International Journal of Marketing Research - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss about the International Journal of Market Research. Answer: Introduction In this report, disruptive innovation is described suggestion taking from the given article. Disruptive innovation is a business administration that can create a new market eventually disrupting the existing market. Disrupting innovation mainly causes a quake in the technology-based industry and it can displace the market leading firms (Presbitero, Roxas Chadee, 2017). In this study, innovator's dilemma is explained and its description is aligned with big firm's failure. In the latter part of the report, the reason behind Kodak's failure will be delineated. In the final section, Toshiba is selected to present an argument that it may fail in near future if it continues to things in the same way. Explaining Innovators Dilemma The concept of Innovators Dilemma first came into existence by Clayton Christensen, who was a businessman and Harvard Professor. When businessmen or entrepreneurs invent a service or product, first they try to penetrate the new market to convince people to buy their products. In this stage, the entrepreneurs do anything to get noticed by the consumers. After a time, the inventions become mainstreams and profits become predictable. As stated by Christensen, Raynor McDonald, (2015), after a while, new disruptive service or products start to show up in the industry or the mainstreams products and service may go out of business drastically. The dilemma occurs when the mainstream companies try to compete with the disruptive innovators, the existing company that dominated the market once, cannibalises own business. The existing mainstream company has to observe its fat profits dwindle and get eaten away from another entrepreneur in the same field. It sounds like an easy decision when stat ed simply; however, it's very hard to justify cannibalising own business to board and for investors. It's also sometimes hard for managers and companies without an outside perspective to realise when they are being disrupted. According to Guttentag (2015), a disruptive product is cheaper and not as good; however good enough to replace existing product on the low-end. For instance, Netflix was slower and not necessarily there when the people wanted it. Interestingly, Netflix has done an unbelievable job avoiding disruption of its own business model by on-demand video. As a result, it has become one of the leaders in the on-demand movie and TV show market defeating Blockbuster. Explaining why big firms fail from the perspective of Innovators Dilemma Majority of large companies listen to only on the customers at first and they focus only on the bottom lines. The majority of the large customer-based do not want to have crappy new technologies of the new entrepreneurs. In the initial stage, most of the disruptive technologies have worst margins than the large companies. The large firms think that the new market is not attractive at all and they do not devote their resources to improve the technologies of future. The big firms do not nurture the potential technologies for the new customer base. As stated by King Baatartogtokh (2015), new start-ups continue with their works in their innovation and they amaze the customers with their expertise. As opined by Osiyevskyy Dewald (2015), successful companies are successful because they evolve to serve the needs of their best customers and to ignore or de-prioritise other customer segments. These "underserved" customers need solutions and often new companies enter the market to serve them.At first, new entrepreneurs are ignored by the large organisations because their new solutions are taken as poor quality relatively more featured products or services they offer to the customers. But over time the new companies' solutions get better, they creep upmarket and begin to take customers away from the incumbents and they get disrupted. New technologies are now synonymous with disruptive innovation. The big firms need to see the future that withdrawing its nature to focus only on customer-focused, short-sighted goal and bottom-line. Big firms miss the discussion with venture capitalist and top-tier scientific researchers for gathering new trend in the market. Big firms cannot take the risk whether disruptive innovation will be dominant in near future and the transition towards the disruptive innovation can be a loss of revenue and reduced profits also (Presbitero, Roxas Chadee, 2017). Therefore, successful companies are supposed to do end up leading to their own failure. Explaining why did Kodak fail, what did they do right and what did they do wrong The Innovator's Dilemma deals with the fact that an established company, doing what it is supposed to be doing, better serving its highest revenue and highest margin customers (Lyver Lu, 2018). It sets itself up for getting its market dominated by new entrants. Kodak had more than 145,000 employees and it had the market share of 90%. Today, Kodak is insolvent and it has been selling its assets to survive in the market. Kodak failed to understand the transition of the market and it did not embrace the new technologies that can redefine the market. Disruptive technologies come to industry with new and innovative performance attributes; Kodak at first did not provide value to the innovation. With the advancement of the time, performance attributes of the photography technology improved and they invaded the established market of Kodak. Kodak sold the reel cameras and they could not understand the shift from analog to the digital market. Kodak observed that in the initial stage, the digi tal cameras were poor qualities and they had the capability to store only a few images with low battery life. However, the digital camera and mobile camera took the market from Kodak. Today, all the digital products are making a wave in the market and digital cameras erase the use of film use (Hjalager, 2014). Kodak failed to understand that the digital photography is the new future. Sony first brought the electronic camera and Kodak could not understand the potential capability of it. Kodak analysed various factors of digital photography, equipment costs, image quality, print costs, interpretability of components and camera display. Kodak management thought the digital photography is not threatening for them. Kodak also made labs for the mega-pixel camera to support the digital technology (Nunan, 2017). Kodak decided to remain in chemical, paper and photo film camera business. Selecting Toshiba as chosen firm, presenting an argument that it may fail in the next 10 years if it continues to do things in the same way Toshiba was established in the year 1875 and is a global conglomerate. It manufactures electronics products, computer hardware and electronic equipment. It has it headquarter in Minato, Japan. Revenue of the company was 5.66 trillion and the company is in substantial doubt that whether they would be able to survive in the industry as the loss of the company may touch $ 9 billion in March 2018 (Money.cnn.com, 2018). Toshiba employs more than 190,000 employees around the globe and its collapse will be too significant for Japan. Toshiba confirmed in the year 2016 that they would stop making laptops and personal computers for the consumers. The company may sell the computers and laptops to the USA and in Europe, not in the home country Japan. Toshiba stopped making consumers' laptops and they decided to make business laptops only for Europe and the USA based business. Toshiba opted for B2B sales, initially Toshiba focused on thin notebook and convertible laptop with tablets. Toshiba pred icted major growth in this sector and the management thought that it would be a great move for the business to survive in the market (Tjiptono Andrianombonana, 2016). Toshiba was exploring the deal with vendors, meanwhile, the company is in Billions debt. Toshiba was trying to raise money as it witnessed the huge loss of the business. Toshiba sold its medical equipment making unit in the year 2015 and they focused on memory chips and nuclear power plants (Money.cnn.com, 2018). In a previous time, the users like to use Windows or Apple based varieties of desktop-based products. In recent time, the people like to use web-based or iPad devices that are low-cost products and the extra feature is portability. These types of products give the advantage of taking a picture, handheld, interactive educational games and easy to set up. Toshiba did not look on this side as they were busy to expand the business in another sector as Toshiba believed in sustaining innovation where they tried to improve the established innovation (Money.cnn.com, 2018). Toshiba at first failed to understand the consumers' preferences and they continued to make PCs and laptops. When they tried to shift the business, they plunged into a massive loss. Even, in the year, 2016, they confessed to falsifying the profit of the company where the problem was in utter deep. Toshiba needs to solve the matter to survive even after 10 years later in consumers' electronic goods industry and they can tak e the hybrid innovation strategy where they include both new and old technologies in full form. They can target the existing customers and they can use their pre-existing technology to provide delight with the customers. Conclusion It has been observed that not all ideas in the business are disruptive, the entrepreneurs need to find the gap' in the market to pursue the disruptive innovation. It has been also watched that some big changes aren't disruptive, and some disruptive changes are not considered radical advances.Kodak thought that digital photography a low-end disruption, that is providing a worse product at a lower price point for people already in the market but over-served by incumbents, or "new market disruption" where a product competes with non-consumption. In order to survive in the market, companies need to analyse the disruptive innovation and it's important to distinguish between sustaining and disruptive innovation, which makes it more evident why it is difficult for incumbent companies to be disruptive. Reference List Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., McDonald, R. (2015). What is a disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review,93(12), 44-53. Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector.Current issues in Tourism,18(12), 1192-1217. Hjalager, A. M. (2014). Disruptive and sustaining innovation: the case of rural tourism. Research on Innovation in Tourism Industries, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 56-83. King, A. A., Baatartogtokh, B. (2015). How useful is the theory of disruptive innovation?.MIT Sloan Management Review,57(1), 77. Lyver, M. J., Lu, T. J. (2018). Sustaining Innovation Performance in SMEs: Exploring the Roles of Strategic Entrepreneurship and IT Capabilities.Sustainability,10(2), 442. Nunan, D. (2017). Reflections on the future of the market research industry: is market research having its Kodak moment?.International Journal of Market Research,59(5), 553-555. Osiyevskyy, O., Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: the cognitive antecedents of firm?level responses to disruptive innovation.Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,9(1), 58-78. Pham, S. (2018). Toshiba: Too big to fail?. CNNMoney. Retrieved 22 February 2018, from https://money.cnn.com/2017/04/14/investing/toshiba-nuclear-financial-crisis-future/index.html Presbitero, A., Roxas, B., Chadee, D. (2017). Sustaining innovation of information technology service providers: Focus on the role of organisational collectivism.International Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics Management,47(2/3), 156-174. Tjiptono, F., Andrianombonana, H. T. R. (2016). Examining brand origin recognition accuracy in Indonesia.Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,28(5), 878-897.