Modeling Multi-Generation Product Diffusion in the Context of Dual-Brand Competition and Sustainable Improvement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The purpose of this article is to build a diffusion model of multi-generation products for dual-brand competition. The authors opportunely review Generalized Norton-Bass (GNB) models and their effect of marketing mix variables on the speed of diffusion for all product generations [1] at their Section 2. Literature Review.

In their Section 3. The model, the authors divide consumer behaviours in i. captures leapfrogging buyers, and ii. switching buyers. See particularly lines 195-202. They also assume “that the launch time of products of different generations of the two brands will be synchronized, and the two companies will compete against a homogenized market group.” Lines 238-40.

At Section 4. The system, the authors show the SD (system dynamics) macro-and agent-based micro-modeling approach used for simulation-based MGDM (Multi-Generation Diffusion Model) [2]. The authors’ MGDM is shown at Figure 1, line 288. As a perfectly competitive firm produces a greater quantity of output, its total revenue steadily increases at a constant rate determined by the given market price.

Section 5. System dynamics simulaiton and experimentation, the authors show the scenario analysis method for calculating and analyse the optimal pricing level under different quality and technology levels.

 

CHANGE REQUEST:

 

1.       Please check at line 14 in the abstract, there is probably a misprint with a capital letter after comma,

2.       Please add the solving of SD (system dynamics) also at line 27 – keywords,

3.       I would change the solving of GNB at line 73 with the more correct “Generalized Norton-Bass” model,

4.       Please check at line 81, there is probably a misprint with a capital letter after comma,

5.       Please check the full stop at ending sentence lines 88-9,

6.       Please check there are two full stops at ending sentence line 95,

7.       Please solve the acronym at WOM (Word of Mouth) marketing, line 106. Acronyms must be solved each time they appear first in title(s), abstract, main body, figures, tables, appendices if any,

8.       There is a mess about commas lines 106-110. Please check and adjust text,

9.       Please check text at line 189,

10.    Please use the acronym WOM already in line 106, instead of “word-of-mouth” at line 215,

11.    “SD” between the parentheses at line 278 seems to be in italics. Is this necessary?

12.    Is Figure 1 at line 288 generated with an AI (Artificial Intelligence) software? If yes, please mention the figure’s provider and ascertain to be authorized to use it in your own paper,

13.    Please capitalize each word in the title of Table 2 line 291 or capitalize only the first word as you have already done in Table 1 line 274. Mixing styles of punctuation and/or lexicality is never a good idea,

14.    Figure 3 and Figure 4 at line 329 should be 3a and 3b Figures in my opinion. Their quality is also blurred, please provide better figures,

15.    Same as above for Figure 5 at line 350,

16.    Same as above for Figure 6 at line 352,

17.    Same as above for Figure 7 at line 393,

18.    Same as above for Figure 8 at line 409. It should be 8a and 8b in my opinion, and of better quality, Please capitalize only the first word of title as already indicated in point 13 of this review,

19.    Same as above for Figure 9 at line 411,

20.    Same as above for Figure 10 at line 466,

21.    Same as above for Figure 11 at line 468,

22.    Same as above for Figure 12 at line 482. Please align better the figures and related text below,

23.    Figure 13 at line 503 should be 13a and 13b in my opinion, and of better quality.

 

Figures 14 and 15 are nice ones with interesting content in relation to long-run economic profit for perfectly competitive firms, and how the launch time to market has an important impact on brand revenue, leapfrogging buyers or adoptions and switching buyers or adoptions.

 

Kind Regards,

 

[1] Zhengrui, J.; Dipak, C.J. (2012) A Generalized Norton–Bass Model for Multigeneration Diffusion. Management Science 58(10):1887—1897. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1529

 

[2] Dhakal, T.; Min, K.-s.; Lim, D.-E. Review of Multi-Generation Innovation Diffusion Models. Industrial Engineering & Management 18(4): 794—807. doi: 10.7232/iems.2019.18.4.794

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We appreciate for your precious time and hard work in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards.

In response to all the proposals made in the review, we set out below all the modifications, corrections, or explanations made in the work on an item-by-item basis.

Sincerely,

Zhiguo ZHU, Ph.D., Prof.

Response to Reviewer Comments

Point 1: Please check at line 14 in the abstract, there is probably a misprint with a capital letter after comma.

Response 1: It is our really negligence, and we have made corrections according to the reviewer's comments.

Point 2: Please add the solving of SD (system dynamics) also at line 27 – keywords.

Response 2: We have made corrections according to the reviewer's comments, and add the solving of SD to the keywords.

Point 3: I would change the solving of GNB at line 73 with the more correct “Generalized Norton-Bass” model.

Response 3:

We have corrected the “GNB “with “Generalized Norton-Bass “as comments by the reviewer.

Point 4: Please check at line 81, there is probably a misprint with a capital letter after comma.

Response 4: We have corrected this error according to comments by the reviewer.

Point 5: Please check the full stop at ending sentence lines 88-9; Please check there are two full stops at ending sentence line 95.

Response 5: We have corrected these two errors as comments by the reviewer.

Point 6: Please solve the acronym at WOM (Word of Mouth) marketing, line 106. Acronyms must be solved each time they appear first in title(s), abstract, main body, figures, tables, appendices if any.

Response 6: We have carefully checked the whole article, checked the problems pointed out by the reviewers, and made corrections according to comments by the reviewer.

Point 7: There is a mess about commas lines 106-110. Please check and adjust text.

Response 7: We have reorganized the text and checked and adjusted the text.

Point 8：Please check text at line 189.

Response 8: We checked the text, this is an error expressed in this article, and the text has been corrected and adjusted to line 294. The text is” Nji(t) represents the cumulative diffusion quantity of brand j generation i products at time t”, this text has been marked light blue in the revised version.

Point 9: Please use the acronym WOM already in line 106, instead of “word-of-mouth” at line 215.

Response 9: We corrected this by replacing word of mouth with WOM at line 244.

Point 10: “SD” between the parentheses at line 278 seems to be in italics. Is this necessary?

Response 10: This is a minor oversight in our paper, "SD" doesn't need to be in italics here, it has been corrected.

Point 11:  Is Figure 1 at line 288 generated with an AI (Artificial Intelligence) software? If yes, please mention the figure’s provider and ascertain to be authorized to use it in your own paper.

Response 11: Figure 1 is the system dynamics flow chart established by us in the AnyLogic software environment. We have included a note in the article, which is illustrated at the line 322: The text is marked in yellow in the revised version, show as follows:

The flow chart of SD model established that based on AnyLogic software is shown in Figure 1,

Point 12: Please capitalize each word in the title of Table 2 line 291 or capitalize only the first word as you have already done in Table 1 line 274. Mixing styles of punctuation and/or lexicality is never a good idea.

Response 12: Thank you very much for the reviewer's opinion, which we have neglected. We have carefully read the whole article and corrected similar mistakes.

Point 13: Figure 3 and Figure 4 at line 329 should be 3a and 3b Figures in my opinion.; Their quality is also blurred, please provide better figures; Same as above for Figure 5 at line 350. Same as above for Figure 6 at line 352. Same as above for Figure 7 at line 393;

Response 13: In view of the blurred figures quality raised by the reviewer, we made all the figures in the paper clear. On the basis of the original draft, the clarity of the figures is increased by 60%, and the figures are distinguished, marked with a and b, and corrected. It is showed at line 368 marked in light bule.

Point 14: Same as above for Figure 8 at line 409. It should be 8a and 8b in my opinion, and of better quality. Please capitalize only the first word of title as already indicated in point 13 of this review. Same as above for Figure 9 at line 411. Same as above for Figure 10 at line 466. Same as above for Figure 11 at line 468; Same as above for Figure 12 at line 482. Please align better the figures and related text below. Figure 13 at line 503 should be 13a and 13b in my opinion, and of better quality.

Response 14: We have corrected the capital letters in the title of Table 2 and corrected the style of mixed punctuation and mixed words. Next, we also clarified the problem of figures quality raised by the reviewer above.

In addition, we also corrected some omissions and omitted two mathematical formulas (7) and (8) in the original draft. In the revised draft, we added these two formulas at line 236 and 237 and marked yellow in the revision draft, and carefully read the original text and corrected some grammatical errors.

Finally, I sincerely appreciate the reviewer for suggestions on this paper, especially the two references provided by the reviewer, which are of important reference value to this paper. Among them, [1] Zhengrui, J. Dipak, C.J. (2012) A Generalized Norton–Bass Model for Multigeneration Diffusion. Management Science 58(10):1887—1897. This paper is also an important reference for this paper. [2] Dhakal, T.; Min, K.-s.; Lim, D.-E. Review of Multi-Generation Innovation Diffusion Models. Industrial Engineering & Management 18(4): 794—807. This paper, which enables the author to have a deeper understanding of the multigenerational diffusion model, has been added to the references [5]of this paper. Thanks again to the reviewer.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

For introduction:

-Add citation in the first sentence.

-Author need to put more academic reason and evidences to the need of systematically analyze the relationship between the brand, pricing, quality, technology, and launch time.

-Author need to explain why diffusion model is needed.

-Explain more about other added variables on how they can help to solve the research problem.

-The research objective is not very clear. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We appreciate for your precious time and hard work in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards.

In response to all the proposals made in the review, we set out below all the modifications, corrections, or explanations made in the work on an item-by-item basis.

Sincerely,

Zhiguo ZHU, Ph.D., Prof.

Response to Reviewer Comments

Point 1: Add citation in the first sentence.

Response 1: According to the reviewer's comments, we added a reference and add citation in the first sentence, as follows:

With the acceleration of scientific and technological progress, the rapid variation and continuous upgrade of consumer demand, only single-generation products have been unable to meet consumers need, and more and more enterprises take the multi-generation products upgrade way to provide consumers with new products [1].

Point 2: Author need to put more academic reason and evidences to the need of systematically analyze the relationship between the brand, pricing, quality, technology, and launch time.

Response 2：We expand the introduction, branding, pricing. Quality techniques, and release time are explained and analyzed, and more academic reasons and evidence are added which is at line 46 marked in light blue, show as follows:

The multi-generation diffusion modes are considered well-used to describe the upgrading process of the product [5]. In the process of multi-generation products diffusion, price is often considered as a marketing factor [6]. Brands will affect the diffusion rate of products through advertising, and also have an impact on the diffusion rate of competitors [7]. Meanwhile, product quality will have an impact on this diffusion process. Gradual and continuous upgrading of quality or technology can make enterprises succeed easier than a giant leap [2], and it is also the way for enterprises to obtain long-term development, which makes the competition between enterprises more intense. In the such complicated situation, enterprises need to trade off the launch time to market of products, and also consider the substitution effect of consumer behaviors between multi-generation products, these factors jointly play a role in corporate revenue and decision-making. However, in the dynamic environment of brand competition, how to make products upgrading, pricing decisions and consider the influence between generations of products is a very important issue, but the existing research has made insufficient effort.

Point 3: Author need to explain why diffusion model is needed.

Response 3: We have added an explanation for why the diffusion model is needed, which is also explained in the literature review at line 98-100 marked light blue, as follows:

At present, the extension modeling of new products diffusion based on Bass model and the characterization of consumer demand and purchase process is one of the main methods to study multi-generation product upgrade.

Point 4：Explain more about other added variables on how they can help to solve the research problem.

Response 4: The introduction of this paper also adds the necessity of applying system dynamics at line74-76 marked yellow, as well as in systematic analysis of branding, pricing. The necessity of adding these variables is explained in the process of quality or techniques, and launch time, as follows:

The study of multi-generation products diffusion based on computer simulation is a common method nowadays, and the approaches of multigeneration product diffusion by system dynamics has been adopted by some research [5,8].

Point 5：The research objective is not very clear.

Response 5: In view of the reviewer's opinion that the objective of this paper is not very clear, we have added and emphasized the research objective of this paper in the introduction, which is at line 66 marked in yellow, as shown below:

Our main aim is to build a multi-generation diffusion model on the context of two-brand competition, explore the pricing of multi-generation products under different brand values and quality levels, and maximize the profit as the goal of simulation. and finally discuss the launch time to market. This paper puts forward the enterprise product analysis path of "pricing -- quality upgrade -- launch" under brand competition, reveals the relationship between pricing, quality level upgrade and launch time to market, expands the multi-generation products diffusion theory, and provides theoretical basis and new insights for enterprises' new product launch and operation decision.

In the introduction, this paper adds the arrangement of article structure to further improve the introduction marked yellow, as follows:

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the related literature on multi-generation diffusion and Marketing factors in diffusion process. We then explain the multigenerational diffusion model and analyze the consumers' behavior in this diffusion process in Section 3. Then the diffusion system of multi-generation products model in the context of dual-brand competition is built in Section 4, the and we use system dynamics method to simulate and compute the solution in Section 5. We then verify the model and related summaries with a case study in Section 6. Finally, we conclude this study in Section 7.

In addition, we also corrected some omissions and omitted two mathematical formulas (7) and (8) in the original draft. In the revised draft, we added these two formulas at line 236 and 237 and marked yellow in the revision draft, and carefully read the original text and corrected some grammatical errors.

Finally, I would like to appreciate the reviewer for your suggestions on this paper. After revision, the quality of this paper has been further improved.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Sir

I have a chance to read this paper. Thank you for your suggestions. I think that this paper can show the contribution to the field. I agree with the methodology as well as some main findings. I think that the quality of the paper is quite acceptable.

I have some comments for improving this paper as follows:

1/ The introduction is the weakest part in this study. I think that from all previous studies and the reality to show the objectives, the paper should strongly confirm the novelty of the paper as well as some main findings should be concluded in this section.

2/ The paper should have the section: Data collection, data sources.

3/ Some descriptive data should be performed. It is good for us to check the quality of the data.

4/ Why brand 1 and brand 2 have a bread point at the level of 50? Please explain it.

5/ The units for all figure should be clearly shown.

6/ The robustness check shoul be further performed.

Thank you

A minor revision should be done

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We appreciate for your precious time and hard work in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards.

In response to all the proposals made in the review, we set out below all the modifications, corrections, or explanations made in the work on an item-by-item basis.

Sincerely,

Zhiguo ZHU, Ph.D., Prof.

Response to Reviewer Comments

Point 1：The introduction is the weakest part in this study. I think that from all previous studies and the reality to show the objectives, the paper should strongly confirm the novelty of the paper as well as some main findings should be concluded in this section.

Response 1: On the basis of the reviewer's comments, we expanded the introduction and added a description of the novelty of this paper. In this section, the research conclusions we have drawn illustrate the shortcomings of the current research, and the necessity of this research is add at line 66 marked in yellow ,as shown follows:

Our main aim is to build a multi-generation diffusion model on the context of two-brand competition, explore the pricing of multi-generation products under different brand values and quality levels, and maximize the profit as the goal of simulation. and finally discuss the launch time to market. This paper puts forward the enterprise product analysis path of "pricing -- quality upgrade -- launch" under brand competition, reveals the relationship between pricing, quality level upgrade and launch time to market, expands the multi-generation products diffusion theory, and provides theoretical basis and new insights for enterprises' new product launch and operation decision.

The study of multi-generation products diffusion based on computer simulation is a common method nowadays, and the approaches of multigeneration product diffusion by system dynamics has been adopted by some research [5,8]. Therefore, we use system dynamics method to conduct experimental simulation of the model. In this paper, the marketing factors such as declining dynamic price and quality level are added. The influence of brand value spillover effect on diffusion process and pricing is emphatically discussed, as well as exploring the path of continuous product innovation and improvement.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the related literature on multi-generation diffusion and Marketing factor in diffusion process. We then explain the multigenerational diffusion model and analyze the consumers' behavior in this diffusion process in Section 3. Then the diffusion system of multi-generation products model in the context of dual-brand competition is built in Section 4, the and we use system dynamics method to simulate and compute the solution in Section 5. We then verify the model and related summaries with a case study in Section 6. Finally, we conclude this study in Section 7.

Point 2：The paper should have the section: Data collection, data sources.

Response 2： Due to all the data and parameters, references [6] and [45] in this paper are referred and explained in the paper line at 327 marked in yellow.

As follows:

According to the values assigned to Bass model parameters by data in literature [6,45], the other specific basic parameter settings of the model in this paper are shown in Table 2.

Point 3：Some descriptive data should be performed. It is good for us to check the quality of the data.

Response 3: Since this paper adopts system dynamics simulation rather than empirical research on reality, all the data and parameters are referred to the references [6] and [45] in this paper, and are explained in the paper. We also refer to other literature on system dynamics simulation, where they are conducting data description, mainly predicting phenomena, while this paper is mainly modeling and simulating phenomena to draw conclusions for explaining the real world, so data description and test are not included.

Point 4：Why brand 1 and brand 2 have a bread point at the level of 50? Please explain it.

Response 4：In reality, we assume that the enterprise with multi-generation product upgrade will take about 1 year, so we set the bread point at the level of 50 weeks in the basic parameter setting, which is about a year in advance. We have added this at line 264 marked in yellow, as follows:

And the enterprise takes 50 weeks to release new products, our upgrade time in the model is initially set to , about one year.

Point 5：The units for all figure should be clearly shown.

Response 5： Since we are conducting mathematical simulation of the model, the units are all virtual, so no numerical units are specified. The reviewer may think that our pictures are not clear, and we have made clear processing of all the pictures in the paper.

Point 6：The robustness check should be further performed

Response 6：We have consulted the relevant literature on system dynamics research, and haven't found the standard method to test the robustness of the model for the time being. In our future research, we can take the stability test of the simulation as a research direction. Maybe the reviewer thinks whether our conclusions and models are applicable to reality, therefore, we have added a case, placed in Section 6, to illustrate the practicality and robustness of our models and conclusions at line 655 marked in light blue, as follows:

6.Model and Summaries verification

In addition, we also corrected some omissions and omitted two mathematical formulas (7) and (8) in the original draft. In the revised draft, we added these two formulas at line 236 and 237 and marked yellow in the revision draft, and carefully read the original text and corrected some grammatical errors.

Finally, I would like to appreciate the reviewer for your valuable comments on this paper, which have further improved quality of this paper. Thanks again to the reviewer.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Sir

I agree with this.

Thank you

Minor revisions

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. We have made further revisions to the article by correcting some equation notation errors, revising the grammar, and adjusting the clarity of the figures.

Thanks again to the reviewers.

Sincerely