Developing an Internationalization Strategy Using Diffusion Modeling: The Case of Greater Amberjack
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a nice small and interesting paper with a highly relevant topic. I have some minor comments.
In the last line of the first page you mention the role of SUPPLY as a basic requirement. Mustn’t it be DEMAND?
Figure 1 is too small! Reading is not possible.
Please change the colours in figure 2, black and white printing is not clear.
Also figure 2, what is the dimension of the x-axis?
Last chapter: Normally it is first discussion and then conclusions. The discussion of your results against the existing literature is scarce. Please consider to extend.
Author Response
Fishes Manuscript ID: fishes-436463
Dear editor,
Thank you for the constructive feedback of you and the reviewer(s). We worked hard to implement changes as needed and provide a reply to each comment received below. Comments are listed below and summarized/numbered to facilitated clear communications on how we addressed each of them.
We thought the comments very useful and it has helped to really improve the paper and its contribution. We hope it now meets your standards.
Kind regards, also on behalf of the co-authors,
Ed Nijssen
Reviewer 1
This is a nice small and interesting paper with a highly relevant topic. I have some minor comments.
Answer: Thank you for you positive evaluation
Comments
In the last line of the first page you mention the role of SUPPLY as a basic requirement. Mustn’t it be DEMAND?
Answer: Thank you for offering the opportunity to clarify. Although constant, sustainable demand is also nice we do mean constant product supply. Supermarkets demand producers to really control production and thus supply. We made changes to the text accordingly, explaining the super market context and difference from seasonal products. We hope this mitigates the confusion.
2. Figure 1 is too small! Reading is not possible.
Answer: We understand your point but like to point out that this figure has only been added to give an impression of what the Internet page looked like. We do not intent that people can actually read the text. However, in response to your comment we made the figure a little bigger so that readers can make out the names of species on the products.
3. Please change the colours in figure 2, black and white printing is not clear.
Answer: Thank you for this valuable comment. We changed to shades of grey and use different styles to make things more clear. We made sure the different countries/lines were distinguishable. We hope this meets your standards.
4. Also figure 2, what is the dimension of the x-axis?
Answer: It is ‘years’ and was added in the figure.
5. Last chapter: Normally it is first discussion and then conclusions. The discussion of your results against the existing literature is scarce. Please consider to extend.
Answer: Thank you for this suggestion and advice. We tried to change the order of discussion and conclusion and extended the discussion as suggested. For example, we compare our approach to that of Kim et al. (2013) using expert interviews and discuss external validity issues. We remain open to further suggestions from your side.
Thank you for your feedback!
Reviewer 2
Your paper is interesting and holds valuable information about theoretical introduction of greater amberjack into the five most important European fish markets.
Answer: Thank you for your positive evaluation. We appreciate it.
Specific comments
However, there are several smaller and larger issues, which need to be addressed. One major design flaw is from my perspective the label "-15%" which was also assigned to the GA in the online shop, besides the label "new". Please explain why you can exclude, that the virtually sold volumes are not biased because of the special offer (artificially inflated sales volume).
Answer: Thank you for this important comment. We have taken the opportunity to better explain the issue and have altered the text to help readers better understand and appreciate the measures we took. The following text was added (see page 5 of the revised document):
“Since prior research has shown a positive impact of basic product information, tuna was communicated as a reference product for greater amberjack in the accompanying product information. The label ‘new’ was also presented in the accompanying product information of the ‘new’ greater amberjack fillet. Because the test would involve only a single encounter[2] and to account for a potential price discount during the first week(s) of introduction, a 15% discount was offered to half of the sample in each country. Price discounts at introduction are common and aim to stimulate trial. The aim of offering the discount to only half of the sample was to prevent overestimation of the adoption potential at the sample level. Any provider launching a new product should take all necessary measures to fuel trial because failure to create consumer interest will increase the chance of a supermarket deciding to discontinue the new product early or denying it shelf space all together. Interestingly, results showed only a limited and generally not significant impact of price discount on adoption, while in some cases a negative impact was even noted. This is consistent with observations that discounts may negatively affect quality perceptions of newly introduced products (Schuhmacher, Kuster and Hultink 2018).”
2 A real test market could run multiple weeks and allow for an introduction discount in e.g., week 1. Such test accounts for actual customer experience and repurchase behaviors. In the absence of farmed greater amber products to sell, the current virtual and online approach was chosen.
We hope this better explains the issue at hand as well as the nature of the experiment and underlying motivations for decisions taken and implemented.
2. Besides that, please see detailed comments in the manuscript. [we try to systematically list them here and provide brief answer on how we dealt with each comment, for your convenience. Please note that we summarized your comments and sometimes clustered them for matters of convenience and clarity. It has not been our intention to alter any comments.]
a. P.1-nr1 (and P2-nr3) Only genus and species names are written in italic. Use in abstract and then repeat first time in paper, and afterwards name it in text either as "greater amberjack" or as "S. dumerili" (in italic)
Answer: Done. Throughout the text we further use the name “greater amberjack”.
b. P.1 nr3. Please implement the journal’s reference style throughout the paper.
Answer: Done.
c. P.1 nr5. This should be demand instead of supply.
Answer: Sorry for the misunderstanding. It has been rephrased and clarified as follows (see revised manuscript p.1: “Although supermarkets can deal with seasonal products, they do require predictable and constant supply. Supermarkets set high production standards, thus constant product supply is a basic requirement for any farmer who wants to sell through supermarket channels. Accordingly, carefully selecting a firm’s initial launch and internationalization strategy becomes of utmost importance.”
d. P.2 nr3 Confusing text on market potential greater amberjack (is greater amberjack already available on the markets or are there potential markets available for selling?)
Answer: Corrected into “worldwide market potential” instead of “worldwide market availability”
e. P.2 nr5. Specify short time to market and size.
Answer: Done, including the reference to FAO report/website.
f. P.2 nr.7 statement would imply that firm should not enter if not able to keep up with market
Answer: We clarified this further, referring to the supermarket context that we focus on.
g. P.3 nr.2. Statement about preference for salt/fresh water fish in countries not true.
Answer: Thank you. We changed accordingly: “For instance, fresh water fish (e.g., trout) are more appreciated and popular in some countries and generally more readily consumed in areas where the fish has its natural habitat.”
h. P.4 nr.1. -15% price was present, which I consider a bias.
Answer: Please see above, i.e. our response to your comment 1.
i. P.4 nr.3 Tables caption above; figures below.
Answer: Done
j. P.4 nr 4. Reviewer 1 commented that fig.1 too small to read.
Answer: Please see response to R#1. The picture serves illustrative purposes only. Still we enlarges slightly the figure in response to this comment.
k. P.4 nr.6. Either first to try the new product of the ones who would go for the special offer because of -15% price reduction.
Answer: Sorry for this misunderstanding. It refers to a scale in survey to measure innovativeness. We reworded/tried to clarify better.
l. P.5 nr.1. Spain and Italy data do not add up to 100%.
Answer: Thank you. Corrected.
m. P.5 nr.2. Are these total assumed fish consumptions figures. They cannot be right?!
Answer: Thank you for this important point. It refers to EUMOFA household consumption data (in volume) in tonnes. We changed the label and corrected the measurement. Sorry for this mistake!
n. P.6 nr.2. EUROPA/EUMOFA, which reference?!
Answer: Corrected (the reference was EUMOFA indeed)
o. P.6 nr.3. This information should be provided before Table 1.
Answer: Done.
p. P.6 nr.5. ‘The’ instead of ‘our’.
Answer: Done.
q. P.6, nr7 and 9. What is the meaning of ‘*’?
Answer: Sorry for the misunderstanding it should have been ‘×’. Corrected.
r. P.7, nr.1. Reviewer #1 remarks lines in figure 2 not clear.
Answer: changed as requested. We think the black/white and different line types mitigates the problem.
s. P.7 nr.4 what is the dimension on x axis?
Answer: This should be years. We added this to the x axis.
t. P.8 nr.1 Reviewer #1 suggested reversing discussion/conclusion. Please consider extending discussion too.
Answer: Done and extended. Please for details see answer to Reviewer #1.
u. P.9 nr 1. Totally agree.
Answer: thank you!
Thank you very much for your constructive and helpful comment. We are very glad you helped us in correcting some mistakes in numbers!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
your paper is interesting and holds valuable information about theoretical introduction of greater amberjack into the five most important European fish markets.
However, there are several smaller and larger issues, which need to be adressed.
One major design flaw is from my perspective the label "-15%" which was also assigned to the GA in the online shop, besides the label "new". Please explain why you can exclude, that the virtually sold volumes are not biased because of the special offer (artificially inflated sales volume).
Besides that, please see detailed comments in the manuscript.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Fishes Manuscript ID: fishes-436463
Dear editor,
Thank you for the constructive feedback of you and the reviewer(s). We worked hard to implement changes as needed and provide a reply to each comment received below. Comments are listed below and summarized/numbered to facilitated clear communications on how we addressed each of them.
We thought the comments very useful and it has helped to really improve the paper and its contribution. We hope it now meets your standards.
Kind regards, also on behalf of the co-authors,
Ed Nijssen
Reviewer 1
This is a nice small and interesting paper with a highly relevant topic. I have some minor comments.
Answer: Thank you for you positive evaluation
Comments
In the last line of the first page you mention the role of SUPPLY as a basic requirement. Mustn’t it be DEMAND?
Answer: Thank you for offering the opportunity to clarify. Although constant, sustainable demand is also nice we do mean constant product supply. Supermarkets demand producers to really control production and thus supply. We made changes to the text accordingly, explaining the super market context and difference from seasonal products. We hope this mitigates the confusion.
2. Figure 1 is too small! Reading is not possible.
Answer: We understand your point but like to point out that this figure has only been added to give an impression of what the Internet page looked like. We do not intent that people can actually read the text. However, in response to your comment we made the figure a little bigger so that readers can make out the names of species on the products.
3. Please change the colours in figure 2, black and white printing is not clear.
Answer: Thank you for this valuable comment. We changed to shades of grey and use different styles to make things more clear. We made sure the different countries/lines were distinguishable. We hope this meets your standards.
4. Also figure 2, what is the dimension of the x-axis?
Answer: It is ‘years’ and was added in the figure.
5. Last chapter: Normally it is first discussion and then conclusions. The discussion of your results against the existing literature is scarce. Please consider to extend.
Answer: Thank you for this suggestion and advice. We tried to change the order of discussion and conclusion and extended the discussion as suggested. For example, we compare our approach to that of Kim et al. (2013) using expert interviews and discuss external validity issues. We remain open to further suggestions from your side.
Thank you for your feedback!
Reviewer 2
Your paper is interesting and holds valuable information about theoretical introduction of greater amberjack into the five most important European fish markets.
Answer: Thank you for your positive evaluation. We appreciate it.
Specific comments
However, there are several smaller and larger issues, which need to be addressed. One major design flaw is from my perspective the label "-15%" which was also assigned to the GA in the online shop, besides the label "new". Please explain why you can exclude, that the virtually sold volumes are not biased because of the special offer (artificially inflated sales volume).
Answer: Thank you for this important comment. We have taken the opportunity to better explain the issue and have altered the text to help readers better understand and appreciate the measures we took. The following text was added (see page 5 of the revised document):
“Since prior research has shown a positive impact of basic product information, tuna was communicated as a reference product for greater amberjack in the accompanying product information. The label ‘new’ was also presented in the accompanying product information of the ‘new’ greater amberjack fillet. Because the test would involve only a single encounter[2] and to account for a potential price discount during the first week(s) of introduction, a 15% discount was offered to half of the sample in each country. Price discounts at introduction are common and aim to stimulate trial. The aim of offering the discount to only half of the sample was to prevent overestimation of the adoption potential at the sample level. Any provider launching a new product should take all necessary measures to fuel trial because failure to create consumer interest will increase the chance of a supermarket deciding to discontinue the new product early or denying it shelf space all together. Interestingly, results showed only a limited and generally not significant impact of price discount on adoption, while in some cases a negative impact was even noted. This is consistent with observations that discounts may negatively affect quality perceptions of newly introduced products (Schuhmacher, Kuster and Hultink 2018).”
2 A real test market could run multiple weeks and allow for an introduction discount in e.g., week 1. Such test accounts for actual customer experience and repurchase behaviors. In the absence of farmed greater amber products to sell, the current virtual and online approach was chosen.
We hope this better explains the issue at hand as well as the nature of the experiment and underlying motivations for decisions taken and implemented.
2. Besides that, please see detailed comments in the manuscript. [we try to systematically list them here and provide brief answer on how we dealt with each comment, for your convenience. Please note that we summarized your comments and sometimes clustered them for matters of convenience and clarity. It has not been our intention to alter any comments.]
a. P.1-nr1 (and P2-nr3) Only genus and species names are written in italic. Use in abstract and then repeat first time in paper, and afterwards name it in text either as "greater amberjack" or as "S. dumerili" (in italic)
Answer: Done. Throughout the text we further use the name “greater amberjack”.
b. P.1 nr3. Please implement the journal’s reference style throughout the paper.
Answer: Done.
c. P.1 nr5. This should be demand instead of supply.
Answer: Sorry for the misunderstanding. It has been rephrased and clarified as follows (see revised manuscript p.1: “Although supermarkets can deal with seasonal products, they do require predictable and constant supply. Supermarkets set high production standards, thus constant product supply is a basic requirement for any farmer who wants to sell through supermarket channels. Accordingly, carefully selecting a firm’s initial launch and internationalization strategy becomes of utmost importance.”
d. P.2 nr3 Confusing text on market potential greater amberjack (is greater amberjack already available on the markets or are there potential markets available for selling?)
Answer: Corrected into “worldwide market potential” instead of “worldwide market availability”
e. P.2 nr5. Specify short time to market and size.
Answer: Done, including the reference to FAO report/website.
f. P.2 nr.7 statement would imply that firm should not enter if not able to keep up with market
Answer: We clarified this further, referring to the supermarket context that we focus on.
g. P.3 nr.2. Statement about preference for salt/fresh water fish in countries not true.
Answer: Thank you. We changed accordingly: “For instance, fresh water fish (e.g., trout) are more appreciated and popular in some countries and generally more readily consumed in areas where the fish has its natural habitat.”
h. P.4 nr.1. -15% price was present, which I consider a bias.
Answer: Please see above, i.e. our response to your comment 1.
i. P.4 nr.3 Tables caption above; figures below.
Answer: Done
j. P.4 nr 4. Reviewer 1 commented that fig.1 too small to read.
Answer: Please see response to R#1. The picture serves illustrative purposes only. Still we enlarges slightly the figure in response to this comment.
k. P.4 nr.6. Either first to try the new product of the ones who would go for the special offer because of -15% price reduction.
Answer: Sorry for this misunderstanding. It refers to a scale in survey to measure innovativeness. We reworded/tried to clarify better.
l. P.5 nr.1. Spain and Italy data do not add up to 100%.
Answer: Thank you. Corrected.
m. P.5 nr.2. Are these total assumed fish consumptions figures. They cannot be right?!
Answer: Thank you for this important point. It refers to EUMOFA household consumption data (in volume) in tonnes. We changed the label and corrected the measurement. Sorry for this mistake!
n. P.6 nr.2. EUROPA/EUMOFA, which reference?!
Answer: Corrected (the reference was EUMOFA indeed)
o. P.6 nr.3. This information should be provided before Table 1.
Answer: Done.
p. P.6 nr.5. ‘The’ instead of ‘our’.
Answer: Done.
q. P.6, nr7 and 9. What is the meaning of ‘*’?
Answer: Sorry for the misunderstanding it should have been ‘×’. Corrected.
r. P.7, nr.1. Reviewer #1 remarks lines in figure 2 not clear.
Answer: changed as requested. We think the black/white and different line types mitigates the problem.
s. P.7 nr.4 what is the dimension on x axis?
Answer: This should be years. We added this to the x axis.
t. P.8 nr.1 Reviewer #1 suggested reversing discussion/conclusion. Please consider extending discussion too.
Answer: Done and extended. Please for details see answer to Reviewer #1.
u. P.9 nr 1. Totally agree.
Answer: thank you!
Thank you very much for your constructive and helpful comment. We are very glad you helped us in correcting some mistakes in numbers!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
you have significantly improved the mansucript and replied to the issues and questions accordingly and satisfactorily.
Kind regards
