For many years academic studies have touted the commercial advantages of being first to market with innovations.
More recently there has been a backlash and example after example has emerged where the second-mover has had the upper hand.
One of the darlings of the first-mover brigade has always been Procter & Gamble’s disposable diaper brand, Pampers. Certainly Pampers was and is a massive success.
Problem is – it was never the first-mover. That was Johnson & Johnson’s CHUX, which had first entered the market in 1949.
P&G’s R&D people were able to spendseveral years tackling each of the major problems with CHUX and in due course developed a product that was more absorbent, had lower leakage, was more comfortable on baby, offered two sizes and could be produced at significantly lower cost (and retail price).
Pampers was test-marketed in the early 1960s and by the end of that decade had achieved well over three-quarters of a market that itself was growing exponentially year on year. The game was over pretty much by the time I worked in that market – with Kimberly Clark’s brand in Australia.
So much for first-mover advantage. More like first-mover DISadvantage.
Posts
