Product Innovativeness, Customer Newness, and New Product Performance: A Time-Lagged

Examination of the Impact of Salesperson Selling Intentions on New Product Performance

Author(s): Frank Q. Fu, Eli Jones and Willy Bolander
Source: The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Fall, 2008), pp. 351
-364
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40472158
Accessed: 28-11-2015 10:41 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40472158?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PRODUCT INNOVATIVENESS,CUSTOMER NEWNESS, AND NEW PRODUCT
PERFORMANCE:A TIME-LAGGED EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACT OF
SALESPERSON SELLING INTENTIONS ON NEW PRODUCT PERFORMANCE
FrankQ. Fu,EliJones,andWillyBolander

In thistime-lagged
study,weilluminatetheroleofthesalesforceinnewproduct introductionsbyexamining theimpact
ofsalespeople's intentions
selling onnewproduct performance.Surveyresponses from439 salespeople oneproduct
selling
sellinga secondproductsuggest
and 362 salespeople thatsalespeople's
sellingintentionis a keymediating In
variable.
productinnovativeness
particular, hasa positiveimpactand customer newnesshasa negative impacton newproduct
performance.However, bothvariablesworkindirectlythrough intention
salespeople's tosellnewproducts. We conclude
withmanagerialimplications ofourfindingsand directions
forfutureresearch.

The studyof new productinnovationhas been gainingcon- constantdisequilibrium(D'Aveni 1994; 1995). Accordingto
siderableattentionamong academicresearchers D'Aveni,thisstateofescalatingcompetitionis basedpartially
(e.g., Ayers,
Dahlstrom,and Skinner1997; Cooper 2000; Frishammar on the struggleto be the firstto createnew know-how(i.e.,
and Ylinenpaa2007; Hauser,Tellis,and Griffin 2006; Min, products,processes,etc.). Furthermore, thethreatto market
Kalwani,and Robinson2006; Pageand Schirr2008; Songand stabilityis intensified byshortproductlifecyclesand product
Parry1997; Srinivasan, Lilien,and Rangaswamy2006). With developmentcyclesalongwithconstanttechnologyadvances
companies in the pharmaceuticaland softwareindustries, (D'Aveni 1994). It is notsurprising, then,thatresearchers are
forexample,spendingbetween15 percentand 21 percent drawnto thestudyofnewproductsthatholdthepractitioners'
of totalrevenueon developingnew products(Krishnanand hope of gainingfirst-mover status(Kerin,Varadarajan,and
Zhu 2006), thecostofnewproductfailurecan be unbearable Peterson1992) and at leasta short-term competitive advantage
evenforlargefirms.Clearly,academicinterestin factorsthat (D'Aveni 1994).
influencethesuccessof a new productlaunchis warranted. Despite thegrowingacademicinterestin driversof NPD
offers
Pastliterature insightson bestpracticesin newprod- success,theroleofthesalesforceduringnewproductlaunches
uctdevelopment (NPD) (Adams-Bigelow2006;Griffin 1997;has not receivedsufficient attention(Atuahene-Gima1997).
Page 1993), therelationship between marketorientation andThis factis surprising, because multiplestudiessuggestthat
NPD (Atuahene-Gima 1996; Bakerand Sinkula2007; Narver vigoroussales forcesupportfornew productsis criticalto
and Slater1990), and theR&D-marketinginterface (Gupta, productlaunch effectiveness (Booz, Allen, Hamilton 1982;
Raj, and Wilemon 1986; Olson, Walker,and Ruekert1995; Cooper 2000; Cooper 1979a, 1979b; Di Benedetto1999;
Song and Thieme 2006; Van den Bulteand Moenart 1998). Kulvik1977). In addition,outsideofa sales-specific context,
Moreover,fromthe marketingstrategyliterature, we learn a meta-analysis conductedbyHenard and Szymanski(2001,
thatmanyindustries aremovingtowarda stateofhypercom- p. 368) establishes thataspects ofa newproduct/service launch
petition,characterized by dynamiccompetitiveactionsand are among the "dominantdrivers"of new productperfor-
mance. Limitedextantresearchhas examinedtheroleof the
salesforceas a sourceof marketing intelligence duringNPD
(Judson et al. 2006), superviseetrust in sellingnew products
(Atuahene-Gimaand Li 2002; 2006), and how firmsmodify
FrankQ. Fu (Ph.D., UniversityofHouston),AssistantProfessor theirsales beforeand aftera new prod-
managementstrategy
of Marketing, Collegeof BusinessAdministration,
Universityof uct introduction(Wotrubaand Rochford1995). Our review
Missouri-St.Louis,fuf@umsl.edu.
EliJones(Ph.D.,TexasA&M University),E.J.OursoDistinguished
andDean,E.J.OursoCollegeofBusiness,
Professor LouisianaState
University,
elijones@lsu.edu. Theauthors appreciate theguidanceprovided bytheeditorandthree
WillyBolander (B.B.A., KennesawState Doctoral
University), anonymous reviewers on drafts
earlier of thispaper and gratefully
Student,C.T. BauerCollegeof Business, of Houston, acknowledge
University thesupportof theSalesExcellenceInstitute at the
wcbolander@uh.edu. University ofHouston.Allauthors contributed equally.

Selling& SabsManagement,
ofPersonal
Journal vol.XXVIII,no. 4 (fall2008),pp.351-364.
Foundation.
© 2008 PSE NationalEducational reserved.
Allrights
ISSN 0885-3134/2008 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PSS0885-3 134280402

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352 JournalofPersonalSelling& SalesManagement

uncovered one studyexamining thedeterminants of new HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

product sellingperformance (Hultink, Atuahene-Gima, and
Lebbink 2000),butitsresults aredifficult togeneralize because SellingIntentions andNew ProductPerformance
ofa smallsamplesizeand a narrow focuson salespeople in effort hasbeenfoundto be a keydriver ofsales
theNetherlands. Salesperson
revenue(Zoltners, Sinha,and Zoltners2001). The positive
Moreover, thelimited existing empirical research provides relationship between effort andperformance has
of salesperson
results
conflicting concerning the role the salesforce during beensuggested theories
bymultiple (e.g.,expectancy theory,
newproduct introductions. Eventhough wemightnaturally and achievement motivation and has
theory, theory)
anticipate salespeople tohavehigher intentions tosella newly agency
considerable in a ofcontexts
empirical support variety (Brown
introduced product, Ahearne, Rapp,andRich(2006)findthat and Peterson 1994; Churchill et al. 1985). Formanycom-
salespeople whocarry multiple products in a pharmaceutical thoseoperating in a business-to-business
settinginvestlesseffort in sellinga newproductwhenthey panies,especially thesalesforceservesas theprimary communication
context,
perceive it to be highlyinnovative. The logicis thatifsell- linkto customers and Zoltners
target (Zoltners, Sinha, 2001).
ingcompaniespromotenewproductsheavilyduringnew Conceptually, therefore, salespeople's intentions tosella new
product introductions, theproducts tendto"sellthemselves,"
andsalespeople arebetter offfocusing on otherproducts in productshouldbe critical to newproductperformance (see
HultinkandAtuahene-Gima 2000).
theirportfolio. Theirlogicstandswhenone considers that, Modelsandframeworks havebeenadvancedin thesocial
in recent years, pharmaceutical have
companies increasingly sciences literature topredict individuals' intended
a "product rather thanthetradi- behaviors. consciously
emphasized pull"strategy, Forourpurposes, thetheory of reasonedaction
tional"pushstrategy," through theuseofdirect- to-consumer
(TRA) (FishbeinandAjzen1975; 1980),alongwithitsex-
advertising, which has led to an increase in the numberof thetheory ofplannedbehavior
tension, (TPB) (Ajzen1991),
patientsrequesting specific advertised medications fromtheir willserveas the lensthrough whichweviewournomological
physician (Lipman2000;Parker andPettijohn 2005).Because network andthefoundation uponwhichwe buildourargu-
advertising isalso a key success factorin new product launches ments. to Fishbein andAjzen,theprimary
According goalof
(Di Benedetto 1999),it is possiblethata salesperson would TRA is to "predict andunderstand an individual's behavior"
nothaveanintention to"push"a product thatisalready being (1980, p. 5). Prediction is accomplished theclaim
theseresults castdoubton ourunder- through
"pulled."Nevertheless, that,asidefromunexpected external influences, a person's
standing oftheimpactofnewproduct launchcharacteristics behavior is determined
on salespeople's intentions. bytheirintentions. Thistheory un-
selling ourmodelinthatintention tosella newproduct will
In thisstudy, wedelvedeeperintotheroleofthesalesforce dergirds determine theextent towhichsalespeople exerteffort to sell
duringnewproductlauncheswiththefollowing research thenew
product, which,in turn,willhavean influence on
questions in mind: thenewproduct's performance. We now address the forma-
RQ1: How does intention new tion ofintention.
salesperson selling affect
In orderto understand an individual's behavior, Fishbein
productperformance?
and Ajzen(1975) prescribe thedeterminants of intention.
RQ2: How do newproducthunchcharacteristicSy suchas Theybridgetheperson-situation debateby including one
perceived product innovativeness and customer newness, maindeterminant thatis personal innature(attitude toward
influence salespeople's sellingintentions and, eventually, the behavior)and one thatis socialin nature(subjective
newproductperformance? norms). TRAwasproposed morethana decadebefore Davis-
BlakeandPfeffer (1989)sparked a series ofarguments overthe
RQ3: Does including salespeople'ssellingintentions provide relevance ofpersonal factors inorganizational settings (House,
a betterunderstanding oftheproductinnovativeness- new
Shane,andHerold1996;StawandCohen-Charash 2005).
productperformance relationship? Moreimportantly, is the extent towhich TRA has
perhaps,
these
Addressing questions would contribute to theliterature been validated across a of
variety studies (Sheppard, Hartwick,
by illuminating theimportance of thesalesforcein new andWarshaw 1988).Itsuseiswidespread, andintentions are
product introductions, which possesses theoretical merit and widely as
accepted predictors of actual behavior (Ajzen 2001).
meaningful scholarly and managerial implications. Figure1 Thus,ouroverarching hypothesis is thatas behavioral inten-
the
depicts conceptual model we test. The model also posits tion has been shown tobe a reliable predictor ofsalespeople's
salesperson intention to sell a newproduct - a previously effort (i.e.,behavior), salespeople's attitudes towardsellinga
ignored variablein theNPD literature - as a keymediating newproduct(i.e.,intentions) willdetermine howwellthe
influence. newproduct willperform.

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fall2008 353

Figure1
ProductInnovativeness,CustomerNewness,and New ProductPerformance:
A Time-LaggedExaminationof the Impact of SalespersonSellingIntentionson New ProductPerformance

f Product >,
J Innovativeness'„^

/ '^ ^< ^^ H4<+>

/ H2(+K ~^-^

/ toSell '
Intention HI (+) / New '
( a New j ►( Product J
V Product J V PerformanceJ
/^ ^ ^^ ^^
' H3R/ ...---'
Customer ^^ "'" H5 (-)
'f
V * ~ ^---
Newness /

Hypothesis tosella newproduct

intention
1: Salespeople's Meanwhile, product innovativenessmay increasesales-
rehtedtonewproductperformance.
ispositively people'sintentionto sellbyincreasingtheirperceivedchance
to gain moreprecioustimewithcustomers.The noveltyof a
ProductInnovativenessand SellingIntentions new productprovidesgood "excuses"forsalespeopleto visit
a customer.Even forlong-termcustomerswho are familiar
Productinnovativeness reflectsthe degreeto which a new with a company'sproducts,a new productwith interesting
productis viewed as possessingnew and unique attributes featuresand benefitsenables salespeople to gain more at-
and featuresas comparedto otherproductsoffered bythefirm tentionand deepen the businessrelationship. This enables
froma salespersonsperspective(Wu, Balasubramanian,and salespeopleto use a "foot-in-the-door approach"to, perhaps,
Mahajan 2004). In line with our model and TRA, product cross-sellor up-sell.Unlike transactionalselling,relationship
innovativeness is important on twolevels.First,ifsalespeople sellingemphasizestheimportanceofcontinually addingvalue
thata newproductis groundbreaking
believe orone-of-a-kind, to the customer's business. A new product can be viewedas
theywillhavea morepositiveattitudetowardsellingit. Sec- a vehicleto demonstrate thecontinuouseffort ofsalespeople
ond,productinnovativeness is important becauseoftheorga- and thecompanytheyrepresent to add valueto thecustomer's
nizationalactivity thatwould typically surroundthereleaseof business.Althoughproductinnovativeness is oftenassociated
a new product.In termsofTRA, thisorganizationalactivity withuncertainty (i.e., customersmay or maynot adopt the
establishesnormsof behaviorforsalespeople(i.e., subjective product),salespeoplewho carrymultipleproductsare still
A
norms). justification of these statements follows. betteroffby gainingextratimefromcustomers,therebyin-
To salespeople, the unique attributes of a new product creasingthe chance to sell otherproductsin theirportfolio.
maysuggesta greatermarketpotentialand a betterchanceof Even thoughcustomers'adoptionof the new productis not
success.The positiveinformation about a new productand guaranteed,it is almostcertainthatsalespeoplewill receivea
projections about its future success should generatepositive positivereturnfromtheirinvestment of effortin theformof
feelingsamong salespeople about the utilityand value their valuable attention from a
customers, strengthened relation-
customerswill perceivein the product.Salespeoplecarrying ship,oropportunities to sellotherproducts in the salesperson's
multipleproduct lines will have a greaterintention to exert portfolio.
effortin sellinga productthat theyperceivehas a higher Considerationshould also be givento thepossibilitythat
marketpotential and a greaterpotential to maximize their selling a new product simplyreflectswell on salespeople
own income;thus,salespeopleare morelikelyto sell a new becausetheirbusinesscustomers, who areconstantly seeking
product with such characteristics. novel ways to retain their customer base while attracting new

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 JournalofPersonalSelling& SalesManagement

customers, arelikelyto be impressed bya salesperson with 2006). Clearly, ifsalespeople havea positive opinionabouta
newsolutions to theirproblems. Moreover, thereis typically product, they will have a greater intention
to sellit.Anylevel
enthusiasm fromsalespeopleas theyconsidersellingnew ofsuccessinsalesispredicated on thesalespeople's beliefthat
products thatcouldlead to newsourcesofcommissions or theyareoffering something worthwhile to a buyer.Thisbe-
bonuses. Thisexcitement wouldbe evenstronger ifthesales- liefiswhymanysalespeople viewtheirjob as a servicetothe
peoplebelievecompetitors areintroducing a similar product and
buyer whythey often feel
confident and even in
assertive
and
soon, they have only a limited time inwhich tocapitalize a salescall.To them,itwouldbe a disservice notto trytheir
onthe"monopoly window"(Gelb,Andrews, andLam2007). hardest tohelptheir clientsobtainthebenefits associatedwith
Thissituation wouldnotonlyleadtoa positive attitude toward whatever sell, a new
they particularly product.
the
selling product but would also serve to create a sense of
that could further contribute to the success of the Hypothesis2: Salespeople's productinnovativeness
perceived
urgency
newproduct launch. ispositively
relatedto intention
tosellthenewproduct.
Inaddition totheroleofsalesperson attitudes aboutinnova-
tiveproducts, itis essentialto examinetheroleofsubjective Customer
Newnessand SellingIntentions
normssurrounding newproductlaunches. Thesesubjective
norms arisebothformally (from thecompany) andinformally Customer newnessdescribes thedegreeto whichthetarget
(fromthesalespersons coworkers). Formally, companiesare customer segment isviewed as onewithno relationship with
likelyto invest more resources and providesupportwhena thesalesperson orthesellingcompany. Likeproduct innova-
product isinnovative anduniqueas theyattempt torecapture tiveness, customer newness involves bothsalesperson attitudes
R&D expenses. Theseextra resources shouldincrease theprod- andsubjective norms.First, we lookatsalesperson attitudes.
ucts chanceofsuccessinsalespeople's minds.Companysup- It is wellknownthatsalespeople tendto takethepathof
portmaytakedifferent forms suchasproviding thesalespeople leastresistance. Forexample, giventhechoicebetween call-
withdetailsandpromotional materials forthenewproduct, ingon an existing clientbaseandworking a newterritory to
quantifying the income possibilities from sellingthe new establish brandnewclients, thesalespeople willgenerally call
product, sales and product managers emphasizing newprod- on existing clients. To salespeople, thisrepresents a moreef-
uctsalesduringsalesmeetings, offering technical supportor ficient useoftheir limited time.Research supports thisnotion
servicesupport tocustomers, andoffering negotiable pricing withthefinding thatit costsfivetimesas muchto acquire
policiesandflexible payment plans.Thesestrategies enhance a newclientthanitdoesto keepan existing one (Desatnick
salespeople's sellingintention by creating a positivefeeling 1988; File and Prince 1994).Particularly, ifsalespeople's pay
abouttheeaseandfeasibility ofselling thenewproduct, along is commensurate withgenerating revenue, theywillhavea
withforming expectations - normsofbehavior - acrossthe less-favorable attitudetowardcallingon newercustomers
salesforce, suchthatsalespeople feelpressure fromimportant whoareperceived to havea lowerprobability ofbuying and
otherstosellthenewproduct. Further, with an innovative and wouldtherefore be a riskier of
use thesalesperson's time.To
uniqueproduct inhand,companies maydesign a specialbonus clarify,itis possiblethatthenewcustomer wouldnothavea
plan orinternal evaluation system, extra
including recognition lowerprobability ofpurchasing thenewproduct. Perhaps the
forselling thenewproduct. Empirical research demonstrates customer hasbeenlookingfor,butunabletofind,a product
thatsuchpromotional influence frommanagers createsan likethatbeingoffered bythesalesperson's company. In this
internalenvironment inwhichsalespeople moreeasilydevelop case,thenewercustomer wouldhavea highprobability of
a positiveintention tosellthenewproduct(Atuahene-Gima buying. Nevertheless, the salesperson isfacedwith uncertainty
1997). Informally, subjective normscan developout ofthe whensellingto newercustomers, and theperceived riskof
salespersons with
relationships hisor hercoworkers. As an rejection fromnewcustomers pushessalespeople to theedge
example, friendly competition amongsalespeople can create of theircomfort zone (eveniftheirperceptions do notac-
an environment thatincreases theindividualsalesperson's curately represent reality). Unlike sellinga new productto
intention tosellthenewproduct. Itisalsoimportant tonote existing customers, ifnew prospects rejectthe new product,
thatslightchangesin anynumberoffactors arecapableof salespeople arelesslikely tocross-sell otherproducts tothem.
dramatically changing thesalespeople's situational landscape Thissuggests a negative relationship between customer new-
and,thus,theirintention to sellthenewproduct. nessandsalespeople's selling intention.
Referring back to the findings of Ahearne,Rapp, and To addressthe subjectivenormsassociatedwithcus-
Rich(2006) discussed above, we maintain thattheproduct tomernewness, we mustlookat salespeople in lightoftheir
innovativeness-intention to sellrelationship willbe positive, boundary-spanning function. As boundary spanners, sales-
especiallybecauseourcontext is characterized as "tradesell- peopleactually have two sources of work-related subjective
ing"rather than "missionary selling" (Johnston andMarshall norms - theircompany(bossand coworkers) and theircus-

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fall2008 355

tomers(Singh1998).Thispredicament isamplified whenone salesforceduringtheprocessofnewproductlaunches. Inas-

considersthatthesalespeople'scompensation is more related muchasproducts withuniquenewfeatures tendtohavehigher
towhathappenswiththecustomer thanwiththeemployer. market potential, itislikelythatthismarket potential cannot
Forourpurposes, thisfactforces
ustoconsider thevariability beeffectivelycommercialized without sufficient
support from
ofsubjectivenorms depending on the newness ofthecustom- thecompany's salesforce, for
especially companies operating
ers.Whatarethenewcustomers' expectations comparedto in industries in whichthesalesforceservesas theprimary
thoseofwell-establishedcustomers? How do thesesubjective communication vehicle(e.g.,industrial goodscompanies;
normsfitwiththosefromthecompany? Atuahene-Gima and Michael1998).Thus,thesalespeople's
Whena customer segmentisnew,thecompany, andthere- intention to sell thenewproductis likelyto mediatethe
the
fore salespeople, not
may fully understand itsneedsand relationship betweennewproductcharacteristics and new
Thiscan createsomelevelofdoubton thepart
preferences. productperformance.
ofthesalespeople thatthenewproduct willindeedmeetthe The salesforceconnectsthecompany's productsto key
customer segment's needs.Even when extensive marketing customer as
segments salespeople are theprimary meansof
researchhasbeenconducted, there isa windowforerror. This for
communication manyindustrial companies(Zoltners,
would,in turn,dampensalespeople's confidence in selling Sinha,and Zoltners 2001). Fromprospecting forcustomers
thenewproduct. The detrimental effectof customer new- and presenting thenewproductmessageto closingthesale
nesson salespeople'sconfidencemayeventually impedetheir and servicing theaccount,the salesforce'sefforts convey
intentiontosellthenewproduct(Vroom1964),particularly positiveinformation to customers, enhancetheirattitude
whensalespeople haveotherproducts in theirportfolio. In towardadoptingthenewproduct, and eventually, influence
otherwords,theymayintendto allocatelesstime,energy, newproduct performance positively.Differentcustomers may
andeffort insellingthenewproductto unfamiliar customer weighnewproduct featuresdifferently.
Adaptiveselling equips
segments becausethe risksare greaterthansellinga new salespeopleto choosefroman arrayofsellingapproaches to
to
product existing customers.Theymayalsofearlosinga new bestpresent theproducts totarget customers (Spiro and Weitz
customer ifthey"comeon too strongly" beforeestablishing 1990;Weitz,Sujan,andSujan1986).Thisalsoleadsto bet-
theleveloftrustenjoyedwithexisting customers. Thus,we ternewproductperformance. In addition,thepresence ofa
proposethat capableandreliable salespersonhelpscustomers overcome the
uncertainty associated with new productadoption. Without
perceivedcustomer
3: Salespeople's
Hypothesis newnessis thesalesforce's intention to sellthenewproduct, theselling
related
negatively to intention
salespeople's tosell. firm'sabilityto launchnewproducts successfully be sig-
can
limited.
nificantly Thus,weproposethatproduct innovative-
nesswillimpactnewproduct performance indirectly through
SalespersonSellingIntentionas a Key Mediating
Variable salespeople'ssellingintentions.

sharein thenew Hypothesis sellingintentionwill mediate

4: Salespeople's
One underlying assumption manyscholars the impactofproductinnovativeness on newproduct
product literatureis thatnew product innovativenessleads
Tellis performance.
to better newproductperformance (e.g.,Chandyand
1998).Interestingly, however, empirical researchfocusingon Thereislimited empiricalresearchexamining therelation-
therelationship betweenproductinnovativeness and new ship between customer newnessand new product We
success.
productperformance does notprovideconclusive evidence posit such a relationshipbased on the following theoretical
(seeSongand Montoya- Weiss1998). Forexample,Cooper grounds. First,asweacknowledged itismoredifficult
earlier,
(1979a)findsthattheuniqueness/superiority ofa newprod- andcostlyto sellto newcustomers thanto existing custom-
uctis associated positivelywith a higher successrateofnew ers.Withouttheassurance ofan ongoingrelationship, new
products; yetCooper and de Brentani (1991) toestablish
fail customers tendtobemoresuspicious ofa company's products
product newness asa significant
predictor ofnewproduct suc- thanexistingcustomers. Usingsecondary historical
data,
cess.Kleinschmidt andCooper(1991) arguefora U-shaped Lewis(2006) illustrates thatnewlyacquiredcustomers have
relationship betweenproductinnovativeness and product lowerrepurchase ratesand smallerlifetime value.Similarly,
success- thatis, thathighlyinnovative and noninnovative Ehrenberg, Hammond,andGoodhardt (1994) findthatex-
productsare moresuccessful thanmoderately innovative istingcustomers (not new customers) to respond
tend more
products. positivelyto companies' marketing efforts.
Although itisbeyondthescopeofthisstudytoexplore all Second,whenconsidering marketing costs,companies
possiblecauses, we one
believe explanation forthese mixed are lessefficientsellingto new customers thanto existing
resultsis thatresearchers havelargely ignoredtheroleofthe customers. Logically,when targetsegments are newfirms,

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 JournalofPersonalSelling& SalesManagement

Table I METHOD
Measurement Item
In thistime-lagged study, we collecteddata froma group
Product Innovativeness ofsalespeople on twonewproducts launchedin 2005.The
NEWPROD is one of the firstproducts of its kindin the market. sampleforthisstudyincludes800 salespeople working fora
NEWPROD is totallynew to the market. largemultinational toolcompany operating inboththeUnited
NEWPROD representsa new product categoryfor our company. StatesandCanada.The company provides drillingtoolsand
NEWPROD is highlyinnovative. otherproducts to construction This
professionals. company
was selected for tworeasons. First, itreliesheavily on innova-
Customer Newness
tioncommercialization as an important revenuesource.In
I have not previouslyprovided product/serviceto this customer 2004, thecompanylaunched50 newproducts in itsNorth
segment. American market andadded another 12 new products to its
This customer segment is new to me.
portfolio in 2005. Second,thecompanyemploysa direct-
I have substantialknowledge of this customer segment,(reverse
to-business customer modeland dependsalmostexclusively
scored)
on itssalesforceto communicate withbusinesscustomers;
Salespeople's Intention to Sell it spendslittlemoneyon productpull-through marketing
campaigns such as advertising to consumers. This situation
Compared to other salespeople,
how muchtime do you anticipatespendingon sellingthe assessment
facilitates of the effects of salesforce intentions on
NEWPROD? new productperformance.
how intenselydo you anticipateworkingto sell the NEWPROD? To validateresultsacrossinnovations, we collecteddata
how much overall effortdo you anticipateputtinginto sellingthe
during two product launches. Product A was launchedin
NEWPROD?
August 2005 and Β
product June in 2005. Beforethesetwo
newproducts werelaunched, one of the salesexecutives sent
an e-mailto thesalespeople encouraging participation. We
thereis limited andunderstanding oftheirlatent collected Time-1 data usingquestionnaires posted the
on
knowledge intranet. Three months afterthe new was
needsandpreferences. This,inturn, leadstotheless-efficient company's product
launched, wecollected Time-2data(unitsales) from company
designofmarketing campaigns andan inefficient alignment records. In total,439 (54.9 percent) salespeople completed the
ofmarketing resources. Therefore, marketing efforts willbe
survey regarding product A and 362 (45.3 percent) completed
lesseffective.
itfor product B. Mostofthesalespeople participating in the
Moreover, theimpactof customer newnesson product
weremale(93.3 percent), themeanagewas40.5 years,
performance is likelyto be mediated bysalespeople's selling study On average,
intention. customer newnessslowstheintroduc- and more than 75 percent collegeeducated.
were
Although these had 15 of sales and
tionofnewproducts, intentions to sellwillstill salespeople nearly years experience
salespeople's in their for 10
determine newproduct performance intheirownterritories. hadbeen present position nearly years.
Asweknow, manyindustrial salespeople serveasambassadors
of theircompanies. The extentto whichthesesalespeople Measures
intendto investpersistent effort suchas prospecting, cold
We examinedfourconstructs in thisstudy.Threeof the
and
calling, establishing relationships willdecide the success
variables(productinnovativeness, customernewness,and
(orfailure) ofthenewproduct. Inother words, theirintention
salespeople'sintention to sell)areself-report measures. New
tosellislikely tooffset theeffect ofcustomer newness on new
productperformance was obtained throughcompanyre-
product performance. cordsthreemonthsafterthenewproducts werelaunched.
Inaddition, salespeople whointendtosellthenewproduct
In addition, we measured company-assigned quotasforeach
maybe morelikelyto customize offerings (e.g.,termsand as a control variable. toall
to accommodate newcustomers' needs.Further, salesperson Salespeople responded
conditions)
enthusiasm - drivenbytheirintentions - may measurement items a
using seven-point Likert-type The
scale.
salespeople's itemsarelistedinTable1.
leadthemto pursueadditional resources fromsalesmanage-
menttoeffectively sellthenewproducts. Consequently, selling
intention enablessalespeople to becomefacilitators of new ProductInnovativeness
product success.Thus,we positthefollowing: reflects thedegreeto whicha new
Productinnovativeness
Hypothesis 5: Salespeople's
selling intention willmediate the product is viewed as possessing newand uniqueattributes
impactofcustomer newness on newproductperformance. and features as compared to other productsoffered bythe

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fall2008 357

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities,and Correlations
Standard Product Customer Intention
Means Deviation Innovativeness Newness to Sell Performance

ProductA
Product innovativeness 3.33 1.41 0.84
Customer newness 2.31 1.28 0.23** 0.87
Intentionto sell 4.88 1.00 0.21** -0.17** 0.95
Performance 5.04 6.69 -0.07 -0.28** 0.28** -
Quota 20.27 15.98 -0.16** -0.28** 0.14** 0.43**
Product Β
Product innovativeness 3.35 1.45 0.82
Customer newness 3.48 1.08 0.16** 0.83
Intentionto sell 4.53 1.47 0.12** -0.26** 0.97
Performance 25.95 45.00 -0.04 0.00 0.35** -
Quota 56.52 54.35 -0.07 -0.01 0.33** 0.44**

areon themaindiagonal.**ρ < 0.01.

alphasforeachofthemeasures
Notes:Cronbach's

Table 3
Construct Reliabilities

Bagozzi's ( 1980) Fornell & Larcker's ( 198 1)

Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted

Product A Product Β Product A Product Β

Product Innovativeness 0.85 0.82 0.59 0.53

Customer Newness 0.88 0.85 0.72 0.66
Intentionto Sell 0.94 0.97 0.85 0.92

firmfroma salespersons It was measured

perspective. with was collectedin August2005. Once again,we foundthe
scaleadaptedfromWu, Balasubramanian,
a four-item and measure behavedas expected.
Mahajan(2004).Theinternal ofthesemeasures
consistencies
aresatisfactory (seeTables2 and3).
forbothproducts IntentiontoSell

Newness
Customer We measured intention
salespeople's to sellthenewproduct
withthreeitemsadaptedfromBrownand Peterson (1994).
We measured salespeople'sperceptionofcustomer newness Weaskedstudy participantshow much effort(time, intensity,
withthreeitems.Thesemeasures weredevelopedusingpro- and overalleffort) theyanticipated puttingintosellingthe
ceduresrecommended by Churchill after
(1979).Specifically, new productcompared to other salespeople. The internal
thedomainoftheconstruct,
specifying a
wegeneratedpool of consistenciesoftheintention to sellweresatisfactory. In es-
eightitemsbased on a literaturereviewand with
discussions sence, theconstruct of intentionto sellcaptures salespeople's
withsubstantial
colleagues experienceinempirical To
research. perception oftheeffort theywillexert inthefuture. Inthesales
ensurerelevancetoa salescontext,wesubsequently discussed literature,itis typicalto measure saleseffort byaskingsales-
theitemswithsalespeopleand salesmanagers to confirm peopletoratehowtheycompare in
withothers thecompany.
Retaining
applicability. the three most appropriate items, Some examples include Atuahene-Gima andMichael(1998),
we askedstudyparticipants to whatdegreetheyviewedthe Brownand Peterson (1994), and Krishnan, Netemeyer, and
targetcustomer segment as unfamiliarand new to them as Boles (2002).
compared toothercustomer segments.Usingtheseitems, we
dataconcerning
collected product Β inJune2005. Estimates
Performance
and analysis
ofreliability of thefactorstructureconfirmed
theadequacyandappropriateness ofthemeasure(Churchill Performance was measuredby theactualnumberof units
1979).The measure on
wascross-validatedproduct A, which sold 90 days afterthenewproductlaunchaccording to the

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 JournalofPersonalSelling& SalesManagement

company's The 90-dayframe

salesrecords. iscommonly used one at a time,to equal 1. Becausethetestconfirmed thatall
in thesalesliterature
(Brown, Cron,and Slocum 1998).To correlations among the latent constructs were significantly
ensurecomparability,thesametimeframe wasusedforboth lessthan1.0,we concludedthateachconstruct wasempiri-
products.Theaverage number ofunitssoldwas5.04 (standard callydistinct.
deviation[SD] = 6.7) forproductA and 25.95 (SD = 45.0) Severalprocedural and statistical remedieshavebeenem-
forproductB. ployed tominimize the effects of a potentialcommon method
biasthreat(e.g.,Podsakoff et al. 2003). First,we collected
Quota the data fromdifferent sources.Specifically, we surveyed
salespeople on theirperceptions and intentionstosellandcol-
We usedthesalesquota assignedto each salesperson as a lectedobjective newproduct performance data from company
controlvariable.It was measured as theactualnumberof records. Second,before surveying thesalespeople,wepretested
unitsassignedbythecompanyto eachsalesperson priorto thescalesand deletedambiguous and potentiallyconfusing
eachnewproductlaunch.According to ourinterviews with itemsbasedonfeedback from a sampleofsalespeople andsales
marketingand sales the
managers, quotasetting is a function managers. Third,we conducted an factor
exploratory analysis
of territory
potentialand historical
salesdata.The average (EFA) on all items.The analysisrevealed thatthereexisted
quotaassigned =
was 20.32 (SD 15.98) forproductA and threefactors (asexpected), allhavingeigenvalues greaterthan
56.52 (SD = 54.35) forproductB. 1. Further, theHarmonone-factor testdid notidentify any
generalfactor thataccountedforthemajority ofcovariance
RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY FACTOR amongall measures (Podsakoff etal. 2003). In fact,thefirst
ANALYSES factorexplained 33
only percent ofthevariation. Collectively,
theseresults suggest that a common methodbiasis unlikely
We conducted an overallconfirmatory factor analysis on all to be a significantthreat to ourresearch.
itemstoexamine theadequacyoftheconstruct measures. For To estimatetheeffect of a potentialnonresponse bias,
bothproducts, allitemsloadedsignificantly (p < 0.01) on their we usedtheapproachof "comparison of knownvaluesfor
hypothesized factors.Forproduct A,thecomparative fitindex thepopulation"(Armstrong and Overton1977, p. 396).
(CFI) was0.99,therootmeansquareerror ofapproximation In particular,we compared thesellingtargets andoutcomes
(RMSEA)was0.036,and thechi-square statistic was 50.25 of salespeoplewho completedour surveywithcompany
(degreesof freedom = <
[df] 32,p 0.05). For productB, the averagesforall salespeople. We collectedthenewproduct
CFI was 0.99, theRMSEA was 0.052, and thechi-square performance forall salesterritories in whichproduct A was
was 62.87 (df= 32, ρ < 0.01). These fitstatistics
statistic soldthreemonthsafteritslaunch.In addition, we obtained
suggestthatbothmodels(forproducts A andB) fitthedata each individualsalesperson's target(i.e., quota) setby the
The
satisfactorily. satisfactory fitalsovalidates themeasure- company beforethe new productlaunch.Testsof equality
mentscales(Churchill 1979). showedthatneither newproductperformance (Z = -0.718;
To further estimate construct we calculated
reliabilities, [n.s.(nonsignificant)]), norsellingquota(Z = 1.447; [n.s.])
Bagozzis (1980) p and Fornell and Larckers (1981) ρ^(η). ofsalespeople in oursamplesignificantly differedfromthe
The former is a measureof theproportion of sharedvari- company's We the
averages. repeated procedure product for B.
anceto error variance in theconstructs, whereas thelatteris The results showedthatbothquota(Z= -0.237; [n.s.])and
a measureoftheaveragevarianceextracted fromtheitems performance (Z= 1.684;[n.s.])ofsalespeople whocompleted
byeachconstruct. The ps wereabovethethreshold valueof oursurvey wereequivalent tocompany Theseresults
averages.
0.70 (Nunnally1978) and thep , }s weregreater thanthe that
suggest nonresponse bias also isunlikely a significant
tobe
threshold valueof 0.50 (Fornelland Larcker1981). These threat to ourstudy.
results
demonstrate satisfactoryreliabilities
and convergent
(see
validity Table 3). HYPOTHESES TESTING
Wedemonstrated discriminant intwoways.First,
validity
followingFornellandLarcker (1981),we testedwhether the Wethenestimated thehypothesizedstructural
modelwiththe
averagevariance explained bya construct's items was greater measurement modelbeingrunsimultaneously. Inaddition,
we
thantheconstructs shared variancewithevery other construct. conducted indirect
teststoexamine thehypothesizedmediat-
wetested
Empirically, whether p wasgreater thanthesquare ingeffectsofH4 andH5. Fitting thehypothesizedmodels(of
oftheintercorrelations.Allconstructs demonstrated discrimi- bothproducts) tothedataresulted
insatisfactory
goodness-of-
nantvalidity becausetheiraverage variances explained were fitindices(seeTable4). In summary,thedatafrom productΒ
Second,
greater. following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we provided support forall five whereas
hypotheses, fourofthe
constrained thecorrelation between eachpairofconstructs, fivehypotheses weresupported forproductA. Weusedquota

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fall2008 359

Table 4
Standardized Estimates, Critical Ratios, and Goodness-of-FitStatistics

Product A Product Β
Relationships Coefficients Coefficients

Intentionto Sell on New Product Performance(H I ) 0.27** 0.23**

Product Innovativenesson Intentionto Sell (H2) 0.28** 0.25**
Customer Newness on Intentionto Sell (H3) -0.23** -0.52**
Product Innovativenesson New Product Performance(H4) -0.09 -0.08
Customer Newness on New Product Performance(H5) -0. 18** 0.04

X*(df) 61.96(39) 72.12(39)

p-Value 0.01 0.001
CFI 0.99 0.99
GFI 0.97 0.96
AGFI 0.96 0.94
RMSEA 0.037 0.048

**/><0.01.

Table 5
Standardized Estimates, Critical Ratios, and Goodness-of-FitStatistics (with Control Variable)
Product A Product Β
Relationships Coefficients Coefficients

Intentionto Sell on New Product Performance(H I ) 0.22** 0. 16**

Product Innovativenesson Intentionto Sell (H2) 0.28** 0.25**
Customer Newness on Intentionto Sell (H3) -0.22** -0.52**
Product Innovativenesson New Product Performance(H4) -0.032 -0.046
Customer Newness on New Product Performance(H5) -0. 1 1* -0.024
Quota on New Product Performance 0.38** 0.34**

X2(df) 118.69(49) 101.73(49)

f>-Value 0 0
CFI 0.98 0.98
GFI 0.96 0.96
AGFI 0.93 0.93
RMSEA 0.057 0.055

*p < 0.05; **/>< 0.01.

as a proxyindicatorof sales potentialof the new productin impacton salespeople'sintentionto sell. For both products,
As territory
each territory. potentialmay contributeto new theimpactofproductinnovativeness intention
on salespeople's
productperformance, foritseffects
controlling enabledus to and positive(supportingH2), whereas
to sellwas significant
estimatemoreaccurately theimpactofproductinnovativeness thatof customernewnesswas significant and negative(sup-
and customernewness.To operationalize, we added quota to porting H3).
thestructural model and rerantheestimation.Interestingly, To testH4, we investigated the directimpactof product
forboth products,all relationships remainedapproximately innovativeness and customernewnesson newproductperfor-
the same (see Table 5). This indicatesthe robustnessof the mancebeforeexaminingtheirindirecteffects. We conducted
estimatedrelationships. indirecttestsbyfollowingtheapproachsuggestedbyDuncan
As expected,salespeople'sintention affected
to sellpositively (1975). As expected,the directlink betweenproductinno-
new productperformance (supportingHI). This significant vativenessand new productperformance was notstatistically
effectheldforbothproducts, whichconfirmed theimportance significantforeitherproduct. Further testingshowed that
ofsalespeople'ssellingintentionduringnewproductlaunches. productinnovativeness affects
indirectly productperformance
Productinnovativeness and customernewnesshad a direct throughsalespeople'ssellingintention. product
Specifically,

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360 JournalofPersonalSelling& SalesManagement

Table 6
Direct, Indirect,and Total Effects

Dependent Variable: New Product Performance

PredictorVariable Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect

ProductA
Product Innovativeness -0.09 0.08** -0.01
Customer Newness -0.18** -0.07** -0.25
Intentionto Sell 0.27** - 0.27
Product Β
Product Innovativeness -0.08 0.06** -0.02
Customer Newness 0.04 -0.1 1** -0.07
Intentionto Sell 0.23** - 0.23

**/><0.01.

innovativeness hada positiveindirect impacton newproduct geststrategies and tacticsthataremanagerially relevant.For

performance. We conducted a Sobel test(1982) to examine example, sales and productmanagers should carefullyframe
thesignificance ofthisrelationship.Forbothproducts A and newproductintroductions aroundhow"new"theproducts
B, theindirectimpactwas significant. Therefore, H4 was arethatarebeingintroduced. Analogousto theresearch on
supported. radicalinnovations (e.g.,Chandy andTellis 1998), we propose
Weusedthesameapproach totestH5. Similarly,
themedia- thatmanagers focuson thefollowing whenpromoting a new
tiontestrevealed thatcustomer newness affectednewproduct product totheir salespeople.To what extentis the new product
performance alsoindirectly(i.e.,through inten-
salespeople's (1) thefirst product ofitskindinthemarket, (2) totallynew
tionto sell).Thisindirect effectwasnegative andsignificantto themarket, (3) representative ofa newproductcategory
forbothproducts basedon results oftheSobeltest.However, forthecompany, and(4) highly innovative? Ourstudyresults
fordirect
testing effects
generated mixedresults.Forproduct suggest thatthedegreetowhichmanagers canselltheirsales-
B, the directrelationship was not statisticallysignificantpeople on the above will their
predict salespeople's intentions
(supporting H5). Forproduct A, thedirectrelationshipwas to sellthenewproduct.
but
negative significant (i.e.,H5 was not supported).These Third,weintroduced a newscalethatmeasures salespeople's
arereported
effects inTable6. Again,H5 issupported inone perceptions ofcustomer newness. Thiswasimportant because
casebutnotin theother. oftensellingcompanies targetnew customer segments with
theirnewproducts. Thus,we wereinterested in theimpact
DISCUSSION of salespeople's perceptions of newcustomer segments on
salespeople's intention to sellnewproducts. Interestingly,we
Thisstudy makesthreemaincontributions totheresearch on founddirect andindirect effects
ofcustomer newness onactual
NPD. First,in a time-lagged design, we capturedsubjective, newproductperformance. Fourofourfivehypotheses were
data
self-reported on salesperson sellingintentions
and the supported. Takingthethreecontributions together, we offer
impactofthoseintentions on objective newproductperfor- thefollowing theoretical andmanagerial implications.
mancedatafortwoseparate products. This designenabled
us to examinethepowerofsellingintentions on actualnew Intention to Sellis Criticalto New Product
Salespeople's
productperformance. Consistent with we
TRA, foundthat Success
behaviors
salespeople's towardpromoting newproducts can
be predictedmonthsbeforea newproductis introduced to Theresults ofthisstudy confirmed theimportance ofsalespeo-
themarketby capturing salespeople'sintentions
to sell the ple'ssellingintentions new
during product launches, which, at
newproduct. a broadlevel,underscores theimportance ofthesalesforcein
Second,weexamined theeffect ofproductinnovativeness newproduct launches. Forbothproducts, wefounda positive
andcustomer newness on newproduct performance andthe andsignificant relationship between salespeople's intentionto
potentialmediation effect
of salespeople's intention,
selling an sella new product and the performance ofthat product. Our
areathathasbeenunderresearched todate.Byexamining two studyreinforces theimportance of motivating salespeople
drivers
particular ofsalesperson - product particularly
sellingintentions duringnewproductintroductions. Specifically,
innovativenessand customer newness - we areable to sug- managers shoulddirecttheirattention to evaluating sales-

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fall2008 361

tosella newproductpriorto introducing

peoples intentions Interestingly, wealsofounda significant directeffectofcus-
thenewproduct.Froman academicperspective, marketing tomer newness onactualnewproduct performance. direct
The
strategy shouldconsidertheimportant
scholars roleof the impactof customer newnesson newproductperformance
salesforceinensuringnewproduct success.
Thisomission in differed from product A toproduct B. Following thestudy, we
prior research
could the
helpexplain contradictory findings hadinformal conversations withcompany marketing and sales
on whichweelaborated in thispaper.
earlier managers whorevealed thatthecompany spentconsiderably
moremarketing effort (e.g.,push-type incentives to thesales
ProductInnovativeness Affects New ProductPerformance force) on promoting A as
product compared product to Β dur-
ing the new product launches. This mayexplain theexistence
ThroughSellingIntentions
ofa directeffect forproduct A butnotforproductB. These
thedirectlinkbetween
Interestingly, productinnovativeness findings unveilfuture research opportunities regarding NPD
andnewproduct performance was not statisticallysignificant and sales force management.
foreitherproduct. Instead,product innovativeness influences
newproductperformance indirectly throughsalespeople's FUTURE RESEARCHAND LIMITATIONS
intentiontosell.Perhaps,ourstudy offersanalternative expla-
nationforconflicting empirical results regarding theproduct We cautionresearchers and managers regarding thelimita-
innovativeness- performance relationship; in
the conflicting tionsofthisstudy interpreting andgeneralizing ourfind-
empirical intheexisting
results literature couldbe duetothe ings.Although theimportant roleof thesalesforceduring
underresearched influenceofsalespeople s sellingintention as newproductlauncheshas beensuggested in somestudies
an intervening variable. (Atuahene-Gima 1997), the extent that salesforceintentions
contribute tonewproduct performance mayvarybyindustry.
Customer NewnessIs an Important and ComplexIssue Further, the mediating role of intention tosella newproduct
in the productinnovativeness-new productperformance
We foundthatcustomer newnessloweredsalespeople's in- relationship offers an alternative explanation ofinconsistent
tentionstosellthenewproduct, whichechoestheempirical findings in themarketing strategy literature. However, the
findingsin other contexts
selling that salespeople are lessen- effect is likelycontingent uponindustry type. Because both
thusiastic
aboutselling newproducts tounfamiliar prospects. sampleswerecollected fromoneorganization, thiscouldpo-
glance,thisfinding
At first wouldsuggestthatsalespeople tentially affect thegeneralizability ofourfindings. Ofcourse,
wouldrather sellnewproductsto existing customers than thebenefit ofusingone organization is thatwewereableto
sell newproductsto new customers. This tendencymay control forextraneous effects (e.g., different reward systems).
notbe all bad.Customer relationship management suggests Still, additional investigations in other industries areclearly
thatitis moreprofitable to focusefforts on existing custom- neededtovalidatethereported results herein.
ersthanon newcustomers. Having new products to sellto As an early research attempt to delineate thesalesforce's
existingcustomers could the
deepen interpersonal relation- role in new product launches, the results presented in this
shipsbetweensalespeople and their existing customers and study can be used for meaningful extensions and interesting
increasecustomer loyalty.However, oftena primary thrust research possibilities. One relevant research questionis,given
forintroducing newproductsis to capturenew customer thatsalespeople's intention to sellservesas an important in-
segments. Thus,sellingcompanies need to more carefully tervening variable and that both product innovativeness and
evaluate whentargeting
theirsellingstrategies newcustomer customer newness impactnewproduct performance indirectly
For
segments. example,deploying salespeople who exhibit through salespeople's intention, what specificstrategiesshould
more"hunting" characteristicsto newcustomer segments sales managers take to new
improve productperformance?
whiledeploying thosewho are more"farmers" to existing Also,whataretheotherintervening variables thatcouldbe
customer segments couldenhance overall salesforce efficiency involved, besidesintention tosell,intherelationships among
(Zoltners,Sinha,andZoltners 2001). Also,referring backto product innovativeness, customer newness, andnewproduct
ourearlier discussionofsubjective norms, sellingcompanies performance? Furthermore, wouldtheresults foundin this
couldutilizetheorganizational activity surrounding the new study differ when considering incremental versus radically
productlaunchto encourage theirsalespeople to reachout newproducts?
to newercustomers. Thiscouldbe accomplished byhaving Futureresearch shouldexaminetheextentto whichhav-
productmanagers and salesmanagers the
quantify unique ing new products selltoexisting
to customers infactdeepens
earningpotential associatedwith new customer segments, the interpersonal relationships between salespeople andtheir
perhaps alongwitha modified compensation plan,depending existing customers andincreases customer loyalty.Also,what
on thefirm's objectives. is theidealmixofincentives to motivate salespeople to sell

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Selling& SalesManagement
ofPersonal
362 Journal

new productsand new customers?For example, how do Baker,WilliamE., andJamesM. Sinkula(2007), "Does Market
managersdeploy the proper balance of outcome-based and OrientationFacilitateBalancedInnovationPrograms? An
behavior-based controlmechanisms to enhance Organizational Learning Perspective," Journal of Product
salespeople's
intention tosella newproduct?Further, howdo thesedifferent Innovation Management, 24 (4), 316-334.
Booz, Allen, Hamilton(1982), New Products Management for
controlmechanisms interact withthecharacteristics ofthenew
the1980s,New York:Booz,Allen,Hamilton.
productinnovation(e.g., radicallynew versusincremental)? Brown,StevenP.,and RobertA. Peterson (1994), "The Effect of
Futureresearchaddressingthese questionswould enhance Effort on SalesPerformance andJobSatisfaction," Journal
our understanding of theimportantroleof thesalesforcein 58 (2), 70-80.
ofMarketing,
new productlaunches. , WilliamL. Cron, and JohnW. Slocum,Jr.(1998),
"Effects ofTraitCompetitiveness andPerceived Intraorgani-
REFERENCES zationalCompetition on Salesperson Goal SettingandPer-
formance," JournalofMarketing, 62 (October),88-98.
Adams-Bigelow, Marjorie(2006), "Rejoindersto <Establishing Chandy,Rajesh K., and GerardJ.Tellis(1998), "Organizing
an NPD Best PracticesFramework,"' JournalofProduct forRadicalProductInnovation:The OverlookedRole of
Innovation Management, 23 (2), 117-127. Willingness to Cannibalize," Journal ofMarketing Research,
Ahearne, Michael, Adam Rapp, and Gregory Rich (2006), "The 35 (4),474-487.
Importance ofSalesForceProductPerceptions in theSuc- Churchill,GilbertΑ., Jr.(1979), "A ParadigmforDeveloping
"
cessofNew ProductIntroductions," SalesExcellenceInsti- BetterMeasuresofMarketing Constructs,Journal ofMar-
tute(SEI) WorkingPaper,University ofHouston. keting 16
Research, (1), 64-73.
Ajzen,Icek (1991), "The Theoryof PlannedBehavior,"Orga- , NeilM. Ford,StevenW Hartley, andOrvilleC. Walker,
nizationalBehavior& Human DecisionProcesses, 50 (2), Jr.(1985), "The Determinants ofSalesperson Performance:
179-211. A Meta-Analysis," JournalofMarketing Research, 22 (2),
(2001), "Nature and of
Operation Attitudes," Annual 103-118.
ReviewofPsychology, 52 (1), 279-307. Cooper,Lee G. (2000), "Strategic Marketing PlanningforRadi-
Anderson, James C, and David W. Gerbing(1988), "Structural cally New Products," JournalofMarketing, 64 (1), 1-16.
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recom- Cooper, Robert G. (1979a), "The Dimensions of Industrial
mendedTwo-StepApproach,"Psychological Bulletin,103 New ProductSuccessand Failure,"JournalofMarketing,
(3), 41 1-423. 43 (3), 93-103.
Armstrong, J.Scott, and Terry S. Overton (1977), "Estimating (1979b), Identifying Industrial New ProductSuccess:
Non-Response Bias in Mail ,"
SurveysJournalofMarketing Project NewProd,' Industrial Marketing Management, 8
Research, 14 (August),396-402. (2), 124-135.
Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku(1996), "MarketOrientationand In- , andUlrickede Brentani (1991), "NewIndustrial Finan-
novation,"Journal ofBusiness Research, 35 (2), 93-103. cial Services:WhatDistinguishes theWinners," Journal of
(1997), "AdoptionofNew ProductsbytheSalesForce: Product Innovation Management, 8 (2), 75-90.
The Construct,ResearchPropositionsand Managerial D'Aveni,Robert(1994),Hypercompetition: ManagingtheDynam-
Implications," JournalofProduct Innovation Management, icsofStrategicManeuvering, New York: FreePress.
14 (6),498-514. (1995), "CopingwithHypercompetition: Utilizingthe
, and KamelMichael(1998), "A Contingency Analysis New 7S s Framework," Academy ofManagement Executive,
of theImpactof Salesperson s Efforton Satisfaction and 9 (3),45-57.
Performance in SellingNew Products,"EuropeanJournal Davis-Blake,Alison,aridJeffery Pfeffer (1989), "Justa Mi-
ofMarketing, 32 (9-10), 904-921. rage:The SearchforDispositionalEffectsin Organiza-
, and HaiyangLi (2002), "When Does TrustMatter? tionalResearch," Academy ofManagement Review,14 (3),
Antecedents and ContingentEffectsof SuperviseeTrust 385-400.
on Performance in SellingNew Productsin Chinaand the Desatnick,RobertL. (1988), Managingto KeeptheCustomer,
UnitedStates"JournalofMarketing, 66 Quly),61-81. Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
, and (2006), "The Effects of FormalControls Di Benedetto, AnthonyC. (1999), "Identifying theKeySuccess
on Supervisee Trustin theManagerin New ProductSell- FactorsinNew Product'jauncn"Journal ofProduct Innova-
ing: Evidence from Young and Inexperienced Salespeople tion 16
Management, (6), 530-544.
in China,"JournalofProduct Innovation Management, 23 Duncan,Otis Dudley(1975), Introduction toStructuralModels,
(4), 342-358. New York: Academic Press.
Ayers,Doug, RobertJJahlstrom, and atevenJ.òkinner(1997), Ehrenberg,A.S.C., KathyHammond, and G.J. Goodhardt
"AnExploratory of
Investigation Organizational Anteced- (1994), "TheAfter-Effects ofPrice-Related ConsumerPro-
entstoNewProductSuccess"Journal ofMarketing Research, motions," JournalofAdvertising Research, 34 (4), 11-21.
34(1), 107-116. rile,KarenJvlaru, andKussAlanrnnce( 1994), Predicting Pro-
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1980), Causal Models in Marketing, New fessional Service Retention,"Journal ofProfessionalServices
York:JohnWiley. Marketing, 11 (1), 5-20.

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fall2008 363

Fishbein, Martin,and IcekAjzen(1975), Belief, Attitude, Inten-Krishnan, BalajiC, RichardG. Netemeyer, andJamesS. Boles
tionand Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, (2002),"Self-Efficacy Competitiveness, Effort
and as anAn-
UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Addison- Wesley. tecedents ofSalespersonPerformance," JournalofPersonal
, and (1980), Understanding Attitudes andPredict- Selling& SalesManagement, 22, 4 (Fall),285-295.
ing SocialBehavior,
Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall. Krishnan,V, and W. Zhu (2006), "Designinga Familyof
Fornell,Claes,and David F. Larcker(1981), "Evaluating Struc- Development-Intensive Products,"ManagementScience,
turalEquationModels withUnobservable Variablesand 52(6), 813-825.
Measurement Errors,"JournalofMarketing Research, 18 Kulvik,Hanser(1977),"Factors Underlying theSuccessorFailure
(1), 39-50. of New Products,"University of Technology, Reportno.
Frishammar, Johan,and Hakan Ylinenpaa(2007), "Managing 29, Helsinki.
Information in New ProductDevelopment: A Conceptual Lewis,Michael(2006), "Customer AcquisitionPromotions and
Review, ResearchPropositionsand Tentative Model," Interna- CustomerAssetValue,"JournalofMarketing Research, 43
tional JournalofInnovation Management, 11 (4), 441-467. (2), 195-203.
Gelb, BetsyD., DemetraAndrews,and Son K. Lam (2007), Lipman,MarvinM. (2000), "ShouldYou Take HealthAdvice
"A Strategic Perspective on SalesPromotions," MIT Sloan fromDrug Ads?" ConsumerReportson Health, 12, 10
Management Review,48, 4 (Summer) (available at http:// (October),11.
sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2007/summer/0 1/). Min, Sungwook,ManoharU. Kalwani,and WilliamT. Robin-
Griffin,Abbie(1997), "PDMA Researchon New ProductDe- son (2006), "MarketPioneerand EarlyFollowerSurvival
velopment UpdatingTrendsand Benchmarking
Practices: Risks:A Contingency Analysisof ReallyNew VersusIn-
BestPractices," Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, crementally New Product-Markets," JournalofMarketing,
14 (6), 429-458. 70(1), 15-33.
Gupta,Ashok,S.P.Raj,andDavidA. Wilemon(1986),"AModel Narver,JohnC, and StanleyF. Slater(1990), "The Effect ofa
forStudying R&D-MarketingInterface intheProductIn- Market Orientation on Business Profitability,"Journalof
novationProcess," JournalofMarketing, 50 (2), 7-17. Marketing, 54 (3), 20-35.
Hauser,John,GerardJ.Tellis,and AbbieGriffin (2006), "Re- Nunnally, JumC. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2d ed.,NewYork:
searchon Innovation: for
A ReviewandAgenda Marketing McGraw-Hill.
Science,"Marketing Science,25 (6), 687-717. Olson, EricM., OrvilleC. Walker,Jr.,and RobertW. Ruekert
Henard,DavidH., andDavidM. Szymanski (2001), WhySome (1995), "OrganizingforEffective New ProductDevelop-
New Products AreMoreSuccessful Than Others,"Journal ment:The ModeratingRole of ProductInnovativeness,"
ofMarketing Research,38 (3), 362-375. JournalofMarketing Research, 59 (1), 31-45.
House,RobertL, ScottA. Shane,andDavid M. Herold(1996), Page, Albert L. (1993), "AssessingNew ProductDevelop-
"RumorsoftheDeathofDispositionalResearch AreVastly ment Processesand Performance: EstablishingCrucial
Exaggerated," AcademyofManagementReview,21 (1), Norms,"Journalof Product Innovation Management, 10
203-224. (4), 273-290.
Hultink,ErikJan,and KwakuAtuahene-Gima(2000), "The , and GaryR. Schirr(2008), "GrowthandDevelopment
Effectof Sales ForceAdoptionon New ProductSelling ofa BodyofKnowledge:16YearsofNew ProductDevelop-
Performance," JournalofProduct Innovation Management, mentResearch,1989-2004,"Journal of^Product Innovation
17 (6), 435-450. Management, 25 (3), 233-248.
, , and IrisLebbink(2000), "Determinants of Parker,R. Stephen, andCharlesE. Pettijohn (2005),"Pharmaceu-
NewProductSellingPerformance: An EmpiricalExamina- ticalDrugMarketing Strategiesand Tactics:A Comparative
tionin The Netherlands," European Journalof Innovation Analysis of Attitudes Held by Pharmaceutical Representa-
3
Management,(1), 27-36. tives and Physicians," Health Marketing Quarterly, 22 (4),
Johnston,Mark W, and Greg W. Marshall(2006), Churchill/ 27-43.
Ford/Walkers Sales ForceManagement, 8th ed., Boston: Podsakoff, PhilipM., ScottB. MacKenzie,Jeong-Yeon Lee,and
McGraw-HillIrwin. NathanP. Podsakoff (2003), "CommonMethodBiasesin
Judson,Kimberly, DeniseD. Schoenbachler, Geoffrey L. Gordon, BehavioralResearch:A CriticalReviewof the Literature
RickE. Ridnour, andDan C. Weilbaker (2006), "The New and RecommendedRemedies," JournalofAppliedPsychol-
ProductDevelopment Process:LettheVoiceoftheSalesper- ogy,88 (5), 879-903.
son be Heard,"JournalofProductand BrandManagement, Sheppard, BlairH., JonHartwick, and PaulR. Warshaw(1988),
15(3), 194-202. "TheTheoryofReasoned Action:A Meta-Analysis ofPastRe-
Kerin,RogerΑ., Ρ. RajanVaradarajan, and RobertA. Peterson searchwithRecommendations forModifications and Future
(1992), "FirstMoverAdvantage: A Synthesis,Conceptual Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 325-343.
" a Balancein Boundary-Spanning
Framework, andResearch Propositions,Journal ofMarket- Singh,Jagdip(1998), Striking
ing,56 (4), 33-52. Positions:An Investigation of Some Unconventional In-
Kleinschmidt,Elko,andRobertG. Cooper(1991), 1 he Impact fluences of Role Stressors and Job Characteristics on Job
" 62 (July),
ofProductInnovativeness on Performance,"Journalof'In- OutcomesofSalespeople Journal ofMarketing,
novation Management, 8 (4), 240-251. 69-86.

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofPersonal
364 Journal Selling& SalesManagement

Sobel,MichaleE. (1982), "Asymptotic ConfidenceIntervals for ButNot Yetan Oasis,"JournalofOrganizational Behavior,

Indirect inStructural
Effects EquationModels,"Sociological 26 (1), 59-78.
Methodology, 13, 290-312. VandenBulte,Christophe, and RudyK. Moenart(1998), "The
Song,X. Michael,andMitziM. Montoya-Weiss (1998), "Critical Effectsof R&D Team Co-locationon Communication
Development ActivitiesforReallyNew Versus Incremental Patterns AmongR&D, Marketing, and Manufacturing,"
Products," Journalof Product Innovation Management, 15 Management 44
Science, (11), SI -Si 8.
(2), 124-135. Vroom, Victor H. (1964), Work and Motivation,New York:
, and MarkE. Parry(1997), "A Cross-National Com- JohnWiley.
parativeStudy of New Product Development Processes: Weitz,BartonΑ., HarishSujan,andMitaSujan(1986),"Knowl-
Japanand theUnitedStates ,"JournalofMarketing, 61 (2), edge,MotivationandAdaptiveBehavior: A Framework for
1-18. Improving SellingEffectiveness,"JournalofMarketing, 50
, andR. JeffreyThieme(2006), "ACross-National Inves- (4), 174-191.
tigation of theR&D-Marketing Interface in the Product Wotruba,Thomas R., and Linda Rochford(1995), "The Im-
Innovation Process,"IndustrialMarketing Management, 35 pactofNew ProductIntroductions on SalesManagement
(3), 308-322. Strategy,"Journalof PersonalSelling& SalesManagement,
Spiro,RosannL, andBartonA. Weitz(1990), "Adaptive Selling: 15, 1 (Winter),35-51.
Conceptualization, Measurement, andNomologicalValid- Wu, Yuhong,SridharBalasubramanian, and Vijay Mahajan
ity," JournalofMarketing Research,27 (1), 61-69. (2004), "WhenIs a Preannounced New ProductLikelyto
Srinivasan,Raj,Gary L. Lilien,and Arvind Rangaswamy (2006), Be Delayed?"JournalofMarketing, 68 (2), 101-113.
"TheEmergence ofDominantDesigns,"Journal oj^Market- Zoltners,AndrisΑ., Prabhakant Sinha,and Greggor A. Zoltners
ing,70 (2), 1-17. (2001), TheComplete GuidetoAccelerating SalesForcePer-
Staw,BarryM., andYochiCohen-Charash (2005), "The Dispo- formance, New York:AMACOM.
sitionalApproachtoJobSatisfaction: MoreThan a Mirage,

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:41:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions