WH

ITE

PA

PE

R

5327 E. Pinchot Ave.

Phoenix AZ 85018

602.840.4948

ajr@4rmg.com

www.4rmg.com

HOW TO USE CONCEPT TESTING TO

GUIDE NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 2

All too many of the new products that housewares manufacturers introduce fail to meet their sell-through or return-on-investment expectations. These new product failures cost housewares manufacturers tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. For example, if a housewares manufacturer introduces 15 new products a year at a cost of $25,000 each for product development and tooling and 50% of them fail to meet the company’s success criteria, the company has wasted $175,000 developing marginal products that had a low probability of marketplace success. Integrating concept testing into the new product development process can save housewares manufacturers’ money. Concept tests cost a whole lot less than what it costs to develop a new product. By conducting concept testing early in the new product development process, housewares companies can identify the marginal products that have a low probability of success before they’ve invested tens of thousands of dollars in development and tooling. Concept testing determines how interested consumers are in a new product idea. This information can be used to evaluate the idea and as a diagnostic tool to help identify what consumers do and do not like about the proposed product so that idea can be revised and enhanced to improve its appeal.

BENEFITS OF CONCEPT TESTING

The biggest benefit of integrating concept testing into your new product development process that you could potentially save tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars in product development and tooling by identifying the marginal products that have a low probability of success before you’ve invested much money in development.

There are many other benefits.

1. A higher percent of your new product introductions will be successes and your company will make more money.

2. You’ll get a better return on your new product investment. 3. You’ll feel more confident that your company is spending time

and resources on the right products.

WHAT’S INSIDE

Pg 3: Why New Products Fail

Pg. 5: Critical Success

Factors

Pg. 6: Market Assessment

Pg. 8: Initial Screening

Pg. 9: Full Screening

Pg. 13: Protocol

Pg. 15: What to look for in a

market research

professional

Pg. 15: Reasons to partner

with Riedel Marketing Group

Pg. 16: Take a test drive

TAKE THE QUIZ:

HOW MUCH MONEY HAS

YOUR COMPANY SPENT

ON FAILED NEW

PRODUCTS?

How many of the new

products that your

company introduced last

year failed to meet

expectations?

How much does it cost on

average to develop a new

product, including

tooling?

Now do the math. Based

on that average cost, how

much money has your

company spent in the

past several years

developing products that

failed to meet your

success criteria?

Integrating concept

testing into the new

product development

process can save

housewares

manufacturers’ money.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 3

4. You’ll be able to make informed decisions about which concepts to take to market, at what price points, and how to position them.

5. You’ll get diagnostic information so the ideas can be revised and enhanced to improve their appeal.

6. You won’t have to rely purely upon management’s intuition about consumers’ degree of interest in a proposed new product.

7. You can make sure that the product is superior to competitive products already on the market – product superiority is the number one most important critical new product success factor.

8. You’ll find out what the consumer thinks are the most important most compelling product claims and benefits.

9. Sell-in will be easier because you can prove to your retail customers that you’ve done your homework and proven the viability of the concept.

CONCEPT TESTING

PREDICTS MARKETPLACE SUCCESS

Over the past two decades, research studies conducted by several universities and by the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) have determined that the market research activities (including initial screening and concept testing) that are conducted in the early stages of product development are associated with higher degrees of new product success.

In a 1986 study, Robert G. Cooper Cooper and Elko J. Kleinschmidt determined that the new product development activities of initial screening, preliminary market assessment, and detailed market study/market research were significantly correlated with project performance. i

The following year, Cooper and Kleinschmidt confirmed that proficiency in predevelopment activities were significantly related to new product success, measured in terms of numbers of correlations and strength of correlations.ii

In 2001, David H. Henard and David M. determined that the proficiency with which companies executed idea generation/screening, market research, and financial analysis had significant impact on new product performance. iii

In 2003, the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) best practices study found that there were

Concept testing is predictive

of new product success.

Concept testing identifies

the marginal products

that have a low

probability of success

before you’ve invested

much money in

development.

Predevelopment market

research activities are

associated with higher

degrees of new product

success.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 4

several key activities that the companies with the highest new product success rates spent significant time upfront gaining an understanding of the marketplace and customer needs and did more qualitative market research than the rest of the firms. iv

In addition to the research studies that validate the correlation between predevelopment market research activities and new product success, there have been several studies that suggest that concept testing is predictive of new product success.

In the late 1980’s, Sunbeam Appliance Co., then a division of Allegheny International, determined that its concept testing procedure was predictive of the success of several product ideas that were developed, marketed and broadly distributed. The test also successfully predicted the failure of several products that the company did not develop but that were introduced by competitors. v

A 2011 study conducted by Riedel Marketing Group found a correlation between purchase likelihood scores and how well the product met company expectations. All of the products with top two box purchase likelihood scores of 30% or more met or exceeded company expectations. All the products with purchase likelihood scores of 24% or below failed to meet expectations. Products with purchase likelihood scores in the range of 20% to 29% fell into the gray area: three failed to meet expectations and two exceeded expectations.

TOP TWO BOX

(Completely or very likely to

buy) PURCHASE LIKELIHOOD

Failed to meet sales

expectations

Met sales expectations

Exceeded sales

expectations

WATER PITCHER 60%

X FRUIT & VEG SLICER 48%

X

PASTA SCOOP 41%

X

VEGETABLE PEELER 38%

X

TOOL HOLDER 36%

X

ZESTER 32%

X

ICE CREAM SCOOP 27% X BUTTER SPREADER 26% X AVOCADO TOOL 25%

X

TEA INFUSER 25%

X

SERVING TOOL SET 24% X CHEESE GRATER 18% X SUGAR SHAKER 18% X SALT SHAKER 14% X

Studies suggest that

concept testing is

predictive of new product

success.

Purchase likelihood

scores correlated with

how well the product met

company expectations.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 5

CONCEPT TESTING METHODOLOGY

Survey Platform Although concept testing can be done in the focus group setting, online surveys are usually the most cost-effective and fastest testing methodology to use.

Sample The product concepts are typically tested among one of two different sample populations: 1. A nationally representative sample of U.S. households 2. An online Market Research Online Community (MROC) such as

Riedel Marketing Group’s proprietary 200-member HomeTrend Influentials Panel (HIP)

Concept testing is conducted with a nationally representative sample to quantify purchase interest, provide projectable data that can be used to develop sales forecasts, and obtain demographic data that can be used to identify the target market for the product. Concept testing is conducted with a Market Research Online Community to obtain richer deeper insight and diagnostic information into why the respondents are or are not interested in the product concepts and what they do and don’t like about the product concepts. In addition, variations of product concepts can be tested iteratively.

Survey Instrument Respondents are typically exposed to a graphic depiction and written product description of the product concept. The graphic may be a free-hand sketch, a more detailed illustration, a computer generated rendering, or a photo.

The written description of the product typically starts with a brief introductory paragraph that highlights most important product

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 6

benefit or point of differentiation. Bulleted lists are often used to describe how the product is used, how it works, and key product The amount of information included in the product description depends on how familiar consumers are with the product category. For example, consumers do not need to be provided with an explanation of how a coffee maker works. But a new-to-the-market energy monitoring device would require an extensive explanation of

Questions

A battery of four rating scale questions is used to determine respondents’ degree of interest in each product concept. Interest is measured along four dimensions: desirability (need), believability, exclusivity/uniqueness, and purchase likelihood.

How sure are you that this product would solve a problem or meet a need for you around the house?

absolutely sure it will not somewhat sure it will not not sure whether it will or will not somewhat sure it will a b s o l u t e l y s u r e i t w i l l

1 2 3 4 5

Based on what you just read, how believable to you is the description of what this product does?

Not at all believable Not very believable Moderately believable Very believable C o m p l e t e l y b e l i e v a b l e

1 2 3 4 5

How unique do you think this product is?

I t i s no t a t a l l un ique . There are many other products

like it.

It is not very unique. There are a few other products

like it.

Not sure

It is somewhat unique. There aren’t many

other products like it.

It is totally unique. There are no

other products like it.

1 2 3 4 5

Assume for a moment that you are in the market for a _______. If this product were sold at one of your favorite stores for ___, how likely would you be to buy it for your own household or as a gift in the next 12 months?

Definitely would not Probably would not Might or might not Probably would Definitely would

1 2 3 4 5

Diagnostic information is obtained by asking respondents three open-ended questions (MROC only).

Why did you say that you definitely or probably would or would not buy the [product]?

What do you particularly like about the [product]? You can list up to four things you like. If you don't particularly like anything about this product, put an "X" in the box that is labeled "I don't like anything about this product."

T h e f i r s t t h i n g I l i k e i s

A battery of four rating

scale questions is used to

determine respondents’

degree of interest in each

product concept.

Diagnostic information is

obtained by asking

respondents three open-

ended questions

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 7

T h e s e c o n d t h i n g I l i k e i s

T h e t h i r d t h i n g I l i k e i s

T h e f o u r t h t h i n g I l i k e i s

I don't like anything about this product.

What do you particularly dislike about the [product]? You can list up to four things you dislike. If you don't particularly dislike anything about this product, put an "X" in the box that is labeled "I don't dislike anything about this product."

T h e f i r s t t h i n g I d i s l i k e i s

The second th ing I d is l ike is

T h e t h i r d t h i n g I d i s l i k e i s

The four th th ing I d is l ike i s

I don't dislike anything about this product.

To save time, several different versions of a concept can be tested at same time instead of testing each sequentially. Pricing can be tested by using a set of five purchase intention questions, each of which includes a different retail price for the concept. The respondent is asked her interest at the highest price point first. If there is no interest in purchasing the product at this price, then she is asked again at successively lower prices to see whether at some price point there is some interest in purchasing the product.

USING CONCEPT TESTING

AS A DECISION-MAKING TOOL

We start by looking at the responses to the closed-ended questions. Specifically, we look at the percent of respondents who selected answer options 4 and 5 on each of the four closed-ended questions. This is often called the “top two box” score or rating. In the example below, top two box” score is 71%, the percent of total respondents who said that they were somewhat or absolutely sure that the product would solve a problem or meet a need for them in the kitchen.

Studies suggest that

concept testing is

predictive of new product

success.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 8

9. How sure are you that the product would solve a problem or meet a need for you in the kitchen?

absolutely sure it will

not

somewhat sure it will

not

not sure whether it will or will

not

somewhat sure it will

absolutely sure it will

5

1 2 3 4 5

# of respondents 1 5 15 36 15

% of total respondents 1% 7% 21% 50% 21%

To make the comparison of a number of concepts easier, we put the top two box scores for each question into a summary table. Concept A Concept B Concept C

Price

Desirability: % of respondents who

said that they are somewhat or absolutely sure that the product solves a problem or meets need

Believability: % of respondents who

said that description of what the product

does is very or completely believable.

Uniqueness: % of respondents who

said that the product is somewhat or totally unique.

Purchase Likelihood: % of

respondents who said that they definitely or probably would buy the product at the stated price.

Buyer Score: % of respondents who

are sure the product solves problem/meets need AND find the description to be believable AND think the product is unique AND would purchase the product.

To determine whether a particular top two box Purchase Interest Score is a good score or not, the product concept has to be examined relative to norms. There are currently no housewares industry specific norms (although Riedel Marketing Group is working to compile such a set of norms). So it is wise to establish norms or benchmarks by testing several of the company’s current products in the same or similar product category – at least one very successful product and at least one product that failed – as well as at least one of the best selling competitive products in the category.

To save time, several

different versions of a

concept can be tested at

same time instead of

testing each sequentially.

Pricing can be tested by

using a set of five

purchase intention

questions.

Analysis starts by looking

at the percent of

respondents who selected

answer options 4 and 5

on each of the four

closed-ended questions.

The top two box Purchase

Interest Scores have to be

examined relative to

norms.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 9

Product Interest Scores can also be compared to a database of previously tested product concepts such as the database that RMG has compiled over the past three years.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fro

zen

Fru

it N

ove

lty

MLB

bra

nd

ed fo

od

pro

du

cts

Kit

chen

gad

get

2

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Top

sel

ler

kitc

hen

gad

get

Ener

gy S

enti

nel

Top

sel

ler

kitc

hen

gad

get

UV

-C S

anit

izin

g A

pp

lian

ce

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Bed

& F

urn

itu

re V

acu

um

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

Kit

chen

gad

get

An

ti-A

gin

g Th

erap

y Sy

stem

(H

IP)

Acn

e Th

erap

y Sy

stem

(n

atl s

amp

le)

Top Two Box Purchase Likelihood Scores Completely and Very Likely to Buy

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 10

Bigger ticket items will typically have lower Purchase Interest Scores because fewer consumers consider purchasing them. Items that are in lower purchase incidence/niche categories will typically have lower Purchase Interest Scores for the same reason. Items that are perceived to be of greater relevance to today’s daily living will get higher Purchase Interest Scores than items that are perceived to be of lower relevance. Note: If early on product concepts are being tested against existing products, the graphic depiction of all the products in the test must be similar. In other words, if the early on product concept is graphically depicted in a line drawing, the existing products should also be depicted as line drawings. After analyzing the data from the closed-ended questions, the verbatims, that is, the answers to the open-ended questions, must be categorized and tallied. This is a sample set of verbatims for the “What do you particularly like about this product?” question.

What do you particularly like about this product? You can list up to four things you like. If you don't particularly like anything about this product, put an "X" in the box that is labeled "I don't like anything about this product."

Resp #

The 1st thing I like is

The 2nd thing I like is

The 3rd thing I like is

The 4th thing I like is

I don't like anything

about this product.

1

The look of it. Stainless & sleek looking.

the digital timer function.

I like how it says you can control the cooking, but would like to play with it to see if it is true.

The price (if it does what it says).

2

the half opening tray when the door is opened

the look

3

X

4

X

5 The convection option

Toasting without a toaster

very modern looking

the price

6

adjustable heat settings

backlit screen warming top

7 The programmed features.

The auto pop out of the rack.

Top warmer tray.

8

Option to brown or toast

Convection option

retractable cleaning tray

9 The color and the LCD screen.

All of the separate heating elements.

Looks easy enough to use.

10 Ejecting tray when door is open

dimmer switch for heat control

warming element on top

i like the wattage

The price point and the

annual purchase

incidence impact

Purchase Interest Scores.

After analyzing the data

from the closed-ended

questions, the verbatims,

that is, the answers to the

open-ended questions,

must be categorized and

tallied.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 11

Once the categorization and tallying are done, the summary likes/dislikes table is filled in with the summarized verbatims.

The answers to the opened-ended likes and dislikes questions and the questions about why the respondent would or would not purchase the product are used as a diagnostic tool. In other words, the summary of verbatims are used to determine the “why” behind the Purchase Interest Scores.

A CASE STUDY TO ILLUSTRATE HOW

CONCEPT TESTING CAN BE USED FOR

DECISION-MAKING

The concept test described in this case study was conducted specifically for this white paper, using actual products that are in the market today. The graphic depictions used for each product were photographs and the product descriptions were those used in ChefsCatalog.com. The products were tested with brand names.

The hypothetical situation The manufacturer of Convection Toaster Oven A has developed a new convection toaster oven that has a number of features not found on other higher end convection toaster ovens. The different cooking functions activate different configurations of the five quartz heating elements and convection. For example, the toast function activates top two and bottom two heating elements and the bake function uses top two and bottom two heating elements with the convection fan turned on. The machine also features several other unique features including a rack that auto-ejects halfway when the

Concept A Concept B Concept C

THINGS LIKED (by 10% or more)

List of things liked

% of resp

List of things liked % of resp

List of things liked

% of resp

Nothing liked Nothing liked Nothing liked

THINGS DISLIKED (by 10% or more)

List of things disliked

% of resp

List of things disliked

% of resp

List of things disliked

% of resp

Nothing disliked Nothing disliked Nothing disliked

The answers to the

opened-ended likes and

dislikes questions and the

questions about why the

respondent would or

would not purchase the

product are used to

determine the “why”

behind the Purchase

Interest Scores.

Convection Toaster Oven A

Convection Toaster Oven B

Convection Toaster Oven C

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 12

oven door is opened and a top that doubles as a warming tray. Although the product was recently featured on the CNET Appliances and Kitchen Gadgets blog, the product is not selling as well as the company expected it would.

Survey Methodology An online concept test was conducted with the HomeTrend Influentials Panel August 24 – 27, 2011. 120 out of 194 members of the panel participated in the study (61% response rate.) In addition to testing the manufacturer’s convection toaster (designated as “Convection Toaster Oven A”), two of the best selling competitive products were tested. The standard battery of four closed-ended questions and three open-ended questions were used (see page 6.)

Findings Convection Toaster Oven A was comparable to the two best-selling competitive products on desirability, believability, and uniqueness. However, the product fell far short on purchase likelihood. Convection

Toaster Oven A

Convection Toaster Oven B

Convection Toaster Oven C

Price $249.95 $179.95 $149.95

Desirability: % of respondents who

said that they are somewhat or absolutely sure that the product solves a problem or meets need

72% 71% 72%

Believability: % of respondents who

said that description of what the product

does is very or completely believable.

74%

83% 75%

Uniqueness: % of respondents who

said that the product is somewhat or totally unique.

56% 61% 59%

Purchase Likelihood: % of

respondents who said that they definitely or probably would buy the product at the stated price.

7% 31% 29%

Buyer Score: % of respondents who

are sure the product solves problem/meets need AND find the description to be believable AND think the product is unique AND would purchase the product.

9% 19% 23%

Analysis of the open-ended like and dislike questions provide insight into why the purchase likelihood rating for Convection Toaster Oven A was so low, relative to the two competitive products. The key point of differentiation, how the cooking functions work (the different configurations of the five quartz heating elements and convection fan), was not important to most respondents. While

Convection Toaster Oven

A fell far short on

purchase likelihood.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 13

26% of respondents mentioned the multi-functionality (the broil/bake/toast functions) as being a feature they particularly liked, only 6 respondents specifically mentioned the different configurations. Two other points of differentiation -- the two features that Convection Oven A has that the other two models don’t have -- were somewhat important to respondents. 23% of respondents liked the auto-ejecting rack and 15% liked the top that doubles as warming tray. Convection Toaster Oven A is significantly more expensive than most toaster ovens, a fact that did not escape the notice of the respondents. 45% mentioned price as being something they disliked about the product.

In fact, it is the price that was the primary reason so many respondents would not be interested in purchasing Convection Toaster Oven A. When asked why they said they would not purchase the product, more than 70% of the respondents cited price.

Convection Toaster Oven A Convection Toaster Oven B Convection Toaster Oven C

THINGS LIKED (by 10% or more)

Looks/design 41% Looks/design 36% Smart Cookie function 29%

Broil/toast/bake functions

26%

Size/.6-cubic foot capacity fits a 12" pizza, a 9" pie or 6 slices of toast

30% Dehydrator 26%

Auto-ejecting rack 23% Touchpad Shade Control

23% Number/type of settings

24%

Capacity/size 21% Brand 18% Capacity 22%

Convection 16% Bakes up to 33% faster than conventional ovens

15% Double racks 13%

Top that doubles as a warming tray

15% Exact Heat sensor maintains precise oven temperatures

15% Fast cooking speed 13%

9 customizable presets

15% Fits a 12' pizza 14% Looks/design 13%

Dimmer switch 15%

Four cooking options: toast, broil, convection bake and conventional bake

12% Price 13%

Blue backlit LCD screen

12% Convection 12% Toast features 10%

Brushed chrome exterior and side grips with stainless-steel handle

10%

Nothing liked 7% Nothing liked 3% Nothing liked 14%

THINGS DISLIKED (by 10% or more)

Price 45% Price 21% Looks/design 15%

Price 10%

Nothing disliked 34% Nothing disliked 47% Nothing disliked 53%

The key point of

differentiation was not

important to most

respondents.

The higher price was the

primary reason so many

respondents would not be

interested in purchasing

Convection Toaster Oven

A.

Respondents didn’t think

good design and a couple

of unique features are

worth paying more than

$200 for, especially in a

product category where a

good quality machine can

be purchased for much

less money.

This case study illustrates

the benefits of using

concept testing to

diagnose why poor

performing products are

not doing well.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 14

Most of the respondents already have a conventional oven and a microwave so they are not necessarily willing to spend a lot of money on an appliance that is not a necessity. As one respondent put it, “I can always use my oven or microwave to heat smaller quantities of food or a toaster.” Simply put, respondents don’t think good design and a couple of unique features are worth paying more than $200 for, especially in a product category where a good quality machine can be purchased for much less money. Here are some of the comments:

“I don't see any feature worth the premium price. You can get a good toaster oven for the $100 price range that can cook a frozen pizza... All the fancy "store in memory" sounds like a gimmick.”

“I'm not sure that the extra functions of this oven would justify spending so much more than I would for a regular toasting oven.”

“I'm not sure that the extra functions of this oven would justify spending so much more than I would for a regular toasting oven.”

“That is a lot of money for a toaster oven. The extra features are nice but that is expensive.”

“The price point seems too high for a toaster oven. Others on the market do the same things but may not have the fancy dials.”

$199 seems to be the upper limit for what many respondents would be willing to pay for a countertop oven. In fact, two respondents specifically said that they would not pay more than $200 for a toaster oven, no matter how well featured it is, and another would not pay more than $150.

The bottom line is that the unique features found in Convection Toaster Oven A are not perceived by respondents as delivering enough benefit to justify paying such a high price. This case study illustrates the benefits of using concept testing to diagnose why poor performing products are not doing well. However, concept testing is most valuable when it is done much earlier in the development process before much money has been invested in development and tooling. Had the manufacturer of Convection Toaster Oven A tested this concept early on the product development process, they would have been advised not to move forward with the concept.

The bottom line is that

the unique features found

in Convection Toaster

Oven A are not perceived

by respondents as

delivering enough benefit

to justify paying such a

high price.

This case study illustrates

the benefits of using

concept testing to

diagnose why poor

performing products are

not doing well. However,

concept testing is most

valuable when it is done

much earlier in the

development process

before much money has

been invested in

development and tooling.

CONCEPT TESTING

R i e d e l M a r k e t i n g G r o u p

Page 15

REASONS TO HIRE

RIEDEL MARKETING GROUP

We bring the following advantages to your concept test: Housewares industry expertise. RMG is the only market research company that specializes exclusively in the housewares industry. In the more than 25 years we’ve worked in the housewares industry, first on the client side and then as a consultant, we have gained an in-depth understanding of the industry including market dynamics, channels of distribution, consumers, history and trends, and marketing issues. Track record. RMG has been serving the housewares industry for over 20 years working with such clients as Progressive International, Cuisinart, Calphalon, Anchor Hocking, and the International Housewares Association. Extensive experience in concept testing. Over the past three years, we’ve tested more than 55 housewares product concepts using the online survey methodology. Proprietary consumer panel. RMG is the only market research company with a proprietary panel of trend-setting and trend-spreading HomeTrend Influentials. Longevity. Most sole proprietor consultancies fail within the first two years. RMG has been in business for over 20 years.

HOW TO GET STARTED

To get started, contact A.J. Riedel. I’ll get back to you as soon as I can to schedule your telephone consultation. No charge, of course and absolutely no obligation either. During the complimentary telephone consultation, we’ll talk about what your needs are, what you want to accomplish, and any time or budget constraints you may have.

Phone: 602-840-4948 E-mail: ajr@4rmg.com i Cooper, Robert G. and Kleinschmidt, Elko J. “An Investigation into the New Product Process: Steps, Deficiencies, and Impact”’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 3 (1986), 71-85. ii Cooper, Robert G. and Kleinschmidt, Elko J. “New Products: What Separates Winners from Losers?”’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4:169-184

(1987). iii Henard, David H. and Szymanski, David M. “Why Some New Products Are More Successful Than Others”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXVIII (August

2001), 362-375. iv Barczak, Gloria, Griffin, Abbie, and Kahn, Kenneth B. “PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best

Practices Study”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26:3-23 (2009). v Page, Albert L. and Rosenbaum, Harold F. “Developing an Effective Concept Testing Program for Consumer Durables”, Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 9:267-277 (1992).

RMG is the only market

research company that

specializes exclusively in

the housewares industry.

RMG has been serving the

housewares industry for

over 20 years.

Extensive concept testing

experience.

RMG is the only market

research company with a

proprietary panel of trend-

setting and trend-

spreading HomeTrend

Influentials.

Contact A.J. Riedel for

your complimentary

consultation.

602-840-4948

ajr@4rmg.com