A.G.

Woodside / Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1-1 (2009) 1-8 1

Key Success and Failure Paths in Fashion Marketing Strategies

Arch G. Woodside1)

Abstract dimensions and configurations occurring in KS/FPs.

The article reports on findings of a case study that takes
the perspective that the design+marketing strategists having
Both successful and unsuccessful design+marketing projects
completed more than one hundred (or 200 to 500) new fashion
in high fashion products and services represent creating and
marketing projects have developed mental models representing
implementing recipes or paths of key success factors (KSFs).
successful and unsuccessful combinations (paths) of decisions
While implementing any one KSF is not sufficient for success,
that occur within these projects. The case study is developed
creating and taking certain paths that includes
here from a series of interviews with a chief executive officer
partially-independent KSFs is sufficient for success; other paths
(CEO) and leading designing for a well-known fashion
lead to failure; some paths are never taken because they are
marketing firm for household accessories, Alberto Alessi. The
never though of or designers consider them to be totally
interviews were completed at Alberto Alessi’s design studio
unrealistic options.
and headquarters by McKinsey Corporation (a consultancy
Consequently, fashion marketing strategists need to look
firm).
beyond research attempting to learn the net effects of
The article describes how to use configural comparative
independent influences of KSFs. Configurations (i.e., recipes)
analysis (CCA) which includes applying Boolean algebra rather
representing alternative combinations of design+marketing
than matrix algebra to test combinations within antecedent
dimensions are indicators of sufficiency for success versus
conditions (e.g., recipes that include a specific level of each of
failure for fashion marketing projects. The study of alternative
the four dimensions in the Alessi model). Both crisp set
decision configurations is particularly useful for fashion
(binary levels) and fuzzy set (0.00 to 1.00) values are
marketing strategists and researchers.
sometimes used in CCA modeling.
The objectives of this article include (1) describing keys
Two particularly useful operations in set theory include the
success/failure path (KS/FP) theory and (2) illustrating
computing the value for combinations of two or singular
configural thinking processes for a design+marketing firm that
antecedent conditions. The lowest value among the two or
focuses on fashion household accessories. “Design+marketing”
more dimensions is the amount the two dimensions share
is a term used here to indicate the strategy operating
income. Consider the combination of the following four
philosophy of creating unique designs that are successful in the
singular antecedent conditions into one complex antecedent
marketplace. This article applies propositions in a theory of
condition expressed as Q·S·R·D=.20. The mid-level dot (·)
KS/FP theory to design+marketing contexts.
signifies the operation, “and”; the value of .20 represents this
A major objective present article is to propose a theory of
complex antecedent condition because .20 is the lowest fuzzy
KS/FPs. The core tenants of KS/FP theory are applicable for
set values among the following four dimensions (the numbers
fashion marketing strategies. The core tenants include the
in the parentheses represent fuzzy set scores with 0.00 indicate
following propositions:
non-membership and 1.00 full membership in the dimension);
(1) No one KSF is sufficient nor likely necessary for
• Q = A high-quality new product process (.90)
success
• S = A defined new product strategy for the business unit
(2) No one KSF is necessary for success
(.85)
(3) Decision paths occur in executing fashion marketing
• R = Adequate resources-people and money-for new
strategies
products (.50)
(4) Some of these decision paths are sufficient, but not
• D = R&D spending on new products (as % of the
necessary, for success
business’s sales) (.20).
(5) Some of these paths result in failure for new products
or services Crisp or fuzzy set scoring also applies for the outcome
(6) Mail surveys using 5 or 7 point Likert scales are condition (e.g., accepting further design+marketing development
insufficient for explicating the nitty-gritty specifics of of the new fashion product-service, or low to high
profitability). A complex antecedent condition is found to be
highly consistent in its relationship with an outcome condition
1) Department of Marketing, Carroll School of Management, Boston
across a number of new design+marketing case studies when
College, USA, Tel: +1-617-552-3069, E-mail: arch.woodside@bc.
edu the sum is totaled by taking the lowest value for each
antecedent-outcome pair and divided by the sum of all
Ⓒ 2010 KAMS. All rights reserved.
2 A.G. Woodside / Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1-1 (2009) 1-8

antecedent values across all the case studies. 。

CCA provides a straightforward relatively easy to understand CEO 。 CEO
method for describing and understanding the impact of ，Alberto Alessi。 Alberto
complex, configural, antecedent conditions on an outcome Alessi McKinsey 。
condition. Unlike statistical analyses using correlation methods （CCA），
(e.g., multiple or probit regression methods), CCA assumes
asymmetrical not symmetrical relationships among antecedent （ ， Alessi
(X) and outcome (Y) values. Thus, unlike correlation methods, ）。 （0.00 1.00）
assuming an asymmetric relationship recognizes that low values CCA 。
on the antecedent condition can relate to both low and high ，
values on the outcome condition. For high sufficiency, finding 。
consistent with a substantial relationship between an antecedent 。
and outcome condition occurs when high values only occur for Q·S·R·D = .20。
the outcome condition when the values are high for the （·） “ ”；.20 ，
antecedent condition. For the same highly consistent model, .20 （0.00
values may be low and high for the outcome condition for ，1.00 ）
low vales for the antecedent condition-high values for the
outcome condition paired with low values for the antecedent • Q= (.90)
condition in such models simply indicates additional paths to • S= (.85)
high values in the outcome condition exist along with the • R= - (.50)
model showing that when the antecedent condition is high, the • D=R&D （ ）
outcome condition is always high. (.20).

（ ，
Keywords: Design, Fashion, Marketing, Key success paths, + ，
Function, Aesthetics ）。
， ，
。
CCA ，
， 。 （ ，
， + ） ，CCA （X）
（KSFs） （Y） 。 ， ，
。 ；
； 。 ， ，
， ，
。 。 ， ，
， -- ，
。 + ，
。 ， 。
。
：（1 ） : ， ， ， ， ，
（KS/FP） （2） +
。“ + ” ，
。 + 1. Introduction
KS/FP 。
KS/FPs 。KS/FP Scholars (e.g., Cooper and Kleinschmidt 2007; Di Benedetto
。 ： 1999; Griffin and Page 1993) in product innovation manage-
（1） KSF ment focus most their reports on identifying checklists of key
（2） KSF 。 success factors (KSFs). Fixed-point survey responses (e.g., us-
（3） ing 7-point scales) of executives’ views on the relevancy of
（4） ， ， success and failure factors represent the dominant research
method in such studies.
（5） While insightful, such studies have telling weaknesses. These
（6） 5 7 KS/FPs weaknesses include the possible absence of relevant factors in
the survey instrument that the informant is unlikely to ever re-
fer to in answering the survey. The confounding of config-
100（ 200 50
urations of success factors for different new product projects
0） 。
 A.G. Woodside / Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1-1 (2009) 1-8
and the configurations of failure factors in other projects is an-
other weakness. Griffin and Page’s (1993, p. 291) conclusion
implies that such confounding is likely to occur frequently,
“Academics tend to investigate product development perform-
ance at the firm level, whereas managers currently measure,
and indicate that they want to understand more completely, in-
dividual [case] product success.”
The related third weakness is the failure to recognize that
no one single factor is sufficient or necessary for success!
Data analyses in studies on key success factors (KSFs) for
successful product development indicate that no one factor cor-
relates perfectly (r=1.00 or even highly (e.g., r > .60) with
success (e.g., Cooper and Kleinschmidt 2007; Di Benedetto
1999). Also, some KSFs relate positively to other KSFs; a few
major groups of KSFs represent some amount of independence
in influencing success versus failure. But attempting to sepa-
rate-out the independent influences of KSFs on success/failure
is unrealistic objective-and an objective less insightful in com-
parison to alternative research approaches.
Both successful and unsuccessful design+marketing projects
in high fashion products and services represent creating and
implementing recipes or paths of KSFs. While implementing
any one KSF is not sufficient for success, creating and taking
certain paths that includes partially-independent KSFs is suffi-
cient for success; other paths lead to failure; some paths are
never taken because they are never though of or designers
consider them to be totally unrealistic options.
Consequently, fashion marketing strategists need to look be-
yond research attempting to learn the net effects of in-
dependent influences of KSFs. Configurations (i.e., recipes)
representing alternative combinations of design+marketing di-
mensions are indicators of sufficiency for success versus failure
for fashion marketing projects. The study of alternative deci-
sion configurations is particularly useful for fashion marketing
strategists and researchers.
The objectives of this article include (1) describing keys
success/failure path (KS/FP) theory and (2) illustrating config-
ural thinking processes for a design+marketing firm that fo-
cuses on fashion household accessories. “Design+marketing” is
a term used here to indicate the strategy operating philosophy
of creating unique designs that are successful in the
marketplace. This article applies propositions in a theory of
KS/FP theory to design+marketing contexts.
Following this introduction, section two presents core tenants
of KS/FP theory. Section three presents results from case study
research that illustrates an ethnographic decision tree model
(Gladwin 1989) of KS/FPs. Section four proposes configural
comparative analysis (CCA, also known as qualitative com-
parative analysis, QCA) as a particularly useful approach for
the study of KS/FP. Section five summarizes the discussion
and includes limitations and suggestions for future research.
2. Key Success/Failure Path Theory in
Fashion Marketing
3
Design+marketing is a useful concept for indicating the crit-
icality of the mutual dependency of design and marketing in
fashion marketing. A relevant tenant to KS/FP theory is the
belief that brilliant design alone is insufficient for success in
fashion marketing. Brilliant marketing alone is insufficient for
success in fashion marketing. Success follows specific config-
urations of dimensions dynamically cross back-and-forth in
planning and implementing design and marketing decisions.
Consider the findings of Cooper and Kleinschmidt
(2007)-one of the most highly cited studies on the effects of
KSFs and profitability (numbers in parentheses are correlations
of the KSFs with profitability). The study uses 1-5 point
Likert scales to measure each item. The correlations below
from this study of 161 firms engaging in new product devel-
opment indicate that the presence versus absence of a factor is
not sufficient for high profitability:
• A high-quality new product process (.416)
• A defined new product strategy for the business unit
(.228)
• Adequate resources-people and money-for new products
(.244)
• R&D spending on new products (as % of the business’s
sales) (ns=not significant)
• High-quality new product development teams (.196)
• Senior management commitment to new products (.268)
• An innovative climate and culture in the business unit
(.243)
• The use of cross-functional teams for product development
(.230)
• Senior management accountability for new product results
(.228).
If these 9 dimensions represent somewhat unique KSFs,
what combinations of high versus low values among the 9
KSFs lead to high profitability? Any one firm among firms
with a highly profitability new product is unlikely to achieve
level 5 (highest) evaluations for all 9 dimensions. Using a
property space approach (Lazersfeld 1937), considering three
levels for each dimension-low, moderate, high-a total of 19,683
9
combinations are possible (3 ). A few of these paths are likely
to result in highly profitable new product outcomes-possibly
10% of the paths or about 200 paths. About 30% of the paths
are likely to result is substantial losses-about 600 paths. The
remaining paths are likely to be untried and most may repre-
sent unimplementable decision recipes.
The relevant literature includes examples of success in mar-
keting of a new product-service that includes the absence of
one or more KSFs (Woodside 1996). Each KSF independently
is not necessary for success; success is possible with the ab-
sence of any one KSF. For fashion marketing, research identi-
fying 5, 7, 9, or more dimensions as KSFs is unlikely to rep-
resent sufficient insight for planning effective design+marketing
strategies.
Taking one dimension to illustrate this point, what are the
nitty-gritty specific resulting in a 1 versus 5 point score for
4 A.G. Woodside / Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1-1 (2009) 1-8
“an innovative climate and culture in the business unit”?
Responses to 1-5 Likert scale items in mail survey are in-
sufficient for describing and understanding what really happens
in design+marketing of fashion products-services that result in
high versus mediocre performance or substantial losses.
Thus, a major objective present article is to propose a theo-
ry of KS/FPs. The core tenants of KS/FP theory are applicable
for fashion marketing strategies. The core tenants include the
following propositions:
(1) No one KSF is sufficient nor likely necessary for suc-
cess
(2) No one KSF is necessary for success
(3) Decision paths occur in executing fashion marketing
strategies
(4) Some of these decision paths are sufficient, but not nec-
essary, for success
(5) Some of these paths result in failure for new products
or services
(6) Mail surveys using 5 or 7 point Likert scales are in-
sufficient for explicating the nitty-gritty specifics of di-
mensions and configurations occurring in KS/FPs.
3. Case Study Research in Ethnographic
Decision Tree Modeling of Fashion
Marketing Strategies
This section offers a case study example of creating an eth-
nographic decision tree model (EDTM, see Gladwin 1989) in
an attempt to describe and understand KS/FPs. EDTM includes
the use of long interviews (McCracken 1988) in field settings
with strategist who plan and implement strategies to create and
validate decision tree diagrams. These diagrams represent alter-
native paths leading to favorable versus unfavorable (accept/re-
ject) decisions.
The case study takes the perspective that the design+market-
ing strategists having completed more than one hundred (or
200 to 500) new fashion marketing projects have developed
mental models representing successful and unsuccessful combi-
nations (paths) of decisions that occur within these projects.
The case study is developed here from a series of interviews
with a chief executive officer (CEO) and leading designing for
a well-known fashion marketing firm for household accessories,
Alberto Alessi (McKinsey Quarterly 2009). The interviews
were completed at Alberto Alessi’s design studio and head-
quarters by McKinsey Corporation. Here is a summary descrip-
tion of the firm’s history and the foundation of (CEO) Alberto
Alessi’s thinking:
• Alessi: I should start by explaining that Alessi [the de-
sign+marketing firm] is an example of an Italian design
factory, meaning a small or medium-size company that
specializes in one area, such as furniture, lighting, or, for
Alessi, accessories. In my opinion, there is a kind of his-
torical DNA in Italy, dating at least from the Italian
Renaissance, when workshops that had these very speci-
alized, niche production factories originated.
• Our approach, like that of other Italian design factories, is
very different from that of a mass production company. I
sometimes compare the process of making a new car
with the process of making a Pablo Picasso painting.
• When a car company sets out to make a new car, what
do they do? First of all, the top person asks for market
research to understand what the customer is thinking. So
market research people go around asking the consumers,
“What would you like?” And what do the customers do?
They look around at the existing cars and say, “OK, I
like this part of that car,” or, “I like this part of another
car.” And so on. The research people put all this together
in a shaker. They shake. Then they pour out the recipe
for the new car design and give it to the car designers.
• Our way is closer to the way of Pablo Picasso. Imagine
Picasso waking up in the 1920s on a nice, sunny morn-
ing in a village on the Côte d’Azur and feeling strongly
the wish-the need-to start painting. So he starts painting.
But he’s not asking himself, “To what target customer
will I address my new painting?” Picasso shows us a
completely different approach: starting from yourself, as a
creator, and using your sensibility and your intuition in
order to touch other people’s hearts or sensibility or
intuition. And by the way, he also built an interesting
business.
• I’m not saying that we are like Picasso. Not at all. We
are simple, humble mediators. But what I want to say is
that all the designers working with us are like little
Picassos: their creation process starts from intuition, not
from market research.
Alessi goes further in describing his “mathematical model”
to describe his decision process in assessing a design+market-
ing project. Note that his model is actually programmable as
an EDTM rather than as a statistical tool. Alessi’s answers fol-
low the questions from the McKinsey Quarterly interviewer.
• The Quarterly: How do you assess the potential of prod-
uct innovations?
• Alessi: We have a very helpful tool that we call, ironi-
cally, “the formula.” It’s a mathematical model that we
use once we have a well-done prototype. Not the first or
the second prototype, but from the third one on. The pur-
pose of the formula is to understand what the reaction of
our final customers could be toward this new product and
what the product’s life could be should we decide to start
production.
• The Quarterly: How did you develop “the formula”?
• Alessi: It all started in the beginning of the ’90s, when
my brothers were curious why I was doing certain proj-
ects and not other projects. And of course, I didn't know.
Because everything was happening in my stomach. But it
was a good question. So I started thinking how to
 A.G. Woodside / Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1-1 (2009) 1-8
answer. And what I did was put together all the 300
projects I had developed during my career until then.
These 300 projects had very different lives. Some were
big successes. Some a bit more than that. Some were big
fiascos. And the rest were in the range of a little bit bet-
ter, a little bit worse. I was, of course, convinced there
was a reason for these outcomes. When I tried to explore
the reasons for each product’s life, I came out with four
parameters. All four were equally important for the final
customer, but only two were central parameters for
Alessi; the other two were peripheral for us. The first
central parameter is the degree to which people say, “Oh,
what a beautiful object,” which represents the creation of
a relationship between the object and the individual. We
call this SMI, which stands for sensation, memory,
imagination. The second is the use that people can make
of an object in order to communicate with other people.
By this I mean that objects have become the main chan-
nel through which we convey our values, status, and per-
sonality to others-fashion is a typical case in point.
Because people freely choose certain objects from the
ones they come across, they tend to charge them with so-
cial meaning, as signs for communicating-in a visible, in-
telligible way-their distinguishing values. Objects can have
status value or style value. By way of example, a gold
Rolex watch is a status symbol, which suggests economic
wealth, whereas a style symbol may be exemplified by an
Aldo Rossi teapot, which reveals cultural sensitivity and
familiarity with the architectural domain. Jean Baudrillard,
a French sociologist, brilliantly expounded concepts like
these. The peripheral parameters are function and price.
Each of these parameters has five degrees. The formula
doesn’t work for everything. But when we have a long
history with a product, it works perfectly. If I have to
evaluate a pot or a coffee maker or a kettle, for example,
the score indicates exactly the number of pieces that we
Note. = Ranges Where Alessi Is Willing to Be
Fig. 1. Alberto Alessi's "Formula"
5
can sell. When we are exploring a new area-for example,
when we were designing a pen, which was completely
new terrain for Alessi-then it becomes more difficult. The
formula needs to be tuned in a different way. But the
principle is the same.
Fig. 1 summarizes Alessi’s explanation. Note that Fig. 1. in-
cludes four dimensions and that Alessi is willing to, or expects
to, work in two to three specific levels within each dimension.
He points out in additional comments in the interview that he
uses the formula to be more risky-not just to attempt to create
low risk design+marketing projects.
Using the literature on mapping strategic thinking (Huff
1990) the present article includes mapping Alessi’s first-person
responses. The result is the creation of the contingency model
appearing in Fig. 2. This contingency model depicts the rele-
vant paths for low, medium, and high risk fashion marketing
projects that appear to be acceptable for Alessi. The level of
risk resulting from a design+marketing project depends on the
configuration of levels across the four dimensions. Note that a
substantial reduction in the size of an available market may
relate to a project requiring an expensive price but this level
of the price dimension does not necessarily rule-out further de-
sign and production of the product. If the levels of the other
dimensions are determined to be highly favorable, the project
may still proceed even if the market includes a small segment
of customers.
Fig. 2. Explication of Alessi's EDTM for,
"Should we take design beyond the third prototype?"
The level of any one dimension in this EDTM is not suffi-
cient or necessary to cause rejection or acceptance of a specif-
ic design+marketing project. A few configurations result in ac-
ceptance of projects while most of the possible configurations
result in rejection of projects.
4
A total of 625 (i.e., 5 ) paths are possible. Most likely, only
a few (less than 20%) of these paths ever receive consid-
eration by the strategists. The model emphasizes the point that
6 A.G. Woodside / Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1-1 (2009) 1-8
Alessi does not consider a high value in a core dimension
(e.g., aesthetics) or any other dimension compensating for a
low value in another dimension (e.g., communication and lan-
guage). Alessi places a restriction on the range of values for
each dimension that is acceptable for continuing the decision
process.
4. Configural Comparative Analysis (CCA)
CCA includes applying Boolean algebra rather than matrix
algebra to test combinations within antecedent conditions (e.g.,
recipes that include a specific level of each of the four di-
mensions in the Alessi model). Both crisp set (binary levels)
and fuzzy set (0.00 to 1.00) values are sometimes used in
CCA modeling.
Two particularly useful operations in set theory include the
computing the value for combinations of two or singular ante-
cedent conditions. The lowest value among the two or more
dimensions is the amount the two dimensions share income.
Consider the combination of the following four singular ante-
cedent conditions into one complex antecedent condition ex-
pressed as Q∙S∙R∙D=.20. The mid-level dot (∙) signifies the
operation, “and”; the value of .20 represents this complex ante-
cedent condition because .20 is the lowest fuzzy set values
among the following four dimensions (the numbers in the pa-
rentheses represent fuzzy set scores with 0.00 indicate non-
membership and 1.00 full membership in the dimension):.
• Q=A high-quality new product process (.90)
• S=A defined new product strategy for the business unit
(.85)
• R=Adequate resources-people and money-for new products
(.50)
• D=R&D spending on new products (as % of the busi-
ness’s sales) (.20).
Crisp or fuzzy set scoring also applies for the outcome con-
dition (e.g., accepting further design+marketing development of
the new fashion product-service, or low to high profitability).
Table 1. Configural comparative analysis for a complex antecedent condition
using fuzzy set values for each antecedent condition and the
outcome condition
Case
Dimension
1 2 3 4
Q=A high-quality new product process .90 .50 .30 .20 1.00
S=A defined new product strategy for the
.85 .60 .90 .20
business unit
R=Adequate resources-people and money-for
.50 .75 .90 .10
new products
D=R&D spending on new products .20 .65 1.00 .90
Q∙S∙R∙D = .40 .50 .30 .10
H=High Profitability (outcome condition) .10 .75 .30 .40
Consistency index for
Q∙S∙R∙D=(.10+.50+.30+.10+.6)/(.20+.50+.30+.60)=1.6/1.9=0.842
Note. Consistency values are analogous to correlation values. For a simple
or complex antecedent condition to be sufficient in predicting high
outcome values, a consistency value should be greater than .70.
A complex antecedent condition is found to be highly con-
sistent in its relationship with an outcome condition across a
number of new design+marketing case studies when the sum is
totaled by taking the lowest value for each antecedent-outcome
pair and divided by the sum of all antecedent values across all
the case studies.
For example, assume five cases are being evaluated for their
sufficiency in predicting high profitability by a firm. The val-
ues for each of the singular antecedent conditions, one com-
plex antecedent condition, and the outcome condition for high
profitability appear in Table 1. The analysis in Table 1 in-
dicates a high consistency index for Q∙S∙R∙D in predicting
high profitability.
The~symbol indicates negation. A negation is equal to (1–
the antecedent value). If crisp set scores are used (0,1) than
~R=1.00 when R=1.00 and the absence of R=0.00. Thus,
~R=1.00 and R=0.000 both indicate inadequate resources in the
development process of a specific design+marketing project.
Using a crisp set analysis (binary no/yes conditions), a total of
16 paths are possible in this analysis of 5 cases (24) to repre-
sent all the possible combinations of the four singular ante-
cedent conditions. Such an analysis helps to uncover whether
or not success (e.g., high profitability) occurs when one or
more singular dimensions are absent (or low in value using
fuzzy set scores). Using fuzzy set analysis, a range (0.00 to
1.00) of values replaces binary values with 0.00 indicating full
non-membership in the antecedent condition (singular or com-
plex) and 1.00 indicating full membership in the same ante-
cedent condition (see Ragin 2008 for further details).
CCA provides a straightforward relatively easy to understand
method for describing and understanding the impact of com-
plex, configural, antecedent conditions on an outcome
condition. Unlike statistical analyses using correlation methods
(e.g., multiple or probit regression methods), CCA assumes
asymmetrical not symmetrical relationships among antecedent
(X) and outcome (Y) values. Thus, unlike correlation methods,
assuming an asymmetric relationship recognizes that low values
on the antecedent condition can relate to both low and high
5
.60
.80
.75
.60
.80
Fig. 3. Plot of complex antecedent condition's (Q∙S∙R∙D)
influence on the outcome condition (H)
 A.G. Woodside / Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1-1 (2009) 1-8
values on the outcome condition. For high sufficiency, finding
consistent with a substantial relationship between an antecedent
and outcome condition occurs when high values only occur for
the outcome condition when the values are high for the ante-
cedent condition. For the same highly consistent model, values
may be low and high for the outcome condition for low vales
for the antecedent condition-high values for the outcome con-
dition paired with low values for the antecedent condition in
such models simply indicates additional paths to high values in
the outcome condition exist along with the model showing that
when the antecedent condition is high, the outcome condition
is always high.
Thus, the plot of the five hypothetical case in Fig. 3.is sug-
gestive that when Q∙S∙R∙D ≥ 0.50 → H > 0.60. The plot
indicates that case 1 has a particularly low outcome condition
that might require adding a new singular (negative) relevant
antecedent condition to the complex antecedent statement to
clarify (i.e., lower the antecedent value) to reflect this some-
what surprising association with a very low outcome value.
Additional details on using CCA to estimate the influence of
configurations (paths) of relationships in antecedent conditions
on outcome conditions are available. Ragin (2008) provides a
detailed exposition with political science examples and
Woodside (2010) provides a business-to-business application.
5. Conclusions and Fashion Marketing
Implications
KS/FP theory is very relevant for understanding and describ-
ing alternative design+marketing in fashion marketing. Learning
about KSFs in creating new fashion product-services is in-
sufficient for understanding, describing, and predicting the mul-
tiple decision paths leading to successes and failures. Fashion
designers think in recipes of dimensions and not only in single
dimensions in configuring new products and services. A few
complex configurations of antecedent conditions work well in
being sufficient for predicting high scores for a given outcome
condition.
Uncovering the nitty-gritty details of such complexity goes
well beyond net effects analysis via correlation methods.
Coupling EDTM and CCA methods is very useful for gaining
insights supporting the KSDP theory as well as for predicting
highly successful outcome conditions.
The strategy implications for fashion marketing include
thinking beyond KSFs-not abandoning the value of identifying
relevant actions leading to success as well as actions that in-
crease the likelihood of failure. Applying KSFs can lead to a
false sense of security: “We’ve brought together all the in-
gredients for success so we are bound to be successful.” The
master fashion design+marketer creates unique recipes (i.e.,
paths) that achieves success that novice is rarely capable of
perceiving. The novice fashion designer has two useful alter-
natives to improve her or his capabilities: (1) creating highly
unique (from each other) designs and testing each in the mar-
7
ketplace and (2) thinking actively, asking questions, while serv-
ing as an apprentice for a master design_marketer. However,
most novice fashion designers fail to achieve the results of the
master. What may be missing is recognizing and applying a
relevant theoretical structure for effective thinking and doing.
Hopefully, the KS/FP theory in the present article provides a
useful theory that provides such a structure.
The empirical work in the present article is very limited and
future research is necessary to confirm (or refute) the value of
KS/FP theory and CCA in fashion marketing. Hopefully, such
work will be done using case study research methods that in-
clude long interview, direct observational methods, and a trian-
gulation of methods rather than postal or internet survey (see
Woodside 2010).
This exposition includes theoretical tenants new to field of
fashion-marketing theory and research. Hopefully, this article
serve to stimulate future research and articles in the fashion
marketing literature that describe and explain real-life key suc-
cess and failure paths that fashion marketing executives create
in assessing and deciding on when creating new products and
services. Multiple models of configural thinking by executives
using CCA rather than modeling one to two models of com-
pensatory thinking using correlation-based methods likely repre-
sent a breakthrough in sense-making of the realities in the
thoughts, decisions, and actions by fashion marketing
executives.
(Received: Dec. 10, 2009)
(Revised: Feb. 12, 2010)
(Accepted: Feb. 20, 2010)
References
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2007). Winning busi-
nesses in product development: The critica success
factors. Research-Technology Management (http://www.
proddev.com/downloads/working_papers/wp_6.pdf);
downloaded on 10 December 2009.
Di Benedetto, C.A. (1999). Identifying the key success factors
in new product launch. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 16, 530-544.
Gladwin, C.H. (1989). Ethnographic decision tree modeling,
Newbury Park: Sage.
Griffin, A. and Page, A.L. (1993). An interim report on meas-
uring product development success and failure. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 10, 291-308.
Huff, A.S. (1990). Mapping Strategic Thought. Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1937). Some remarks on the typological pro-
cedures in social research. Zeitschrift fur
Sozialforschung, 6, 119-139.
McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview, Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
McKinsey Quarterly (2009). Cultivating innovation: An inter-
8 A.G. Woodside / Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1-1 (2009) 1-8

view with the CEO of a leading Italian design firm.
https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/ghost.aspx?ID=/Cultiv
ating_innovation_an_interview_with_the_CEO_of_a_
leading_Italian_design_firm_2299 (Downloaded on 10
December 2009).
Ragin, C.C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and
Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Woodside, A.G. (1996). Theory of rejecting superior new
technologies. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 11(3/4), 25-43.
Woodside, A.G. (2010), Bridging the chasm between survey
and case study research: Research methods for
achieving generalization, accuracy, and complexity.
Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (1) 64–75.