## Abstract

In this paper, an extension of the Bass model is suggested that accounts for the influence of conformance quality on mixed (i.e., positive and negative) word-of-mouth in the diffusion of a new product. A primary goal is to determine how an active operational policy seeking to continuously improve conformance quality affects the optimal leveraging of marketing instruments used to diffuse new products, and the resulting sales and profits. To do so, an optimal tradeoff by a monopolistic firm between advertising effort and price, on the one hand, and conformance quality, on the other hand, is analyzed, along with the implications for word of mouth effectiveness. Our results can be summarized as follows. Price and advertising levels are respectively lower and higher under an operations–marketing policy than under a marketing policy only. As a result, the market potential and the innovation effect are higher under an operations–marketing policy than under a marketing policy only, as is the imitation effect due to conformance quality improvements over time. Also, greater cumulative sales and cumulative profits are obtained. However, higher design quality results in a lower price and greater advertising effort under an operations–marketing policy than under a marketing policy only. Finally, for lower design quality, the two policies result in different patterns (non-monotonic vs. monotonic) for price and advertising yet cumulative sales and profits are of quite similar magnitude.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

## Notes

A competitive version of this problem without mixed word of mouth was analyzed in a more general form by Teng and Thompson (1984).

## References

Ahluwalia, R. (2002). How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments.

*Journal of Consumer Research*,*29*(2), 270–279.Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth.

*Journal of Service Research*,*1*(1), 5–17.Armelini, G., & Villanueva, J. (2010).

*Marketing expenditures and word-of-mouth communication: Complements or substitutes?*. Hanover, MA: Now Publishers Inc.Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth model for consumer durables.

*Management Science*,*15*(5), 215–227.Bass, F. M. (1980). The relationship between diffusion rates, experience curves, and demand elasticities for consumer durable technological innovations.

*Journal of Business*,*53*(3), 51–67.Chand, S., Moskowitz, H., Novak, A., Rekhi, I., & Sorger, G. (1996). Capacity allocation for dynamic process improvement with quality and demand considerations.

*Operations Research*,*44*(6), 964–975.Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2003). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews.

*Journal of Marketing Research*,*44*(3), 345–354.Crosby, P. B. (1979).

*Quality is free*. New York: McGraw-Hill.De Palma, A., Droesbeke, J.-J., & Lefèvre, C. (1987). Implications of the learning curve for the diffusion of new consumer durables.

*International Journal of Systems Sciences*,*18*(6), 997–1005.Dockner, E. J., & Jørgensen, S. (1988). Optimal advertising policies for diffusion models of new product innovation in monopolistic situations.

*Management Science*,*34*(1), 119–130.El Ouardighi, F., Jørgensen, S., & Pasin, F. (2008). A dynamic game model of operations and marketing management in a supply chain.

*International Game Theory Review*,*10*(4), 373–397.El Ouardighi, F., & Kogan, K. (2013). Dynamic conformance and design quality in a supply chain: An assessment of contracts’ coordination power.

*Annals of Operations Research*,*211*(1), 137–166.El Ouardighi, F., & Tapiero, C. S. (1998). Quality and the diffusion of innovations.

*European Journal of Operational Research*,*106*(1), 31–38.Ettlie, J. E. (1995). Product-process development integration in manufacturing.

*Management Science*,*41*, 1224–1237.Feichtinger, G., Hartl, R. F., & Sethi, S. P. (1994). Dynamic optimal control methods in advertising: Recent developments.

*Management Science*,*40*(2), 195–226.Fynes, B., & De Búrca, S. (2005). The effects of design quality on quality performance.

*International Journal of Production Economics*,*96*(1), 1–14.Garvin, D. (1988).

*Managing quality*. New York: Free Press.Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., Moldovan, S., & Muller, E. (2007). The NPV of bad news.

*International Journal of Research in Marketing*,*24*(3), 186–200.Grass, D., Caulkins, J.P., Feichtinger, G., Tragler, G., & Behrens, D.A. (2008).

*Optimal Control of Nonlinear Processes with Applications in Drugs, Corruption, and Terror*. Springer.Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1979). Link manufacturing process and product life cycles.

*Harvard Business Review*,*57*, 133–140.Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1979). The dynamics of process-product life cycles.

*Harvard Business Review*,*57*, 127–136.Horsky, D., & Simon, L. S. (1983). Advertising and the diffusion of new products.

*Marketing Science*,*2*(1), 1–17.Huang, J., Leng, M., & Liang, L. (2012). Recent developments in dynamic advertising research.

*European Journal of Operational Research*,*220*, 591–609.Ittner, C. D., Nagar, V., & Rajan, M. (2001). An empirical examination of dynamic quality-based learning models.

*Management Science*,*47*(4), 563–578.Jørgensen, S. (1983). Optimal control of a diffusion model of new product acceptance with price-dependent total market potential.

*Optimal Control Applications and Methods*,*4*(3), 269–276.Jørgensen, S., Kort, P. M., & Zaccour, G. (2006). Advertising an event.

*Automatica*,*42*(8), 1349–1355.Kalish, S. (1983). Monopolist pricing with dynamic demand and production cost.

*Marketing Science*,*2*(2), 135–159.Kalish, S. (1985). A new product adoption model with price, advertising and uncertainty.

*Management Science*,*31*(12), 1569–1585.Luo, X. (2009). Quantifying the long-term impact of negative word of mouth on cash flows and stock prices.

*Marketing Science*,*28*(1), 148–165.Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Kerin, R. A. (1984). Introduction strategy for new products with positive and negative word-of-mouth.

*Management Science*,*39*(12), 1389–1404.Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1978). Innovation diffusion in a dynamic potential adopter population.

*Management Science*,*24*(15), 1398–1597.Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions.

*Journal of Marketing*,*62*(1), 33–47.Moldovan, S., & Goldenberg, J. (2004). Cellular automata modeling of resistance to innovation: Effects and solutions.

*Technological Forecasting and Social Change*,*71*(5), 425–442.Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior.

*Journal of Political Economy*,*78*(2), 311–329.Orbach, Y., & Fruchter, G. (2008). A utility-based dynamic model used to predict abnormalities in diffusion over time.

*Innovative Marketing*,*4*(1), 37–45.Richins, M. (1983). Negative word of mouth by dissatisfied customers: A pilot study.

*Journal of Marketing*,*47*(1), 68–78.Rust, R. T., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G. S., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, R. K. (2004). Measuring marketing productivity: Current knowledge and future directions.

*Journal of Marketing*,*68*(4), 76–89.Sethi, S. P., Prasad, A., & He, X. (2008). Optimal advertising and pricing in a new-product adoption model.

*Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications*,*139*(2), 351–360.Swami, S., & Khairnar, P. J. (2006). Optimal normative policies for marketing of products with limited availability.

*Annals of Operations Research*,*143*(1), 107–121.Teng, J.-T., & Thompson, G. L. (1984). Oligopoly models for optimal advertising for new product oligopoly models.

*Marketing Science*,*3*(2), 148–168.Teng, J.-T., & Thompson, G. L. (1996). Optimal strategies for general price–quality decision models of new products with learning production costs.

*European Journal of Operational Research*,*93*(3), 476–489.Weerahandi, S., & Dalal, S. R. (1992). A choice-based approach to the diffusion of a service: Forecasting fax penetration by market segments.

*Marketing Science*,*11*(1), 39–53.

## Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge helpful comments by an anonymous reviewer. They also thank Konstantin Kogan and Peter Kort for constructive suggestions on an early draft presented at the *XIIIth Viennese Workshop on Deterministic Optimal Control and Differential Games*, Vienna, Austria, May 2015. The usual disclaimer applies. This research was supported by the Centre for Research of ESSEC Business School (France) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under Grant No. P25979-N25. The first author dedicates this paper to the memory of Professor Hervé Mathe, a wonderful colleague and friend.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Appendices

### Appendix

### A1

Under an operations–marketing policy, the corresponding Hamiltonian writes:

where \(\lambda (t)\), \(\mu (t)\) and \(\varphi (t)\) are the current-value costate variables associated with *X*(*t*), *Q*(*t*) and *Y*(*t*), respectively, that are given by the equations:

along with their respective transversality conditions, that is:

Necessary conditions for optimality are:

It can be shown that the Legendre-Clebsch condition is fulfilled as the Hessian matrix of the Hamiltonian in terms of the control variables, that is:

is definite negative. Therefore, the Hamiltonian is concave with respect to the control vector \(\left( {p,u,v} \right) \), which is a maximizer of the Hamiltonian.

Using (A1.5), (A1.6) rewrites:

Using (A1.5), (A1.7), (A1.8) to rewrite (7b), (7c), (7d) and (A1.2)–(A1.4), we get the associated TPBVP (10)–(15). \(\square \)

### A2

From (A1.5), we compute the partial derivative of price with respect to price, which gives \(p_Q =-\frac{1}{2Q^{2}}\left( {\frac{dq_0 }{1+X}-\lambda } \right) <0\) whenever \(\frac{dq_0 }{1+X}>\lambda \). In our context, the positive influence of sales on the objective function suggests that its corresponding costate variable \(\lambda \) should be lower than the unit production cost \(\frac{dq_0 }{1+X}\). In contrast, from (A1.5), the greater the cumulative sales, the lower the price because \(p_X =-\frac{1}{2}\left[ {\frac{1}{\beta }+\frac{dq_0 }{Q\left( {1+X} \right) ^{2}}} \right] <0\). \(\square \)

### A3

From (A1.6), we compute the partial derivative of advertising effort with respect to conformance quality, which gives \(u_Q =\frac{c}{4\beta }\left[ {\left( {\alpha +\beta \phi -X} \right) ^{2}-\frac{\beta ^{2}}{Q^{2}}\left( {\frac{dq_0 }{1+X}-\lambda } \right) ^{2}} \right] \), which is strictly positive. Further, from (A1.6), the greater the cumulative sales, the lower the advertising effort because \(u_X =-\frac{c}{2\beta }\left[ {Q\left( {\alpha +\beta \phi -X} \right) -\beta \left( {\frac{dq_0 }{1+X}-\lambda } \right) } \right] <0\). \(\square \)

### A4

From (A1.7), the greater the conformance quality, the lower the quality improvement effort as \(v_Q =-\mu \), which is negative for a non-negative quality improvement effort in A1.7. \(\square \)

### A5

Under a marketing policy only, the corresponding Hamiltonian writes:

where \(\eta (t)\) is the current-value costate variable associated with *X*(*t*), that is given by the equation:

along with its transversality condition, that is:

Necessary conditions for optimality are:

The Legendre-Clebsch condition is also fulfilled in this case as the Hessian matrix of the Hamiltonian in terms of the control variables, that is:

is definite negative. Therefore, the Hamiltonian is concave with respect to the control vector\(\left( {p,u} \right) \), which is a maximizer of the Hamiltonian.

Using (A5.3), (A5.4) rewrites:

Using (A5.3)–(A5.5) to rewrite (8b) and (A5.2), we get the associated TPBVP (23)–(24).

\(\square \)

### A6

From (A5.3) and (A5.4), we get:

which gives \(u_{Q_0 } =\frac{c}{\beta }\left( {\alpha -\beta p-X} \right) ^{2}\ge 0\), \(u_{\left( {M-X} \right) } ={2cQ_0 \left( {\alpha -\beta p-X} \right) }/\beta \ge 0\), \(u_p =-2cQ_0 \left( {\alpha -\beta p-X} \right) \le 0\) and \(u_X =-{2cQ_0 \left( {\alpha -\beta p-X} \right) }/\beta \le 0\). \(\square \)

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

El Ouardighi, F., Feichtinger, G. & Fruchter, G.E. Accelerating the diffusion of innovations under mixed word of mouth through marketing–operations interaction.
*Ann Oper Res* **264**, 435–458 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2649-2

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2649-2