co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation
DESCRIPTION
Addition to the literature review 'The co-creative consumer'. This article explores key findings of eight in-depth interviews.TRANSCRIPT
Co-creation in practice
Exploring practitioner views on co-creation
Key findings of eight in-depth interviews
This article is an addition to the author’s literature review ‘The co-creative consumer’
Draft version: 30th March 2011 Final corrections: 18th April 2011 Course: ECH- 80424 Program: Management, Economics and Consumer studies Student: Joyce van Dijk Reg.nr: 841018208030 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Gerrit Antonides Institution: Wageningen University Grade: 9 (out of 10)
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 2
Preface
This article is written in addition to a two-month literature study on the topic of co-creation. Next to
the theoretical findings, this article contains viewpoints from people that are dealing with co-
creation in their daily business practices. These practitioners offer interesting insights into the
concept of co-creation, benefits, success factors, risks and challenges. Furthermore, the article
provides a viewpoint on the influence of co-creation on consumer preferences and attitudes. This is
especially relevant for my MSc thesis, where I will further explore the influence of co-creation on
consumer attitudes. First and foremost I would like to thank the eight people that participated in the
interviews; Johannes Gebauer, Ingrid de Laat, Tom de Ruyck, Johan Sanders, Martijn van Kesteren,
Ruurd Priester, Michael Blankert and Will Reijnders. All of them have been very enthusiastic, patient
and helpful throughout the whole research process. They have been very willing to share their time
and offer me insights in to their expertise, views and feedback. I learned a lot in each interview and
the participants were open to any questions or comments I additionally made. Since the space on
this page is entirely reserved for a preface anyway, I would like to write a little word about each of
the participants. To start with Tom de Ruyck, with whom I had a very fruitful interview, as it resulted
in a sponsorship offer for my MSc thesis experiment. I am very happy with his confidence and I am
looking forward to working together on this with Insites Consulting. Also I am happy that Johannes
Gebauer was open to getting interviewed via the internet, because I wouldn’t have been able to
meet him in Germany. Johan Sanders offered me interesting insights into innovation management
and I attended one of his university lectures to learn more. The interview with Martijn van Kesteren
was fun, he decided to play a game and we co-created a drawing together. Michael Blankert shared
some of his interesting plans for the future and gave me something to take home: the new crisps
‘Patatje Joppie.’ Ingrid de Laat had already welcomed me in her office once before to discuss the
topic of co-creation, and was again willing to spend an hour of her time talking with me outside her
working hours. I also want to thank Ruurd Priester and Will Reijnders for being flexible with their
time and providing me with an interesting interview, even after their unplanned change in schedule.
Furthermore, I would like to thank all the people that have helped to get me in touch with the
participants, and of course my supervisor Gerrit Antonides, who motivates and inspires me.
Looking forward to talking to you again!
Joyce van Dijk
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 3
Table of Contents
Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Research method ............................................................................................................................ 4
Participants ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Key findings ............................................................................................................................................ 6
I The role of co-creation ................................................................................................................ 6
II Benefits from co-creation ........................................................................................................... 7
III Visions on success factors ........................................................................................................... 9
IV Challenges and misunderstandings .......................................................................................... 11
V Reactions to the MSc thesis research on co-creation ............................................................... 13
VI Overview of the findings ........................................................................................................... 16
Limitations and suggestions for further research ................................................................................. 17
More information ................................................................................................................................. 18
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 4
Introduction
This article elaborates on the most interesting findings that surfaced during exploratory expert
interviews about the concept of co-creation. The interviews were conducted by the author as
preliminary research for an MSc Thesis about the effect of co-creation on consumer attitudes toward
co-created products. The data helps gaining insight into the concept and development of co-creation
from a practitioner’s point of view. The participants address benefits of co-creation, as well as
challenges and pitfalls they have come across or experienced in their working environment.
Furthermore, they give their opinion on the author’s MSc thesis draft proposal and provide some
useful feedback and comments.
Research method
Prior to the interviews, an extensive literature review was conducted to gain a broad set of
knowledge about the concept of co-creation. This article forms the basis for the set-up of the
interview questions. The aim of the interviews is to get more insight into the practical meaning and
implications of co-creation.
The eight participants have been selected based on experience, expertise and practical
knowledge of co-creation. Three participants are from multinational firms in the consumer goods
sectors, which have experimented with co-creation. Four participants are from agencies that serve
different clients in developing and executing co-creation projects. In addition, there is also an
academic with extensive marketing research experience.
The interviews were conducted throughout February and March of 2011 as described in the
table below (for personal descriptions see next page). The interviews lasted on average one hour
and were conducted in Dutch, except for the interview with Johannes Gebauer, which was
conducted in English. All interviews were recorded on audiotape, then transcribed by the author and
the final transcription was checked and agreed upon by the participants.
The Dutch data from the interviews is translated by the author. Full transcriptions are available on
request and with agreement of the participants.
Table 1: Description of the conducted interviews
Participant Employer Date Standard time Location
Johannes Gebauer HYVE 10th
February 9.00-10.00 Via Skype (internet)
Ingrid de Laat RedesignMe 11th
February 11.15-12.15 Via Skype, after a prior meeting at the office in Eindhoven
Tom de Ruyck Insites Consulting
16th
February 10.15-11.30 Insites Consulting head office in Ghent, Belgium
Johan Sanders Sara Lee 17th
February 9.30-10.30 Sara Lee head office in Utrecht
Martijn van Kesteren Unilever 23th
February 10.15-11.15 A cafeteria in Utrecht
Ruurd Priester Lost Boys 1st
March 10.45-12.00 LostBoys head office in Amsterdam
Michael Blankert PepsiCo 2nd
March 16.00-17.00 PepsiCo head office in Utrecht
Will Reijnders TiasNimbas 9th
March 10.30-11.30 TiasNimbas office in Tilburg
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 5
Participants
Firms
Michael Blankert, Consumer Engagement Manager at PepsiCoi. Blankert was actively
involved in the first PepsiCo co-creation-type campaign in Holland; Lay’s ‘Maak de Smaakii’.
This cross-media project was an open call to all Dutch consumers to come-up with a new
flavour. The campaign is now one of the biggest and best-known co-creation/crowdsourcing
campaigns in Holland, and won the 2010 NIMA awardiii
for customer-oriented
entrepreneurship.
Martijn van Kesteren, Consumer Insights Manager at Unileveriv. Within Unilever Van
Kesteren consults on marketing strategy and market research within the product categories
ice-cream and beverages. He was involved in e.g. an online research community for Ben &
Jerry’s fansv, aimed at connecting and generating new consumer insights.
Johan Sanders is Innovation Manager at Sara Leevi. Sanders was indirectly involved in co-
creation projects for Senseo coffeevii
and Pickwick teaviii
. The Pickwick ‘Dutch Blend’,
launched in October 2010, was the result of a collaboration between Pickwick-Hyves
members and experts from the firm. The co-creation aspect was communicated in the
nationwide advertising campaign.
Agencies
Ingrid de Laat, Co-creation Consultant at RedesignMeix; an agency specialized in co-creation
to generate new insights, product ideas or designs. De Laat translates firm’s challenges to
creative assignments for teams of consumers and experts. RedesignMe works with firms
such as Sara Lee, Albert Heijn, Honig and Schiphol.
Ruurd Priester, Strategy Director at Lost Boys International (LBi)x; a full-service agency
that creates online strategies and campaigns for client firms such as Anne Frank Stichting,
ANWB, Interpolis en Nuon. Priester’s starting point is user-centred thinking and focusing
on creating complete consumer experiences.
Tom de Ruyck, Sr. R&D Manager at Insites Consultingxi; a full-service marketing consultancy
and research agency. De Ruyck is an expert on innovative research methods such as chat,
blog research, online brainstorms and co-creation communities. He has worked on co-
creation projects for Kraft Foods, Telenet, Friesland Campina and Heinz.
Johannes Gebauer, Team Manager of the HYVE Innovation Communityxii
. HYVE is a
German innovation agency that constructs, manages and engages online communities in
firms’ innovation processes. Gebauer has done consumer involvement projects for e.g.
Henkel, Tchibo and Swarovski.
Academic
Prof. dr. Will Reijnders, professor and director of the Executive Master of Marketing
Program at TiasNimbas Business Schoolxiii
. Besides that, Reijnders takes part in supervisory
boards for various institutions and is a management consultant. His expertise is mainly on
strategic marketing issues such as client value creation and cross channel marketing
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 6
Key findings
I The role of co-creation
The concept of co-creation
Participants agree that ‘co-creation’ is a term that is connected to a broad spectrum of consumer
involvement in innovation, research and marketing projects. It is also often referred to as a ‘hyped’
terminology, a popular modern marketing term.
De Ruyck distinguishes between two categories of co-creation; co-creation in the narrow
sense and co-creation in the broad sense. In the narrow sense it concerns close collaboration
between firms and consumers to generate new product ideas. Co-creation in the broad sense
comprises only specific aspects of product development or innovation processes. “This is what we do
quite a lot, and it is often aimed at product improvement, such as packaging,” De Ruyck explains.
One reason that co-creation in the broad sense is applied more often can be that it is relatively easy
to implement in traditional processes.
Priester also distinguishes between types of co-creation and identifies (1) process co-
creation, involving designing or and developing a product or service; (2) service-related co-creation;
focused on interaction and consumer feedback; and the more intensive (3) co-creation of campaigns.
He illustrates the latter type by referring to an online campaign for Zwitsal baby care productsxiv. The
goal was to start an online conversation with (future) moms. Priester: “On the website they can
exchange experiences, get answers to their questions, watch videos about childcare and ask Zwitsal
experts for advice.”
Van Kesteren sees co-creation in the purest sense as a collaboration between consumers
and companies aimed at addressing relevant needs. However, he argues, the term is often used as a
‘buzz’ word and some companies place too much responsibility on consumers. Van Kesteren: “You
should not expect consumers to independently come up with an innovative and relevant solution.”
He stresses co-creation should always be a joint collaboration and companies should provide
relevant inputs and concepts, such that consumers can effectively respond to this.
Gebauer states that co-creation is sometimes misjudged by firms as a marketing tool,
something that can be used to enhance sales. He argues that this desired marketing effect can only
result from a true authentic collaboration between firms and consumers. “If there is no authenticity
and selling is the main goal of the firm, consumers will sense this and the co-creation will fail,”
Gebauer says.
A changing landscape
The participants were asked to provide their visions on the current consumer-producer relations and
whether these have changed throughout the last decade. The participants agree that nowadays
firms have to be more transparent in their information provision. They need to justify whatever they
claim in order to convince consumers. This is often linked to internet savvy consumers who are
highly informed and scrutinize information.
Gebauer notes that consumers are also more personally engaged in brands and products.
“Consumers are now suddenly in charge and consider brands and products as ‘their own’ property,
to state it provocatively,” Gebauer explains. Participants are well aware that firms that don’t live up
to their promises or consumer expectations, run the risk of being criticized in the mass media.
Priester underlines the importance of connected online networks: “(…) you end up in a
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 7
network of consumers and producers. By means of co-creation you jointly generate value. You use
the network to test ideas and to show what the firm is doing.”
Reijnders has high expectations of the future role of co-creation, although he notes that in
practice changes happen quite slowly and a lot still needs to happen. “Firms are in general still quite
process- and product oriented,” he notes. Reijnders argues that orientation differs per sector and
once the pressure increases firms often become more alert and externally oriented.” He sees co-
creation as a logical consequence of e.g. the current buyer’s market—with a surplus of products and
firms often competing on price—and commoditization, making it difficult for consumers to
differentiate between products. Firms have to focus on creating a more long-term competitive
advantage by being consumer-centric and providing the best service and experiences. “New routes
have to be developed to get closer to the consumer, and co-creation is one of these routes,”
Reijnders argues.
II Benefits from co-creation
Firm related benefits
Participants agree that when co-creation is applied successfully, it can have different positive
influences and effects. One benefit is that interacting with consumers and getting their inputs and
feedback can inspire firms in their product development. Blankert: “Involving consumers generates a
richness of ideas: the winning flavor in our Maak de Smaak campaign, Patatje Joppie, was something
we would never have come up with ourselves.”
Van Kesteren notes that a long-term collaboration, e.g. via an online consumer community,
offers more iteration possibilities. There is a longer lasting dialogue, more room to react on feedback
and more time to think about the matters that are discussed. Van Kesteren: “It feels like having a
direct ‘lifeline’ with consumers, you can ask questions instantly.”
Co-creating with enthusiastic brand fans positively influences the internal team (Blankert,
Van Kesteren, Sanders). “Having conversations with these highly involved consumers gives a positive
energy boost to the internal team,” Van Kesteren says.
Priester elaborates on the benefits co-creation can have for firms: “You return to the core of
added value; consumer value and experience. You reduce costs by having a direct dialogue with
consumers (…) and create a more ‘lean and mean’ organization.” When firms succeed in developing
more relevant products, Priester argues this creates a ‘pull’ market and firms can reduce marketing
budgets.
Sanders explains co-creation also positively affects the innovation process: “You work
according to a tight schedule with predetermined deadlines and this makes the innovation process
more tangible,” he argues.
Consumer related benefits
Throughout the interviews it is pointed out that consumers in turn also benefit from co-creation.
Their involvement allows them to influence and contribute to product development, they can
directly communicate needs and evaluate ideas. Besides that, co-creation is also a fun activity:
“consumers feel in charge and empowered, which results in a feeling of joy,” as Gebauer states. “At
the same time firms can build a strong and positive relationship with consumers, since both parties
spend a lot of time and effort,” according to Gebauer.
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 8
In the case of RedesignMe co-creators can also be professionals, and they can benefit by
working flexible hours and earning money for their contributions. De Laat: “Our community offers
beginning designers and marketers the opportunity to gain experience and to demonstrate their
skills.” Practicing creative skills and gaining experience can be beneficial to consumers’ personal or
professional development.
Product and brand related benefits
All participants agree that co-creation can enhance relevance of the product for consumers, and
makes products more suited to future needs. By constantly interacting with their target group firms
can retrieve and implement up-to-date information. “It is no longer about products, but about
creating a superior experience,” Priester argues. “It requires exactly knowing in what way you can be
relevant to the consumer,” he adds. De Laat explains another reason why consumer involvement can
result in a better product. “Co-creation can enhance the balance between a product design and its
functionality,” she argues.
Participants agree that new products resulting from co-creative processes can positively
affect brand perception, and create an open and empathic brand image. “Chances increase that you
generate brand value and brand preference,” Priester argues. “Consumers feel more involved with
the firm, are better able to identify themselves with the brand and have the feeling their feedback is
taken seriously,” he adds. Blankert: “By means of co-creation you can get closer to consumers, (…)
consumers will feel more connected to your brand.” He says that many consumers are quite critical
toward multinationals because of their ‘closed’ image, and co-creation can change this. Participants
agree that satisfactory collaborations can turn co-creators into ‘brand ambassadors,’ promoting and
talking about the brand with friends and peers.
Van Kesteren argues co-creation is especially useful for niche markets or specialized
products. “You are often not a part of this group yourself, so it is quite difficult to imagine yourself in
their position,” Van Kesteren says. He illustrates this with the example of NIKE SD skateboarding
equipment: “In this case it would be best to involve the skaters themselves to find out what is trendy
and hip according to them,” he explains.
Sales effects
“Co-creation can be used to draw extra attention to a product introduction,” Sanders says. Due to
this extra attention the product probably attracts more people than usually. Sanders relates this to
the launch of the co-created Pickwick Dutch Tea blend, which is sold much more than their other
line-extensions within tea blends. “Perhaps not just because of the co-creation process, but also
because of the buzz that resulted from the enthusiasm within Sara Lee and among the consumers
that participated in developing the blend,” Sanders notes. The co-creation aspect was emphasized in
the advertising campaign around the Pickwick ‘Dutch Blend.’ “We referred to the co-creators on the
packaging and in the advertising campaign,” Sanders says. The campaign shows how consumers
were involved throughout the development and taste process and there is also a reference to the
Hyves page where the collaboration started.
Blankert discusses the results of the ‘Maak de Smaak’ campaign, which had significantly
higher scores on brand loyalty and brand activation aspects than other campaigns. Participation also
highly exceeded PepsiCo’s expectations: “There were 311,000 unique participants and we expected
around 150,000 beforehand,” Blankert reads from the data. Sales levels were even three times
higher than expected during the final stage, where consumers could purchase and vote for one of
the three flavors. Blankert: “The three final flavors were available for only two months and the Lay’s
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 9
team expected sales of about 2 million bags. However, the final sales number was 6 million.” The
Lay’s team was quite overwhelmed by the success and buzz around the campaign. “The success is
probably due to the involvement of consumers,” Blankert says, “the flavors were invented by the
consumers themselves and the winning flavor was also chosen by them.” The successful ‘Maak de
Smaak’ campaign inspired PepsiCo to set up a new team that completely focuses on consumer
engagement.
Critical notes
Priester notes that it is not always necessary to involve consumers in order to create relevant
products. A firm can also successfully apply the principle of co-creation and consumer-centric
thinking, he argues. “Take Apple as an example; their innovation is fairly closed, but they have
extremely good client-centered designers.”
Van Kesteren also supports this view: “A good marketer should be able to place themselves
in the consumers’ position and imagine what their needs and wants are.” He argues that a co-
created product therefore doesn’t have to be any better or more relevant than products developed
mostly by a company.
III Visions on success factors
The co-creation process
Several success factors were mentioned by the participants, such as the need for good project
management and effective and constant interaction with the co-creative consumers. It is considered
very important that these consumers receive quality feedback, inspiration and encouragement.
Participants also stressed the importance of adapting business processes to facilitate co-creation.
This helps firms to become more flexible and able to quickly follow through on co-creation outcomes.
Priester: “firms need to open up to new ideas, dare to let go of control, dare to enter new markets
and diverge from old ways of thinking an doing.” According to him firms should experiment in order
to find out what works best. Reijnders argues for developing new disciplines within firms, as co-
creation and working with online communities require certain management skills.
It is considered important that co-creation is recognized and supported by the whole firm,
only then can it be successful and integrated into the business process. “Once you open the doors to
co-creation, it is difficult to close them,” De Laat explains, “It often brings about an online discussion
that continues after a project ends.”
Transparency and consistency in behavior is underlined. Firms should show what happens to
the co-creation results and how they are implemented by the firm. “This creates a willingness among
consumers to collaborate and share ideas with the firm,” Priester says. De Ruyck: “Firms should
explain and demonstrate what co-creation comprises and how it was executed.” This makes the co-
creation claim legitimate and easier for consumers to trust, De Ruyck argues. If firms do not do this,
consumers might consider the co-creation claim a ‘marketing trick’, a tactic to increase sales (De
Ruyck, Van Kesteren).
Involving the right consumers
Another important factor that influences success is carefully identifying and involving the right
people to co-create with. Deciding which consumers to involve depends on the type of task and
required skills and expertise. De Ruyck: “We shouldn’t underestimate the average consumers’
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 10
innovation competence, but also definitely not overestimate it.” He argues that complex and
technical tasks should be allocated to the more technically able consumers. Reijnders agrees that
deciding who to involve should depend on the question at hand. He refers to the HEMA design
contestxv as an example. This contest is purely aimed at design academy students, since HEMA
considers them to be the appropriate participants for this creative task.
Participants agree that for intensive collaborations, firms should focus on lead-users, who
are highly involved and knowledgeable about a product category or brand. According to De Ruyck
they can be subdivided into ‘influentials’ and ‘innovators.’ The ‘innovators’ are always looking for
the latest developments, “they want to purchase and try out new products immediately and are
often a step ahead of others,” De Ruyck explains. The influentials are also highly interested in new
trends, but are more communicative and take into account the needs of others. “Therefore the
influentials are often involved in other people’s decisions,” according to De Ruyck.
De Laat foresees a future challenge when it comes to attracting co-creative consumers or
designers. She expects an increase of co-creation projects, resulting in a greater demand of
participants. “The more co-creation initiatives, the more challenging it becomes to get people
enthousiastic about participating and keep them actively involved,” De Laat explains.
Dilemma: intensive VS mass collaboration
Van Kesteren offers some critical remarks on selecting only innovative and creative consumers. He
argues that in doing so firms are not collaborating with a representative cross-section of their target
group. Gebauer also stresses the importance of finding a balance: “involving lead-users is very
important, but average users are also valuable for giving critical feedback and evaluating the work of
others.”
According to Sanders, it is important to find the right balance in order to create added value.
The benefit of involving many consumers, e.g. via a cross-media campaign, is that it creates a buzz
and raises awareness of the product. Involving a smaller selection of consumers allows for a more
intensive and close collaboration, but requires more advertising effort during the product launch.
“You need to foster a strong commitment and manage the project well; this is best achieved by co-
creating with a restricted group,” Sanders argues. “However, you need to be cautious not to involve
too few people, because then you miss out on important insights,” he adds.
Blankert notes that co-creation is really difficult to pursue through a big or nationwide
project such as the Maak de Smaak campaign. He considers the project to be more ‘crowdsourcing’
than co-creation, since intensive consumer interaction and collaboration was limited. “What you
actually want (in co-creation) is to involve the consumers that are closest to your brand, the most
loyal fans,” Blankert argues. These consumers are very involved and are intrinsically motivated to
contribute something to the brand.
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 11
IV Challenges and misunderstandings
Expectations
The general opinion is that firms as well as consumers should have a clear idea of the purpose of the
co-creation (is it aimed at e.g. a radical innovation, a line extension, or a new packaging?). This helps
to manage expectations and to prevent disappointment. Sanders: “It is important to frame the task
well, to indicate what the co-creation comprises and what preconditions are.”
Some participants mention that consumers are much more able to react on something
innovative, than to come up with it (Priester, Sanders, Van Kesteren). This is linked to the difficulty
for consumers to identify their latent needs. Van Kesteren therefore considers co-creation mainly as
a market research tool as opposed to an innovation tool: “I consider the added value to be especially
in consumer feedback, which can be used to optimize processes and products.” De Ruyck refers to
research indicating that consumers have very need-relevant ideas, but generally not more innovative
ideas than firms. Firms are thus considered to have an important role in unraveling latent needs and
in this sense ‘help’ consumers innovate.
Attitude change
All participants address the challenge for firms to conform their whole attitude and behaviour to co-
creation and open innovation. De Ruyck notes that firms’ hesitance to implement co-creation, is also
partly caused by a lack of evidence to convince managers about the benefits and effects.
Furthermore employees may fear losing control over their jobs because consumers are ‘taking over’,
and this can make them reluctant to incorporate co-creation (De Ruyck, Sanders).
Blankert also points out that it requires quite a lot of internal discussions and meetings to
really change attitudes or processes towards co-creation. Authentic involvement from the firm is
considered a crucial factor, because the focus should be on interaction and constructive
collaboration. Priester: “This requires a paradigm shift; firms should become creative from the inside
out, instead of towards the outside.” He says that it will not work if firms are active in social media,
but are not embracing open-network innovation and learning from others. Consumers will not take
the efforts seriously. Gebauer argues: “This means working hard to change the ‘not invented here’
attitude, where ideas coming from outside of the firm are hard to accept and to adopt.”
Reijnders notes co-creation doesn’t imply completely letting go of control and management;
“Firms should prepare the process well, determine objectives, use the right tools and involve the
right target group,” he explains, “directing and managing the process is crucial.” Reijnders illustrates
this with an example of a housing project, where future home owners could co-create a new
neighborhood. The co-creation platform was not managed properly and a lot of information and
ideas were submitted by a great variety of people, “but there was no constructive discussion among
the target group,” Reijnders explains.
De Laat underlines this and argues that firms should not just ‘drop a question’, and then wait
for a useful discussion to arise, but they should be reactive and feed the discussion. Gebauer
illustrates this with an experience from an online design contest within a co-creation community,
where the winning design was finally chosen by a jury. However, the jury did not directly motivate
their choice to the community, who in turn felt disappointed and disagreed with the decision.
Gebauer: “From this we understood that the jury should have reacted straight away and explained
why they chose the winning design.” A conflict was luckily prevented in this case, but it shows that
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 12
managing online communities requires constant attention and feedback. Firms should also be
prepared to deal with negative comments and responses.
Setting objectives
De Laat addresses the challenge for firms to formulate a concrete goal for the co-creation project.
“Firms often don’t exactly know yet what to expect from co-creation and which target group they
should involve,” De Laat explains. She says that most often firms want to gain insights, but also have
marketing objectives in mind.
Gebauer notes that co-creation can result in concepts and ideas that firms didn’t foresee
beforehand. “Product ideas have to fit within a certain price range, planning and distribution
channel. If the co-creation output does not fit into this plan, managers might not want to accept this
output as a valuable resource,” he argues. Firms should thus become more flexible and adaptive in
their planning and development process.
Insecurity
Reijnders notes that firms should be aware that co-creation doesn’t ‘produce’ ready-made products,
but mainly ideas and concepts. He also notes that co-creation is not a fixed process and firms should
experiment and try new things to find out what is most effective. “What works today, might not
work tomorrow,” Reijnders notes, “firms have to remain constantly alert because markets and
technologies change quickly.” This insecurity is also underlined by Blankert, since the Maak de
Smaak campaign offered consumers a lot of freedom. It was difficult to estimate how many people
were going to submit their ideas and the Lay’s team had no idea of the flavours consumers would
come up with. Blankert: “This was risky, because we didn’t know whether our R&D department
could transform the submitted ideas into actual tasty products.” Partly for this reason, the selection
of finalists was done by a jury of experts from different fields (including one consumer). This helped
to ensure that only the most promising and tasty products would make it to the finale. The online
aspect of the campaign also caused some concern: “the submissions were directly visible to
everybody via a live stream,” Blankert says. It was not possible to filter submissions and completely
rule out rude or offensive messages. “We built in a filter for swear words,” Blankert explains, “but
even then you can not completely rule out abuse, so we had to let go of some level of control.”
Consumer-related challenges
The general opinion is that consumers are quite understanding and flexible. They realize there are
restrictions to their influence and boundaries to a firm’s possibilities in innovation. Van Kesteren:
“My experience is that consumers realize that not everything is possible and ideas have to be in line
with the company’s management.” Participants acknowledge that consumers at least expect
recognition, as a sort of reward, for the effort and time they invested in co-creation. Priester warns:
“They might expect their ideas to be implemented directly.” For this reason he considers it very
important to keep consumers informed about progress and ‘next steps’ after the initial co-creation
project is completed.
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 13
V Reactions to the MSc thesis research on co-creation
Visions on the effect of co-creation on consumer attitudes
The effect of co-creation on consumer attitudes is little explored and none of the participants have
any research results or data on this. Often direct effects of campaigns are measured such as sales
data and product and brand performance. The net effect or influence of co-creation has not been
measured.
A reason for the lack of research can be that there are still not many practical examples and
co-creation cases. It is also noted that co-creation not always results in actual product development.
It might be the case that the firm decides not to develop or market the product, or that the co-
creation results are merely used as inspiration for a firm’s product development process. De Laat
points out that their main objective is not necessarily aimed at a tangible outcome. “For us the
desired effect is inspiring our client en taking them a step further in their product or service
development,” De Laat explains.
Participants are positive about the impact co-creation can have on consumers brand and
product attitude. Sanders says co-creation can create a sense of closeness: “It is important that
consumers can identify with your brand, and co-creation can help realize this.”
Gebauer is confident that new co-created products will perform better on average,
compared to new producer-created products. He relates this partly to trustworthiness: “Consumers
have far more confidence in peer recommendations than in advertising.” “About 95% of consumers
trust recommendations from peers or from a community they can identify with,” he adds.
De Ruyck points out that it is difficult to isolate the effect since there are many external
influences, such as quality of the final product and communication and marketing effort. He expect
that knowing more about the effects will help firms decide whether or not to start co-creating.
Priester believes the main effect would be in creating a superior consumer experience, so
the effect should be measured on experiential aspects.
Co-creation as product communication
Participants indicate that there are still few examples of co-creation being communicated to the
public in advertising and marketing communications. De Laat notes that firms more often refer to
results of consumer research or panels. “Then consumers’ opinions are used to recommend the
product,” according to De Laat.
A reason that co-creation is not broadly communicated could have to do with a lack of
confidence about the effects co-creation on brand equity and perception. Firms could still be a bit
hesitant and want to protect the original brand. Or firms might want to present new products as the
result of the firms’ own innovation efforts.
Gebauer notes there might a fear that co-creation provokes negative attitudes. “Consumers
could for instance start thinking that the firm is not able to come up with its own ideas anymore,”
Gebauer says.
Co-creation sometimes occurs in a very early stage of the development cycle, and the direct
link to the final product is then missing. This can be a reason why co-creation is not considered
relevant to communicate to the end-user. Reijnders gives an example of a father buying a LEGO toy
for a child’s birthday: “For him it is not interesting to know that the product is the result of co-
creation via Lego Mindstormsxvi.”
Sanders beliefs co-creation is interesting to communicate, but the product itself remains the
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 14
most important, not its development process. Sanders: “However, you can use the co-creation
aspect to draw attention to the product and make people think about the brand again.”
The best way to communicate co-creation
When thinking about ways to communicate co-creation to the public, all participants stress the
importance of justifying the claim. It is considered very important to explain how and why co-
creation was applied. Showing the process, via photos or short movies, might help consumers
understand the process better and increase confidence. Priester: “I think it is important to support
the interaction, not just tell the message. Transaction and communication are interwoven,
consumers should be able to directly react.”
De Ruyck also stresses the importance of being open and providing proof, by e.g. showing
the co-creation process. “Otherwise you run the risk that co-creation is perceived as an ‘empty’
claim, which consumers will distrust because of the current presence of numerous product claims,”
De Ruyck argues.
De Laat suggests: “Firms can stress what needs a co-created product fulfills and explain their
reasons for participating in co-creation and how this changed their innovation process.”
Gebauer says it can be beneficial to refer to an established and well-known brand
community. He uses the example of Tchiboxvii, a high-end coffee brand that is Germany’s market
leader in roasted coffee (ICP, 2011). Tchibo has an online brand communityxviii of about 9100
members and a selection of these participated in the co-creation of products. The consumer
collaboration was referred to in product communication. “This can be of added value to the Tchibo
brand, and can be seen as a form of co-branding where the community is the additional brand.
Research shows that consumers like products that have been developed by people like themselves,”
Gebauer explains.
Blankert stresses weighing out what aspects of co-creation are relevant to communicate
about. “When placing emphasis on the individual consumers that were involved in co-creation,
people might start judging them personally instead of judging the product.” Thus when consumers
start evaluating the co-creative consumers, attention can be drawn away from the product, Blankert
argues.
Expected effects on attitude
During the interview participants were asked their opinion on the likelihood of certain effects to
occur in consumers’ evaluation of co-created products. The responses to the sub questions are
summarized in table 2: the full questions and a count of the results is given below the table.
Some participants remarked that effects are often related to brand perception, not merely
to the product itself. Thus, the aspect of brand identity can play a role in the strength of the effect of
co-creation on consumer’s attitude. It is also commented that effects depend on how the co-
creation was executed and communicated. Furthermore, the overall behavior of the firm also
influences consumer attitude; how often open innovation and co-creation is applied. For the aspects
of trying out co-creation products, it is noted that this depends on the risk perception. People are
more inclined to try out products that they consider having a relatively low risk.
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 15
Table 2: sub questions and summary of the participants‘ expectations
Question: How likely do you think consumers … (likely, unlikely, unsure/don’t know)
a) will consider co-created products ‘better/ higher in quality’ than similar producer created products?
Likely (3x), unsure (2x), not likely (3x) b) will consider co-created products ‘more attractive’ than similar producer created products?
Likely (5x), unsure (2x), not likely (1x)
c) will consider co-created products ‘more innovative’ than similar producer created products?
Likely (4x), unsure (2x), not likely (2x)
d) will consider co-created products ‘more fitted to their needs’ than similar producer created products?
Likely (7x), not likely (1x)
e) will consider co-created brands ‘more accessible’ than non-co-creative brands? Likely (7x), unsure (1x)
f) will consider co-created brands ‘more empathic/ closer to them’ than non-co-creative brands?
Likely (7x), unsure (1x)
g) will be ‘more inclined to try’ co-created products than similar producer created products?
Likely (4x), unsure (2x), not likely (2x)
h) will be ‘more inclined to talk about’ co-created products than similar producer created products?
Likely (5x), unsure (3x)
Further suggestions for the experiment
Participants were asked what type of products they consider most interesting to test in the MSc
thesis experiment. The general suggestions are to test products with a short development cycle,
digital services such as apps, or any FMCG product that consumers often use and has a low risk
perception. One suggestion is testing the differences between effects for ‘slow-movers’ and ‘fast-
movers’ and control for brand influences such as familiarity and preferences. Another suggestion is
testing products that are often bought on impulse, since consumers usually have a low brand loyalty
towards these products and it is expected that effects of co-creation will be higher for these
products.
Subquestion BlankertVan
KesterenSanders De Laat Priester De Ruyck Gebauer Reijnders
a Unlikely Unsure Unlikely Unlikely Likely Unsure Likely Likely
b Likely Unsure Unsure Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely
c Unsure Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Unsure
d Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely
e Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Unsure
f Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Unsure
g Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely Unsure Unsure
h Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Unsure Unsure Unsure
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 16
VI Overview of the findings
This table offers a summarised overview of the aspects on which respondents seem to agree on,
versus aspects on which they have different views or of which they were unsure.
Agreement Disagreement / unsure General
Consumers are savvy, critical and empowered
Consumers seek evidence to support/discredit marketing claims
Firms should provide transparent and sufficient information Co-creation
Co-creation requires a continuous dialogue between firms and consumers (not a ‘question-answer’ approach)
Firms should assist consumers in uncovering latent needs and offer them relevant insights to enhance the effectiveness of the co-creation
Co-creation with ‘brand fans’ brings inspiration and positive energy to the internal team
Expectations about outcomes need to be clear and realistic to prevent disappointment
Innovation processes need to become more flexible to incorporate unexpected outcomes of co-creation
Firms should be willing to let go of some level of control to allow for co-creation and creativity
Co-creative consumers
Co-creative consumers enjoy co-creating and are often intrinsically motivated to participate
Co-creative consumers understand there are boundaries to their influence
Co-creative consumers require constant feedback and encouragement
Deciding what consumers to involve in co-creation depends on the task and context (e.g. lead users versus average users)
Communication of co-creation (on the market)
Explain and show the co-creation process and how it differs from the traditional approach; this makes it easier for consumers to understand and trust the concept ‘co-creation‘
Co-creation should only be communicated when it is considered relevant for consumers to know
Co-creation should only be communicated when it is has been an important aspect in the product development.
Effects on consumer attitudes
Effects of co-creation on brand perception and consumer attitudes have not been measured yet
Co-creation is expected to create a more ‘open’ and ‘empathic’ brand perception
Effects depend on pre-existing brand attitude and how co-creation is executed and communicated
Co-creation
Co-creation is a new innovation paradigm (a new way of thinking and acting) versus co-creation is a modern research tool to get closer to the consumer
Co-creation makes the innovation process more efficient (set schedule and timings) versus co-creation is difficult to implement in traditional processes
What method to choose? Crowdsourcing: cross-media exposure and mass response versus co-creation: low key collaboration with selected lead-users
Co-creation helps to create more relevant products versus Consumer-centric marketers don’t need co-creation to develop relevant products
What withhold firms from co-creating? e.g. a lack of evidence on the benefits, a resistance to change current processes, a ‘not invented here’ syndrome
Communication of co-creation (on the market)
Communicating co-creation draws more attention to new products versus co-creation is not useful to communicate when it is not relevant for consumers to know
How to communicate co-creation to the general target group? e.g. showing who was involved in the co-creation, or merely focusing on the benefits of the process
Effects on consumer attitudes
Expected positive effects of co-creation on brand perception (e.g. trust and identification with peers) versus expected negative effects (experts might be considered better at developing products than peers)
Participant are unsure about what effects can be expected (see table 2)
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 17
Limitations and suggestions for further research
Limitations of the method
The research method of interviewing allows participants to elaborate on their own views and
deviate from the original questions to explore topics further.
The method also has some limitations that have to be taken into account. These limitations
are described and elaborated on by Malterud (2001). First of all, all research is interpretive and
subject to ‘reflexivity;’ it is guided by the author’s set of beliefs and views about how things should
be understood and studied. Selection and formulation of the questions, as well as selection of
participants, is by default a subjective matter.
The author’s interview skills and experience also influence the quality of the method and the
final outcome of the research.
Participants might present themselves in a way they want to be viewed by the interviewer,
causing ‘self-presentation bias.’ The communication between interviewer and interviewee is aimed
at establishing rapport and retrieving unaided responses, but can unintentionally influence
responses.
Also, participants might not be aware of all the influences that affect their behavior and
opinions, restricting the data to the participant’s level of sensitivity and insight into certain situations.
In accordance with the explorative nature of this qualitative research, there is room for the
participants to elaborate more or less on certain aspects. This is done according to participants’
indirect or direct indication of interests, expertise and experience. For this reason some questions
are elaborated on more than others, and some have even been skipped in order to focus on the
topic of choice.
Suggestions for further research
The interviews were conducted in addition to an extensive literature review on the topic of co-
creation, which can be downloaded as a .pdf document from the weblog
joycediscovers.wordpress.com. This article summarizes the interview results with the purpose of
shedding more light on practitioners’ views and expectations of co-creation.
Subsequently, further research will be done by the author in a Master thesis. The aim of the
thesis is to find effects of co-creation on consumer attitudes, brand perception and product
evaluation. The main question is whether and how the method of co-creation in product
development affects brand value and consumer attitudes. A minority of consumers is actively
participating in co-creation, so a majority of a firm’s target group is only confronted with the concept
after the product has already been developed. As soon as the final co-created product is available
for sale, firms’ can communicate the aspect of co-creation via advertising or product packaging and
presentation. Will consumers consider co-created brands more empathic, more open to their ideas?
Will co-creation instigate more word-of-mouth? The general hypothesis is that co-creation positively
influences consumer attitude and brand perception. More information about the Master thesis
research can be found on joycediscovers.wordpress.com.
Further research can be done on identifying critical success factors of co-creation in order to
find out how the process can be optimized. In addition it would be interesting to find out what type
of consumers are best suitable for different co-creation tasks. Then, it is interesting to research in
what way these people can best be recruited and selected.
Joyce van Dijk April 2011 ‘Exploring practitioner views on co-creation’ page 18
More information
Follow the provided links:
i http://www.pepsico.nl/ ii http://www.lays.nl/pers/
iii http://www.nima.nl/inspiration/marketing_awards/nima_awards/
iv http://www.unilever.nl/
v http://blog.insites.be/?p=2799
vi www.saralee.com
vii http://www.libelle.nl/category/senseo-testpanel/
viii http://www.pickwick.nl/dutchteablend/
ix http://www.redesignme-cs.com
x http://lbi.lostboys.nl/
xi www.insites.eu
xii http://www.hyve.de/index.php?lang=2
xiii http://www.tiasnimbas.edu/Index.aspx?objectName=FacultyPersonDetails&psn=2807&type=all
xiv http://lbi.lostboys.nl/prikbord/lost-boys-lanceert-nieuwe-website-zwitsal
xv http://www.hemaontwerpwedstrijd.nl/
xvi http://mindstorms.lego.com/en-us/Default.aspx
xvii http://www.tchibo.com
xviii https://www.tchibo-ideas.de/