co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

18
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: 30 th March 2011 Final corrections: 18 th 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)

Upload: joyce-van-dijk

Post on 22-Mar-2016

238 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Addition to the literature review 'The co-creative consumer'. This article explores key findings of eight in-depth interviews.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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)

Page 2: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 3: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 4: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 5: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 6: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 7: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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.

Page 8: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 9: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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’

Page 10: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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.

Page 11: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 12: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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.

Page 13: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 14: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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.

Page 15: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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

Page 16: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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)

Page 17: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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.

Page 18: Co-creation in practice: exploring practitioner views on co-creation

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/