“If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mousetrap than his neighbour, though he build his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door.“
This famous statement coined by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1855) circumscribes metaphorically that superior products will attract the costumers with no need of marketing or other involvement in order to sell. Irrespective of the inventor’s track of record or degree of popularity, people will hustle over to the inventor in order to buy the product.
This report will critically evaluate the validity of Emerson’s statement especially taking into account the highly dynamic and complexity of today’s business environment. Moreover the process of innovation incorporating a close analysis in terms of types of inventions, implementation processes and the significance of entrepreneurship and technology transfer will be considered when evaluating Emerson’s statement.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. INVENTIONS
3. INCREMENTAL AND RADICAL INVENTIONS
4. STRUGGLING INNOVATIONS AND MARKETING RELEVANCE
5. ENTREPRENEURSHIP
6. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
7. CONCLUSION
Objectives and Topics
This essay critically evaluates the validity of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s metaphorical statement that superior products automatically attract customers without the need for marketing or external involvement. By analyzing historical examples and established business models, the work demonstrates that product quality alone is rarely sufficient to ensure commercial success in today's complex business environment.
- The relationship between invention, innovation, and commercial success.
- The distinction between incremental and radical innovations within the innovation life cycle.
- The critical role of marketing and target group orientation in market penetration.
- The importance of entrepreneurship and proactive market implementation, illustrated by Thomas Edison.
- The necessity of effective technology transfer and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Excerpt from the Book
2 Inventions
When evaluating Emerson’s statement it is crucial incorporating the process of invention into the analysis and having a precise look at inventions, which support and discredit his statement determining, if and why those specific inventions made a beaten path for the world to the inventor’s door.
Having invented the ‘Loom Bands’ - coloured bands that can be twisted to bracelets - in 2011, Cheong Choon Ng now owns a £80 million worth business since ‘Learning Express Toys’ stocked his product in 2012 for the first time (Coles, 2014). His track of success can be summarised as follows:
At the time when Cheong Choon Ng noticed his children weaving elastic bands over their fingers to create bracelets, he had to realize that his fingers were too big to make his own bracelet (Coles, 2014). Adopting the idea of a ‘loom’, a technology known since the 15th Century from clothing trade, he used pins and a wooden stab to achieve equal or even better results than his two daughters. Developing a plastic version of the loom bands and setting up a business manufacturing them, Ng invested only $10.000 in his business (Coles, 2014). Richard Gottlieb, founder of Global Toys Consultants, states that there was no need to advertise this product as it started out in a specific geographical location and just spread from there driven by the ‘social network of the playground’ (Parkinson, 2014). Hence, it credits Emerson’s statement as the world made a beaten path to his door without any further involvement needed. Just its superiority led to success.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: The chapter introduces Emerson’s "better mousetrap" hypothesis and outlines the paper's intent to test this theory against the realities of modern, complex business environments.
2. INVENTIONS: This section contrasts successful product stories like "Loom Bands" with failed inventions to illustrate that while superior products can succeed, they do not guarantee market success.
3. INCREMENTAL AND RADICAL INVENTIONS: By applying the Utterback-Abernathy model, the author explains why radical innovations face higher uncertainty and how incremental improvements often lead to final commercial viability.
4. STRUGGLING INNOVATIONS AND MARKETING RELEVANCE: This chapter uses the case of LED streetlight technology to show that even clearly superior products can fail without effective marketing strategies and proper identification of decision-making processes.
5. ENTREPRENEURSHIP: This section integrates Burns’ innovation matrix to argue that high creativity without entrepreneurship leads to failure, highlighting Thomas Edison as a paradigm for successful entrepreneurial implementation.
6. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: The chapter explores the necessity of corporate R&D and academic-industry linkages, positing that inventions rarely emerge in isolation but rather within complex, collaborative structures.
7. CONCLUSION: The author concludes that Emerson’s statement is largely invalid, as commercial success requires a synthesis of invention, market analysis, marketing investment, and entrepreneurial leadership.
Keywords
Innovation Management, Emerson, Invention, Commercial Success, Entrepreneurship, Technology Transfer, Marketing Strategy, Radical Innovation, Incremental Innovation, Innovation Life Cycle, Diffusion of Innovations, Market Implementation, Business Dynamics, Competitive Advantage, R&D.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this essay?
The essay argues that Ralph Waldo Emerson’s classic assertion—that a superior product will automatically attract customers—is fundamentally flawed in modern business, as it ignores the critical necessity of marketing, entrepreneurship, and strategic implementation.
What are the primary themes addressed?
The central themes include the innovation process, the distinction between incremental and radical innovation, the role of marketing in high-tech environments, and the importance of entrepreneurial leadership.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to critically evaluate the validity of the "better mousetrap" statement by analyzing why some superior products fail while others succeed, specifically focusing on the transition from invention to market adoption.
Which scientific models are utilized in the analysis?
The paper uses the Utterback-Abernathy innovation life cycle model, the Burns innovation matrix, and the Bohlen/Rogers diffusion of innovation process to examine success factors.
What does the main body cover?
The main body examines the nature of inventions, differentiates between radical and incremental approaches, analyzes struggling innovations through real-world case studies, and explores the vital role of entrepreneurship and technology transfer.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Innovation Management, Commercial Success, Entrepreneurship, Technology Transfer, Marketing Strategy, and Innovation Life Cycle.
Why does the author use the example of "Loom Bands"?
The author uses "Loom Bands" as a rare instance where a product’s success seemingly supports Emerson’s theory, providing a balanced counterpoint to the failures discussed elsewhere in the essay.
How does the Thomas Edison case study support the author’s conclusion?
Edison serves as a paradigm for the "innovator" category in the Burns matrix, demonstrating that his success stemmed not just from the lightbulb invention, but from the entrepreneurial construction of the necessary power infrastructure to support it.
What conclusion is reached regarding modern corporations?
The author concludes that companies cannot rely on product superiority alone; they must engage in extensive market analysis, address complex stakeholder needs, and invest heavily in marketing to capture market share from competitors.
- Citation du texte
- Anonym (Auteur), 2014, Innovation Management and the better Mousetrap. A critical evaluation of Ralph Emmerson's work with reference to the complexity of today’s business environment, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/303059
