This research examines the relationship between product design and market share, a topic of considerable significance that has not been addressed in the published literature. Drawing from diverse disciplines such as marketing, industrial design, and engineering, the authors conceptualize design as being composed of three distinct product-level dimensions: function, form, and ergonomics. Furthermore, the authors examine the interplay among these design dimensions and their impact on the market share of a product. Empirical results using integrated repeated cross-sectional data obtained from several different sources in the U.S. light vehicle industry reveal an important strategic trade-off concerning design capabilities. Firms can either “design for satisfaction,” by investing in both function and ergonomics, or “design for delight,” by investing in form design capabilities so as to reap share rewards. The authors also show that older-generation vehicles with superior form designs do much better in terms of share than corresponding older vehicles with higher levels of either function or ergonomics. Implications of these results for academic researchers and managers are discussed.
BlochPeter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,”Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16–29.
7.
BlochPeter H. (2011), “Product Design and Marketing: Reflections After Fifteen Years,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (July), 378–81.
8.
BuzzellRobert D. and WiersemaFrederik D. (1981), “Modelling Changes in Market Share: A Cross-Sectional Analysis,”Strategic Management Journal, 2 (1), 27–42.
9.
ChandyRajesh K. and TellisGerard J. (1998), “Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 474–87.
10.
ChitturiRavindra, RaghunathanRajagopal, and MahajanVijay (2007), “Form Versus Function: How the Intensities of Specific Emotions Evoked in Functional Versus Hedonic Trade-Offs Mediate Product Preferences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (November), 702–14.
11.
ChitturiRavindra, RaghunathanRajagopal, and MahajanVijay (2008), “Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits,”Journal of Marketing, 72 (May), 48–63.
12.
Cho, Hallie S., Sameer Hasija, and Manuel Sosa (2015), “How Important Is Design for the Automobile Value Chain?” Working Paper No. 2015/86/TOM, INSEAD.
13.
CrawfordMerle and Di BenedettoAnthony (2010), New Products Management, 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
14.
CreusenMarielle and SchoormansJan (2005), “The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (1), 63–81.
15.
De Albuquerque CamposL.F., de Lima LanuttiJ.N., and PaschoarelliL.C. (2012), “Product Functions: Interfaces with Ergonomic Design,”Work (Reading, Mass.), 41, 960–63.
16.
GelbBetsy D. and KrishnamurthyPartha (2008), “Protect Your Product's Look and Feel from Imitators,”Harvard Business Review, 86 (10), 36.
17.
Gourville, John T. (2005), “Note on Innovation Diffusion: Rogers’ Five Factors,” Background Note 505-075, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.
18.
HagtvedtHenrik and PatrickVanessa M. (2014), “Consumer Response to Overstyling: Balancing Aesthetics and Functionality in Product Design,”Psychology and Marketing, 31 (7), 518–25.
19.
HellofsLinda L. and JacobsonRobert (1999), “Market Share and Customers’ Perceptions of Quality: When Can Firms Grow Their Way to Higher Versus Lower Quality?”Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 16–25.
20.
HirschmannElizabeth (1983), “Aesthetics, Ideologies, and the Limits of the Marketing Concept,”Journal of Marketing, 47 (July), 45–55.
21.
HoeggJoAndrea and AlbaJoseph W. (2011), “Seeing Is Believing (Too Much): The Influence of Product Form on Perceptions of Functional Performance,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 346–59.
22.
HoeggJoAndrea, AlbaJoseph W., and DahlDarren W. (2010), “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Influence of Aesthetics on Product Feature Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 419–30.
23.
HomburgChristian, SchwemmleMartin, and KuehnlChristina (2015), “New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences,”Journal of Marketing, 79 (May), 41–56.
24.
KaljunJasmin and DolsakBojan (2011), “Artificial Intelligence in Aesthetic and Ergonomic Product Design Process,” in MIPRO, 2011 Proceedings of the 34th International Convention. Opatija, Croatia: IEEE Conference Publications, 959–64.
25.
KellerKevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,”Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1–22.
26.
LandwehrJan R., LabrooAparna A., and HerrmannAndreas (2011), “Gut Liking for the Ordinary: Incorporating Design Fluency Improves Automobile Sales Forecasts,”Marketing Science, 30 (3), 416–29.
27.
LawsonBryan (2005), How Designers Think, 4th ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
28.
LojaconoGabriella and ZaccaiGianfranco (2004), “The Evolution of the Design-Inspired Enterprise,”MIT Sloan Management Review, 45 (3), 75–79.
29.
LuStephen C.-Y. and SuhNam-Pyo (2009), “Complexity in Design of Technical Systems,”CIRP Annals: Manufacturing Technology, 58 (1), 157–60.
30.
MartinRoger L. (2009), The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
MoonHakil, ParkJeongdoo, and KimSangkyun (2015), “The Importance of an Innovative Product Design on Customer Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (2), 224–32.
33.
NobleCharles H. and KumarMinu (2008), “Using Product Design Strategically to Create Deeper Consumer Connections,”Business Horizons, 51 (5), 441–50.
34.
NobleCharles H. and KumarMinu (2010), “Exploring the Appeal of Product Design: A Grounded Value-Based Model of Key Design Elements and Relationships,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (5), 640–57.
35.
NormanDonald A. (2005), Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
36.
PriemRichard L. (2007), “A Consumer Perspective on Value Creation,”Academy of Management Review, 32 (1), 219–35.
37.
RindfleischAric and Jeffrey InmanJ. (1998), “Explaining the Familiarity-Liking Relationship: Mere Exposure, Information Availability, or Social Desirability?”Marketing Letters, 9 (1), 5–19.
38.
RindovaViolina P. and PetkovaAntoaneta P. (2007), “When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Change, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations,”Organization Science, 18 (2), 217–32.
SAS (2008), SAS/STAT 9.2 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
41.
SrinivasanRaji, LilienGary L., RangaswamyArvind, PingitoreGina M., and SeldinD. (2012), “The Total Product Design Concept and an Application to the Auto Market,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29 (S1), 3–20.
42.
StroupWalter W. (2013), Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
43.
TosiF. (2012), “Ergonomics and Sustainability in the Design of Everyday Use Products,”Work (Reading, Mass.), 41, 3878–82.
44.
TownsendJanell D., MontoyaMitzi M., and CalantoneRoger J. (2011), “Form and Function: A Matter of Perspective,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 374–77.
45.
VergantiR. (2006), “Innovating Through Design,”Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), 114–22.
46.
VeryzerRobert W.Jr. (1995), “The Place of Product Design and Aesthetics in Consumer Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, KardesFrank R. and SujanMita, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 641–45.
47.
VeryzerRobert W.Jr. and Wesley HutchinsonJ. (1998), “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 374–94.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
