Aligning Innovation with Market Characteristics in the Nonprofit Professional Theater Industry

Abstract

In this study, the authors integrate theories of innovation diffusion, relational exchange behavior, and organizational learning to explain the roles of innovation, product exploration experience, promotion, and market sophistication in determining firm performance. They test the research questions using objective measures of financial performance from a sample of 124 firms in the nonprofit professional theater industry. The results suggest that the independent variables interact in systematic ways to influence firm performance across two different customer segments: relational and transactional. The findings lend empirical support to two theoretical perspectives that have received little prior empirical examination: (1) Innovation performance is determined by characteristics of the overall marketplace and target market segments, and (2) product exploration experience enhances organizational learning and performance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chandy

Rajesh K.

, and Tellis

Gerard J.

(2000), “The Incumbent's Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (July), 1–17.

Cho

Hee-Jae

, and Pucik

Vladimir

(2005), “Relationship Between Innovativeness, Quality, Growth, Profitability, and Market Value,” Strategic Management Journal, 26 (6), 555–75.

Christensen

Clayton M.

(1997), The Innovator's Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Golder

Peter N.

, and Tellis

Gerard J.

(1997), “Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the Takeoff of Really New Consumer Durables,” Marketing Science, 16 (3), 256–70.

Heckman

James J.

(1979), “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error,” Econometrica, 47 (January), 153–61.

Henderson

Rebecca M.

, and Clark

Kim B.

(1990), “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 9–30.

Leonard-Barton

Dorothy

(1992), “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development,” Strategic Management Journal, 13 (Special Issue), 111–25.

Levitt

, and March

James G.

(1988), “Organizational Learning,” Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (Winter), 319–40.

Miner

Anne S.

, Bassoff

Paula

, and Moorman

Christine

(2001), “Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (June), 304–337.

10.

Moorman

Christine

, and Miner

Anne

(1997), “The Impact of Organizational Memory on New Product Performance and Creativity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (February), 91–106.

11.

Morrison

Pamela D.

, Roberts

John H.

, and von Hippel

Eric

(2000), “Determinants of Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market,” Management Science, 46 (12), 1513–27.

12.

Schilling

Melissa A.

, Vidal

Patricia

, Ployhart

Robert E.

, and Marangoni

Alexandre

(2003), “Learning by Doing Something Else: Variation, Relatedness, and the Learning Curve,” Management Science, 49 (1), 39–56.

13.

Sheth

Jagdish N.

, and Parvatiyar

Atul

(1995), “Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 255–72.

14.

Voss

Glenn B.

, Cable

Daniel M.

, and Voss

Zannie Giraud

(2000), “Linking Organizational Values to Relationships with External Constituents: A Study of Nonprofit Professional Theatres,” Organization Science, (May–June), 330–47.

15.

Voss

Zannie Giraud

, Voss

Glenn B.

, and Moorman

Christine

(2005), “An Empirical Examination of the Complex Relationships Between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Stakeholder Support,” European Journal of Marketing, 39 (9–10), 1132–50.