 16 (December): 344–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, Patricia A., Stephen J. Grove, and W. Jeffrey Burroughs. 1993. “An Experimental Examination of Mood Effects on Retrieval and Evaluation of Advertisement and Brand Information.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21 (Spring): 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaBarbera, Priscilla A. 1982. “Overcoming a No-Reputation Liability through Documentation and Advertising Regulation.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (May): 223–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, Jeen-Su and John Kim. 1992. “Impact of Consumers’ Confidence in Judgements about Missing Information on Product Evaluations.”Journal of Business Research 25 (December): 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loken, Barbara and Deborah Roedder-John. 1993. “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?”Journal of Marketing 57 (July): 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, Deborah J. and Kent Nakamoto. 1990. “Cognitive Associations and Product Category Comparisons: The Role of Knowledge Structure and Context.” Working paper. School of Business, University of Arizona.

  • Mervis, Carolyn B. and Eleanor Rosch. 1981. “Categorization of Natural Objects.”Annual Review of Psychology 32: 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, Paul and John Roberts. 1986. “Price and Advertising Signals of Product Quality.”Journal of Political Economy 94 (August): 796–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Consumer Behavior Seminar. 1987. “Affect Generalization to Similar and Dissimilar Brand Extensions.”Psychology and Marketing 4 (Fall): 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, William L. 1982. “Concept Testing.”Journal of Business Research 10: 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, William L. and Edgar A. Pessemier. 1993.Product Planning and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, Howard and Samuel Rabino. 1983. “The Trading of Purchase Interest for Concept Believability: Strategical Implications for Advertising Planners and Product Developers.”International Journal of Advertising 2 (July/September): 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullich, Joe. 1993. “New Product Needs New Identity.”Business Marketing 78 (August): 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Phillip. 1974. “Advertising as Information.”Journal of Political Economy 82 (July/August): 729–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. Whan, Sandra Milberg, and Robert Lawson. 1991. “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency.”Journal of Consumer Research 18 (September): 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Michael E. 1985.Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. and Gary Hamel. 1990. “The Core Competence of the Corporation.”Harvard Business Review 68 (May–June): 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Everett M. 1983.Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Park. 1992. “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency.”Journal of Marketing Research 29 (August): 296–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trout, Jack and Al Ries. 1993. “The Name Game.”Sales and Marketing Management 145 (December): 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, J. Roland. 1984. “In Search of Synergy.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.

  • Wernerfelt, Birger. 1988. “Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signalling by Posting a Bond.”Rand Journal of Economics 19 (Autumn): 458–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Larry J. and John T. Hazer. 1986. “Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Turnover: A Reanalysis Using a Structural Equations Model.”Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (May): 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolinsky, Asher. 1983. “Prices as Signals of Product Quality.”Review of Economic Studies 50 (October): 647–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter and Barton Weitz. 1977. “Time Horizon Effects on Product Evaluation Strategies.”Journal of Marketing Research 14 (November): 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. Frank, Carolyn M. Jagacinski, and Mark D. Faber. 1978. “Evaluation of Partially Described Multiattribute Options.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21 (April): 240–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

His research interests include management of brand equity, and competitive analysis. His research has been published inJournal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Advertising Research, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Services Marketing andPlanning Review. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh.

Her research interests are in “marketing creativity,” and the management of mature products. Her research has been published in theJournal of Services Marketing and in the proceedings of the American Marketing Association. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, D.C., Andrews, J. Rethinking the effect of perceived fit on customers’ evaluations of new products. JAMS 23, 4–14 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894607

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894607

Keywords

Navigation