Table has been satisfied, product sales decline

Table of Contents Introduction..

….

…

…..

…….

…

…..

……

…..

…….

….

……

……..

……..

……

….

……

…..

…

…

……

……..

….

……..

……..

2 An attractive theory…….

….

……..

……..

……

……

…..

……..

…….

……..

….

…

……

….

…..

…….

……

…….

……

…..

… 2 Conclusion…

…….

…..

…..

…

….

……..

….

….

…….

….

…

…..

…….

…

…

…

……

…

…

…….

…

…….

….

…..

….

……..

……

.. 4 References…..

……..

……..

…..

….

……

…….

…

…

…

…

…….

….

…..

…

….

….

…..

…

…….

……

…………………………… 5                    Introduction  The productlife-cycle theory is an economic theory that was developed by Raymond Vernon inresponse to the failure of the Heckscher-Ohlin model toexplain the observed pattern of internationaltrade. The theory suggests that early in a product’s life cycle allthe parts and labor associated with that product come from the area in which itwas invented. After the product becomes adopted and used in the world markets,production gradually moves away from the point of origin. In some situations,the product becomes an item that is imported by its original country ofinvention theory has always been a very ‘attractive theory’ to many students.This has been the case on occasions when a product is first introduced in aparticular country; it sees rapid growth in sales volume because market demandis unsatisfied. As more people who want the product buy it, demand and saleslevel off (Matsumoto, Masui, Fukushige, & Kondoh, 2017). When demand hasbeen satisfied, product sales decline to the level required for productreplacement. In international markets, the product life cycle accelerates dueto the presence of “follower” economies that rarely introduce innovationsbut quickly imitate the successes of others. They introduce low-cost versionsof the new product and precipitate a faster market saturation and decline. An attractive theory The great appeal of the product-cycle model among moststudents is its simplicity, deemphasizing comparative costs and reemphasizinginvention, the timing of innovation, and the effects of economies of scale(Giudice, La, & Risitano, 2016). In the early stages of the manufacture ofa new product (phase 1), price elasticity is postulated as being low and,therefore, of little locational consequence. At the same time, however, thecreation and introduction of these new products is seen to need freedom andflexibility in the sourcing of inputs, strong and swift communications withsuppliers, customers, and even competitors, and an affluent market that canafford these new and expensive products. For Vernon, the conditions necessaryfor the creation and introduction of new products are satisfied only in themetropolitan centres of advanced countries, especially in the United States of America(Giudice, La, & Risitano, 2016). The maturing of these products (phase 2)brings the first steps towards product standardization. The need forflexibility in input sourcing declines, economies of scale from mass productionbecome available, and, though concern for the costs of production begins toemerge, price competition may not have begun. Consequently, production may berelocated and decentralized within a country like the USA. Exporting to otheradvanced countries may precede overseas production in those countries, whichmay, in turn, expand to service markets in third countries. Beyond maturity isthe standardized product stage (phase 3), when there is strong pricecompetition, so that the potential for low-cost supply draws manufacturers toless developed countries (LDCs). The home country, where the innovationoriginated, then begins to reimport rather than export. There is an appealing logic to this thesis that derivesfrom its simplicity. At the same time, however, simplicity is also its greatestweakness. To the exclusion of almost all other considerations, the core of themodel revolves around technological change and its impact on investment decision-making.The foundation of the model is, therefore, technological determinism. Indeed,insofar as they are considered at all, other aspects of the economicsystem—supply, demand, labour, enterprise, and so on—are subordinated to thetechnical demands of producing goods of increasing vintage  (Giudice, La, & Risitano, 2016). Although the market is presumed to become increasinglycompetitive as a product matures, it is at all times seen to be able to absorball that is produced. There are no location-specific advantages for the supplyof inputs beyond a vague metropolitan bias in the initial stages of production(Thepot, 2015). It is also implicit within the model that inventions arecreated in their final form and that neither they nor their markets evolvethrough the cycle. What is more, the drive to achieve economies of scale inproduction is presumed to underscore progressive investment decision-making,leading invariably to the labor-intensive mass production of standardizedgoods. In short, the impact of technological change on organizationalstructure is assumed to be unidirectional (Thepot, 2015). Products, as theypass through the cycle, are also seen in isolation and not in relation to theevolution and development of other products, either in a market context ofcompetition and substitution or in an intrafirm context of cross-subsidizationand the allocation of scarce resources. Furthermore, in the model as proposedby Vernon (Sundin, 2015), the context of product-cycle development isambiguous. It is sector-based. More recent proponents of the model have emphasizedthe enterprise context within which the postulated processes must operate,through both the overseas development of multinational corporations (MNCs) andthe interregional relocation of production. However, in the original formulation,derived from neoclassical economics, this context is by no means as clear.Although, superficially, the product-cycle model is a simple andstraightforward explanation of spatial investment strategies adopted in theface of rapid technological change, it is perhaps more properly characterizedas disembodied, unilinear, technological determinism. Conclusion In conclusion, although the students knows that thedifferences will be happening if the product life cycle theory is applied todifferent types of products, they appreciates that it is important to themarketers. Product life cycle can show the strengths and weakness of a productso that the marketers can make a product successful and avoid loss throughanalyzing them. A good-managed product life cycle can also help a company orbrand maximize the profit and stay in the markets for a long time. On the otherhand, although the product life cycle theory seems that it just about productsand marketers, it has the communications between marketers and customers. Theinterests, needs and feedback from the customers are necessary to the productlife cycle . Because only the consumers have demand and they are interested inthe new products, the products can start their introduction, and marketers needto collect and analyze the feedback and then adjust and improve their productsto meet consumers’ needs in order to increase the sales and profits in thegrowth and maturity stages.       ReferencesGiudice,F., La, R. G., & Risitano, A. (2016). Productdesign for the environment: A life cycle approach. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor& Francis.  Life Cycle Environmental Strategies andConsiderations for Product Design. (206). ProductDesign for theEnvironment, 7(1), 217-250.doi:10.1201/9781420001044.ch9 Matsumoto, M., Masui, K., Fukushige, S.,& Kondoh, S. (2017). SustainabilityThrough Innovation in Product Life Cycle Design.  Sundin, E. (2015). Life-Cycle Perspectivesof Product/Service-Systems: In Design Theory. Introduction toProduct/Service-System Design, 6(2),31-49. doi:10.1007/978-184882-909-1_2 Thepot,J. (2015). An optimal controlcontribution to product life cycle theory. Brussel: European Institute for Advanced Studiesin Management.