Purpose – Despite the increasing sophistication of new product development (NPD) research, the reliance on traditional approaches to studying NPD has left several areas in need of further research. The authors propose addressing some of these gaps, especially the limited focus on consumer brands, evaluation criteria used across different project‐review points in the NPD process, and the distinction between “kills”, “successes”, and “failures”. Moreover, they propose investigating how screening criteria change across project‐review points, using real‐time NPD projects. Design/methodology/approach – A postal survey generated 172 usable questionnaires from a sample of European, North American, Far Eastern and Australian consumer packaged‐goods firms, providing data on 314 new product projects covering different development and post‐commercialization review points. Findings – The results confirm that acceptance‐rejection criteria vary through the NPD process. However, financial criteria dominate across all the project‐review points. Initial screening is coarse, focusing predominantly on financial criteria. Fit with organizational, product, brand, promotional, and market requirements dominate in the detailed screen and pre‐development evaluation points. At pre‐launch, decision‐makers focus on product, brand, and promotional criteria. Commercial fit, production synergies, and reliability of the firm's market intelligence are significant discriminators in the post‐launch review. Moreover, the importance of marketing and channel issues makes the criteria for screening brands different from those of industrial markets. Originality/value – The study, although largely descriptive and involves a relatively small sample of consumer goods firms, offers new insights into NPD project evaluation behavior. Future, larger‐scale investigations covering a broader spectrum of consumer product sectors are needed to validate our results and to explain the reasons behind managers' decisions.
