IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/wpaper/201109.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The relevance of marketing in the success of innovations

Author

Abstract

This paper focuses on marketing expenditures and their relation with R&D investments and innovative sales. A higher investment in R&D is associated with the production of a higher quality or faster innovation, with a positive impact on sales and in a macro sense, an increase of GDP. This paper raises the issue that good innovation need a strong marketing effort in order for this innovation to have an impact on sales, it needs to be desired by consumers. This paper finds empirical evidence that marketing expenditures explain a lot of the success of the innovation 0.5 to 0.7% (measured in terms of the elasticity of this effort to innovative sales), even more than the flow of investment in R&D(which counts for 0.3 %). In fact, the size of the coefficient for marketing doubles those found for R&D, a quite surprising result taking into consideration the little importance that marketing has in innovation studies. The paper uses Community Innovation Survey data, the third wave (CIS 3) and set up a system of simultaneous equations like in Crepon et al. (1998).

Suggested Citation

  • Abraham Garcia, 2011. "The relevance of marketing in the success of innovations," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2011-09, Joint Research Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:wpaper:201109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC69317
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    3. Metin Cakir & Joseph V. Balagtas, 2010. "Econometric evidence of cross-market effects of generic dairy advertising," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 83-99.
    4. Isabel Busom, 2000. "An Empirical Evaluation of The Effects of R&D Subsidies," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 111-148.
    5. Elie Ofek & Miklos Sarvary, 2003. "R&D, Marketing, and the Success of Next-Generation Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 355-370, July.
    6. Kurt R. Brekke & Odd Rune Straume, 2009. "Pharmaceutical Patents: Incentives for Research and Development or Marketing?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(2), pages 351-374, October.
    7. Becker, Markus C. & Lillemark, Morten, 2006. "Marketing/R&D integration in the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 105-120, February.
    8. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    9. Kristian R. Miltersen & Eduardo S. Schwart, 2004. "R&D Investments with Competitive Interactions," Review of Finance, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 355-401.
    10. Harl E. Ryder & Geoffrey M. Heal, 1973. "Optimal Growth with Intertemporally Dependent Preferences," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 40(1), pages 1-31.
    11. Kristian R. Miltersen & Eduardo S. Schwartz, 2004. "R&D Investments with Competitive Interactions," NBER Working Papers 10258, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Jonathan Temple, 1999. "The New Growth Evidence," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 112-156, March.
    13. Hashai, Niron & Almor, Tamar, 2008. "R&D intensity, value appropriation and integration patterns within organizational boundaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1022-1034, July.
    14. Garcia-Torres, Abraham, 2009. "Consumer behaviour: evolution of preferences and the search for novelty," MERIT Working Papers 2009-005, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. Pollak, Robert A, 1970. "Habit Formation and Dynamic Demand Functions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(4), pages 745-763, Part I Ju.
    16. repec:crs:wpaper:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    18. Shantanu Dutta & Om Narasimhan & Surendra Rajiv, 1999. "Success in High-Technology Markets: Is Marketing Capability Critical?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 547-568.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sandro Montresor & Antonio Vezzani, 2016. "Intangible investments and innovation propensity: Evidence from the Innobarometer 2013," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 331-352, May.
    2. Daria Ciriaci & Fernando Hervas Soriano, 2012. "Bridging ideas with markets. The impact of training, marketing and design on innovation," JRC Research Reports JRC75493, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Stephane Lhuillery, 2014. "Marketing and persistent innovation success," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5-6), pages 517-543, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wadho, Waqar & Chaudhry, Azam, 2020. "Innovation Strategies and Productivity Growth in Developing Countries: Evidence from Pakistan," GLO Discussion Paper Series 466, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    2. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    3. Wadho, Waqar & Chaudhry, Azam, 2018. "Innovation and firm performance in developing countries: The case of Pakistani textile and apparel manufacturers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1283-1294.
    4. Beom Cheol Cin & Young Jun Kim & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2017. "The impact of public R&D subsidy on small firm productivity: evidence from Korean SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 345-360, February.
    5. Klaus Friesenbichler & Michael Peneder, 2016. "Innovation, competition and productivity," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 24(3), pages 535-580, July.
    6. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2017. "Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 78-92, February.
    7. Dario Guarascio & Mario Pianta & Francesco Bogliacino, 2017. "Export, R&D and New Products: A Model and a Test on European Industries," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 393-432, Springer.
    8. Montresor, Sandro & Vezzani, Antonio, 2015. "The production function of top R&D investors: Accounting for size and sector heterogeneity with quantile estimations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-393.
    9. Blazsek, Szabolcs & Escribano, Alvaro, 2010. "Knowledge spillovers in US patents: A dynamic patent intensity model with secret common innovation factors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 159(1), pages 14-32, November.
    10. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    11. Lopez-Rodriguez, Jesus & Martinez-Lopez, Diego, 2017. "Looking beyond the R&D effects on innovation: The contribution of non-R&D activities to total factor productivity growth in the EU," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 37-45.
    12. Marco Capasso & Tania Treibich & Bart Verspagen, 2015. "The medium-term effect of R&D on firm growth," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 39-62, June.
    13. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    14. Eleonora Bartoloni & Maurizio Baussola, 2018. "Driving business performance: innovation complementarities and persistence patterns," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 505-525, May.
    15. Schubert, Torben & Jäger, Angela & Türkeli, Serdar & Visentin, Fabiana, 2020. "Addressing the productivity paradox with big data: A literature review and adaptation of the CDM econometric model," MERIT Working Papers 2020-050, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    16. Anna Laura Baraldi & Claudia Cantabene & Giulio Perani, 2014. "Reverse causality in the R&D-patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 304-326, April.
    17. Wadho, Waqar & Chaudhry, Azam, 2022. "Innovation strategies and productivity growth in developing countries: Firm-level evidence from Pakistani manufacturers," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    18. Amable, Bruno & Ledezma, Ivan & Robin, Stéphane, 2016. "Product market regulation, innovation, and productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2087-2104.
    19. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2012. "Young firms and innovation: A microeconometric analysis," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 329-340.
    20. Thomas Strobel, 2012. "New evidence on the sources of EU countries’ productivity growth—industry growth differences from R&D and competition," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 293-325, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipt:wpaper:201109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.