Journal of Product Innovation Management
Special Issue Call for Papers:
Radical Innovation in the Creative Industries
Manuscript submission deadline: December 31, 2026
Guest Editors:
• Roberto Verganti (Stockholm School of Economics, roberto.verganti@hhs.se)
• Joris Ebbers (Luiss Business School, joris.ebbers@luissbusinessschool.nl)
• Thorsten Hennig-Thurau (University of Münster, tht@wiwi.uni-muenster.de)
• Gerda Gemser (University of Melbourne)
• Paola Bellis (Politecnico di Milano, paola.bellis@polimi.it)
Background
The creative industries have received increasing attention in business journals. However, there is limited theoretical understanding of innovation in the creative industries, and particularly about more radical types of innovation.
Extant studies on the creative industries typically examine creative production (e.g., how a new
song, film, or video game is created) or the commercial success of the resulting creative outcomes that are relatively standard or, at best, incrementally novel. However, knowledge on the emergence and customer acceptance of more radically new creative outcomes (e.g., a new musical genre, a breakthrough film experience, novel product design) and how to create and market these is underdeveloped. This lack of knowledge is unfortunate since innovation tends to be a source of competitive longevity for the creative industries (Jones et al., 2016). The purpose of this special issue is to remedy this knowledge gap. We are particularly interested in research that explores radically new creative outcomes and how they emerge and diffuse.
There is a lack of consensus of what radical innovation, beyond regular creative production,
entails in the creative industries. In prior research on outcomes in the creative industries, distinctions have been made between, for example, typical versus atypical creative outcomes (e.g., Askin and Mauskapf, 2017; Celhay and Trinquecoste, 2015, Cutolo and Ferriani 2024; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998); or alignment versus being a complete departure from existing conventions or traditions of the creative field or sector involved (Becker, 1982; Castañer and Campos, 2002; Cancellieri et al., 2022). For this special issue, we are particularly interested in creative outcomes that, following Becker (1982), represent a departure from the existing conventions in the creative sector or field involved.
Below, we describe the aims and scope of the special issue and illustrative subthemes in more
depth. However, before doing so, we will briefly reflect on the concept of creative industries. This concept is, like innovation, neither uniformly defined nor operationalized. We take a relatively broad stance and will use the term “creative industries” in an inclusive sense, referring to sectors normally referred to as cultural, next to those labelled as creative. We are interested in research on sectors such as literature, music, performing arts, visual arts, film, photography, sound recording, television and radio, publishing and print media, advertising, architecture, design, and fashion. We are also open to sectors that have gained recognition for their ‘artistry’ in recent times, such as haute cuisine or video games (e.g., Svejenova et al. 2007; Petruzzelli and Savino, 2014; Tschang, 2007; Marchand and Hennig-Thurau, 2013).
Aims and scope
This special issue seeks to reposition innovation at the core of research on creative industries. We specifically ask:
How do radical innovations in the creative industries emerge and become successful?
A better understanding of the emergence and success of radical innovations will help organizations in creative industries to remain competitive. The generated knowledge might also be of relevance to organizations in non-creative industries which seek to integrate (more) symbolic, aesthetic, or experiential value in their offerings (Lampel et al., 2000). To generate relevant insights, this special issue calls for theoretical and empirical papers specifically focused on radical innovation in creative industries and its pillars. We aim to catalyze a dialogue among scholars who explore the creative industries through the lens of innovation theory and practice. At a time when transformations are actively unfolding, from both technological and non-technological perspectives, this special issue invites contributions that not only advance theoretical insights but also engage with the empirical richness of the moment.
While our focus is on radical creative outcomes, research that explains these creative outcomes
by examining underlying creative processes and new technologies (like artificial intelligence) is
also considered relevant. Furthermore, research on how to overcome possible consumer adoption barriers and create market acceptance for radical creative outcomes falls within the scope of this special issue as well. In terms of level of analysis, we are particularly interested in studies that examine the individual, team, firm, and network level studies as well as interaction between these levels, which result in robust implications for innovation management. Considering the aims and scope of JPIM, we are less interested in country- or regional level studies that lack concrete implications for innovation management.
In terms of substantive topics, an illustrative but not comprehensive set of possibilities includes:
In terms of new creative outcomes:
We aim for manuscripts that examine more in-depth what constitutes or characterizes radical creative outcomes (versus regular creative production) in the creative industries, how radical innovation in these industries may be measured effectively, and what is their impact on business success (financial or non-financial). In addition, we seek manuscripts on determinants of success of radical innovation. Research on optimal distinctiveness for example suggests that under specific conditions there may (not) be a need to balance between maintaining continuity and novelty to optimize performance (e.g., Alvarez et al., 2005; Askin and Mauskapf, 2017; Blijlevens et al., 2012; Haans, 2012). Other research suggests that very novel creative outcomes may be very influential, setting a trend or being highly inspirational for peers, but not necessarily be very successful from a financial perspective, or suggests that performance benefits might only effectuate in the longer term (e.g., Heath et al. 2015).
In terms of the process of creating new creative outcomes:
We welcome manuscripts that seek to understand the process and related factors and actors enabling radical innovation in the creative industries. Put differently, we welcome studies on processes, factors and actors that generate radically innovative creative outcomes, whereas studies on regular creative production are outside of the scope of this special issue.
We invite studies on, for example, the use of new digital technologies (e.g., AI, extended realities) during creative production, but only if this use is linked to substantially novel creative outcomes and not mere substitution or augmentation of existing creative practices. We also invite studies on leadership or management approaches that support or obstruct the emergence of radical creative output compared to outcomes that constitute incremental change (e.g., Ebbers and Wijnberg, 2017; Gemser et al., 2023; Mainemelis et al. 2015). Furthermore, we are interested in studies that examine specific organizational practices or routines that open (or close) pathways for radically new creative outcomes (e.g., Islam et al, 2016). The innovation process might also be studied over time, for example to examine how the process moves new creative outcomes (in terms of, e.g., a new genre or style) from emerging to established (e.g. Montanari et al., 2016). Next to creative leaders, there may be other influential key actors to study (e.g., Mollick, 2012). Examples are “misfits” or outsiders who do not abide by extant conventions who may facilitate (or obstruct) the creation of radical creative outcomes (Becker, 1982; Jones et al., 2016).
In terms of market acceptance and diffusion of new creative outcomes:
We encourage scholarly work that examines the practices and approaches from radical creative
exploration to consumer, market and societal resonance. Particularly with radical creative outcomes, there seems to be a need for organizations to ‘prepare’ the market (Verganti, 2008, 2009) and teach audiences about the new artefact or experience (Becker, 1982). Studies can examine, for example, communicative approaches that are helpful to overcome concerns by consumers, which may, for example, include effective story telling (e.g., Cutolo and Ferriani, 2024). In addition, studies can examine word of mouth and advertising and how effective communication for creative outcomes might differ between incremental and radical ones. Studies could also further explore distribution strategies and particularly the role of new (digital) technology that could be a source of radical innovation and facilitate market acceptance (e.g. Behrens et al., 2024): for example, 360-degree films that can be watched on high-immersive devices and have become an element of major film festivals (e.g., Compétition Immersive at Cannes).
We also hope to receive manuscripts on the role of gatekeepers such as critics and curators and their role in recognizing, legitimizing, and diffusing radically new creative outcomes (e.g., Becker, 1982; Caves, 2000; Hirsch, 1972; Wijnberg and Gemser, 2000). Interestingly, the social system of recognition and legitimization for innovation in the creative industries seems increasingly disrupted by the rise of digital platforms such as Spotify and Netflix, which transform how audiences interact with creative content. Where human gatekeepers traditionally mediated creative value by highlighting originality and promoting novel work, these functions are increasingly performed by algorithmic recommender systems (Idiz et al, 2021). This also appears to influence genres, which are repurposed from markers of innovation (e.g., Lena and Peterson, 2008) to predictive tools for personalization. These developments could be further explored, with a focus on radical innovation and its ways of diffusion. Again, these developments point to the important role new (digital) technology may have in market acceptance and diffusion of radical novel outcomes and we welcome manuscripts that further explore this role.
The above topics should serve as an inspiration – we are also open to papers that address other dimensions of radically new outcomes in the creative industries. Furthermore, we are open to papers using all different methodological approaches (qualitative, quantitative, conceptual, mixed methods) and different theories or theoretical frameworks or approaches (e.g., institutional logics, paradox theory, selection system theory, pragmatism, etc.) to frame the research and theorize on implications.
Submission process and workshop
Manuscripts must be submitted via the Research Exchange platform, with an indication that the submission is intended for the Creative Industries SI. Manuscripts should conform to the general JPIM author guidelines. Each submission will be handled by one of the guest editors who will identify and assign reviewers. Final decisions on acceptance/rejections will be made by the CoEditor-in-Chiefs. We aim to reach a final recommendation within two rounds of reviews.
The paper submission deadline is: 31 December 2026, with an anticipated publication date in the Summer/ Fall of 2028 (see below for overview of key dates).
Furthermore, we intend to hold an in-person paper development workshop at the Stockholm School of Economics (Sweden), early June 2026. This will be by invitation only and based on paper proposals to be submitted early February 2026 (see below for details). Participation in the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of the paper in the special issue, and attendance is not a prerequisite for publication.
We welcome informal inquiries about the special issue, proposed topics, and potential fit with the special issue objectives. Please direct any questions on the special issue to the special issue editors (see above for email addresses)
Review process timeline
● Call for papers announced: September 2025
● Paper proposal deadline for in-person workshop, Stockholm School of Economics (5 pages, single-spaced, excluding references): Monday 09 February 2026 (optional)
● Decision on paper proposal for in-person workshop, Stockholm School of Economics (if applicable): 09 March 2026
● In-person workshop (by invitation only, based on paper proposal submitted): 08-09 June 2026, Stockholm School of Economics (optional)
● Submission due date for final papers: December 31, 2026
● First round decisions: Early April 2027
● First revision due date: Early August 2027
● Second round decisions: Early December 2027
● Second round due date: Early April 2028
● Anticipated Publication: Summer/Fall 2028
References
Alvarez, José Luis, Carmelo Mazza, Jesper Strandgaard Pedersen, and Silviya Svejenova. "Shielding idiosyncrasy from isomorphic pressures: Towards optimal distinctiveness in European filmmaking." Organization 12, no. 6 (2005): 863-888.
Askin, Noah, and Michael Mauskapf. "What makes popular culture popular? Product features and optimal differentiation in music." American Sociological Review 82, no. 5 (2017): 910-944.
Becker, Howard. S. Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982.
Behrens, Ronny, Ann-Kristin Kupfer, and Thorsten Hennig-Thurau. "There is business like show business! What marketing scholars and managers can learn from 40 years of entertainment science research." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024): 1-21.
Blijlevens, Janneke, Gerda Gemser, and Ruth Mugge. "The importance of being ‘well-placed’: The influence of context on perceived typicality and esthetic appraisal of product appearance." Acta Psychologica 139, no. 1 (2012): 178-186.
Cancellieri, Giulia, Gino Cattani, and Simone Ferriani. "Tradition as a resource: Robust and radical interpretations of operatic tradition in the Italian opera industry, 1989–2011." Strategic Management Journal 43, no. 13 (2022): 2703-2741.
Castañer, Xavier, and Lorenzo Campos. "The determinants of artistic innovation: Bringing in the role of organizations." Journal of Cultural Economics 26, no. 1 (2002): 29-52.
Caves, Richard E. Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Harvard University Press, 2000.
Celhay, Franck, and Jean François Trinquecoste. "Package graphic design: Investigating the variables that moderate consumer response to atypical designs." Journal of Product Innovation Management 32, no. 6 (2015): 1014-1032.
Cutolo, Donato, and Simone Ferriani. "Now it makes more sense: How narratives can help atypical actors increase market appeal." Journal of Management 50, no. 5 (2024): 1599-1642.
Ebbers, Joris J., and Nachoem M. Wijnberg. “Betwixt and between: Role conflict, role ambiguity and role definition in project-based dual-leadership structures.” Human Relations 70, no. 11 (2017): 1342-1365.
Gemser, Gerda, Giulia Calabretta, and Eric Quint. "Leadership to Elevate Design at Scale: balancing conflicting imperatives." California Management Review 65, no. 3 (2023): 48-72.
Haans, Richard FJ. "What's the value of being different when everyone is? The effects of distinctiveness on performance in homogeneous versus heterogeneous categories." Strategic Management Journal 40, no. 1 (2019): 3-27.
Heath, Timothy B., Subimal Chatterjee, Suman Basuroy, Thorsten Hennig-Thurau, and Bruno Kocher. "Innovation sequences over iterated offerings: A relative innovation, comfort, and stimulation framework of consumer responses." Journal of Marketing 79, no. 6 (2015): 71-93.
Hirsch, Paul. “Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems.” American Journal of Sociology (1972). 639-659
Idiz, Daphne R., Kristina Irion, Joris Ebbers, and Rens Vliegenthart. "European audiovisual media policy in the age of global video on demand services: A case study of Netflix in the Netherlands." Journal of Digital Media & Policy 12, no. 3 (2021): 425-449.
Islam, Gazi, Nada Endrissat, and Claus Noppeney. "Beyond ‘the eye’of the beholder: Scent innovation through analogical reconfiguration." Organization Studies 37, no. 6 (2016): 769-795.
Jones, Candace, Silviya Svejenova, Jesper Strandgaard Pedersen, and Barbara Townley. "Misfits, mavericks and mainstreams: Drivers of innovation in the creative industries." Organization Studies 37, no. 6 (2016): 751-768.
Lampel, Joseph, Theresa Lant, and Jamal Shamsie. "Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural industries." Organization Science 11, no. 3 (2000): 263-269.
Lena, Jennifer C., and Richard A. Peterson. "Classification as culture: Types and trajectories of music genres." American Sociological Review 73, no. 5 (2008): 697-718.
Mainemelis, Charalampos, Ronit Kark, and Olga Epitropaki. "Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization." Academy of Management Annals 9, no. 1 (2015): 393-482.
Marchand, André, and Thorsten Hennig-Thurau. "Value creation in the video game industry: Industry economics, consumer benefits, and research opportunities." Journal of Interactive Marketing 27, no. 3 (2013): 141-157.
Mollick, Ethan. "People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in firm performance." Strategic Management Journal 33, no. 9 (2012): 1001-1015.
Montanari, Fabrizio, Annachiara Scapolan, and Martina Gianecchini. "‘Absolutely free’? The role of relational work in sustaining artistic innovation." Organization Studies 37, no. 6 (2016): 797-
821.
Petruzzelli, Antonio Messeni, and Tommaso Savino. "Search, recombination, and innovation: Lessons from haute cuisine." Long Range Planning 47, no. 4 (2014): 224-238
Svejenova, Silviya, Carmelo Mazza, and Marcel Planellas. "Cooking up change in haute cuisine: Ferran Adrià as an institutional entrepreneur." Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, no. 5 (2007): 539-561.
Tschang, F. Ted. "Balancing the tensions between rationalization and creativity in the video games industry." Organization Science 18, no. 6 (2007): 989-1005.
Verganti, Roberto. "Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda." Journal of Product Innovation Management 25, no. 5 (2008): 436-456.
Verganti, Roberto, Design-Driven Innovation, Harvard Business Press, 2009.
Veryzer Jr, Robert W., and J. Wesley Hutchinson. "The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs." Journal of Consumer Research 24, no. 4 (1998): 374-394.
Wijnberg, Nachoem M., and Gerda Gemser. "Adding value to innovation: Impressionism and the transformation of the selection system in visual arts." Organization Science 11, no. 3 (2000):
323-329.