HRMARS - Innovation-driven brands are frequently perceived to achieve enhanced market performance due to their capacity to develop technologically advanced products. However, growing evidence indicates that innovation itself does not ensure commercial success, especially in dynamic and digitally intensive markets. This study examines a premium, engineering-driven technology brand known for its engineering excellence to understand why robust innovation capabilities do not always lead to improved market performance. This conceptual paper adopts a multi-theoretical perspective that integrates Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE), Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), and Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) to argue that the primary challenge lies in the misalignment between innovation and commercialisation between innovation and commercialization. The study specifically identifies five key areas of strategic misalignment: the tension between technology-push innovation and market readiness, the contrast between premium pricing and perceived value, the conflict between hardware-centric capabilities and competition within ecosystems, the dilemma of expanding into high-uncertainty domains versus effective market sensing, and the challenge of direct-to-consumer control in relation to distribution scale. The findings indicate that innovation-driven firms may underperform not because of a lack of technological capability, but rather due to inadequate alignment between their internal innovation processes and external market dynamics. This study enriches the branding and innovation literature by redefining innovation failure as an issue of strategic alignment instead of technological shortcomings. It also proposes a multi-theoretical framework to explain branding effectiveness in today’s markets. From a managerial perspective, the study emphasizes the importance of integrating customer perceptions, value co-creation, and adaptive capabilities to ensure that innovation effectively translates into sustainable commercial performance.
Suppermaniam et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: