the co-creative consumer
DESCRIPTION
Literature review exploring the changing consumer/producer relations, and consumer roles in modern product innovation practicesTRANSCRIPT
‘The co-creative consumer’
Exploring the changing consumer/producer relations
and consumer roles in modern product innovation practices
Literature review
Date: 16th March 2011 Revised: 18th April 2011 Course: ECH-80424 Programme: MME Student: Joyce van Dijk Reg.nr: 841018208030 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Gerrit Antonides Institution: Wageningen University Final grade: 9 (out of 10)
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6
2 Developments towards consumer co-creation ........................................................................... 7
2.1 Individualisation and consumer-centric firms ..................................................................... 7
2.2 Consumer empowerment through Web 2.0 ....................................................................... 8
2.3 Open innovation .................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Co-creation of value ............................................................................................................ 9
3 Consumer roles in innovation processes ................................................................................... 10
3.1 The Insight Provider........................................................................................................... 11
3.2 The Customiser .................................................................................................................. 11
3.3 The Ideator ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.4 The Co-creator ................................................................................................................... 13
3.5 The Creator ........................................................................................................................ 15
4 Exploring the co-creative consumer .......................................................................................... 17
4.1 Characteristics of the co-creative consumer ..................................................................... 17
4.2 Consumer motives to co-create ........................................................................................ 19
5 Challenges for the firm .............................................................................................................. 21
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Limitations and suggestions for further research ............................................................................. 27
References ......................................................................................................................................... 28
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 3
Executive Summary
Nowadays, value creation no longer stems from merely inside the firm. Contributions of consumers
are integrated throughout innovation practices and they have become a source of competitive
advantage. This development is coined ‘co-creation’ in 2000 by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a).
The new business paradigm is to create and maintain an active dialogue with consumers and using
them as open-innovation resources (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004a). Traditional consumer/producer
relationships have changed. While consumers were traditionally viewed as value exchangers and
extractors, they are now considered a source of value creation and competitive advantage.
This paper defines co-creation as: “Purposive and intentional collaboration between
consumers and producers, where they systematically interact, learn, share information and integrate
resources with the result of co-creating value”.
To unravel this paradigm shift, this paper explores the developments that lead to co-creation
and the changing consumer-producer relationships. It combines findings from different academic
fields, such as management, marketing and sociology, to provide a coherent overall view.
This paper offers a new perspective by identifying the various roles that consumers can take
on in modern innovation practices. These roles are based on level of autonomy and influence in co-
creating value. The roles are linked to practical cases, in order to illustrate their use and relevance.
With this perspective the concept of co-creation becomes more tangible and is placed within a
broader context.
Developments leading to co-creation
To better understand the concept and the elements that make up the definition, it is necessary to
look at the developments that influenced and stimulated co-creation.
The starting point is the societal process of individualization, which really set off around the
1980s. Consumers started focusing on expressing individual preferences through consumption
choices. In accordance with this, firms started to become consumer-centric, offering customized
services and products to appeal to individual needs.
The development of Web 2.0, around 2006, is another important development that
facilitated co-creation. The internet became an interconnected platform of web applications and
allowed people to create and change content. This empowered consumers to navigate and shape
their own consumption environment. The current generation of consumers is empowered, informed,
influential, creative, interactive and assertive.
Web 2.0 has made effective advertising increasingly difficult due to the large amount of
‘media clutter’ consumers are exposed to. To successfully draw and retain attention in this highly
competitive new world, firms have to be able to stand out. Traditional ‘closed’ innovation processes,
made way for ‘open innovation’ in pursuit of better and faster use of ideas. Firms increasingly
involved consumers in open innovation practices.
The roles of the company and the consumers converge and they become collaborators in ‘co-
creation’ of value. The basis for the added value can be found in the co-creation process itself;
consumers and firms interact collectively, provide inputs and exchange knowledge. The traditional
production chain is reshaped into a dynamic network mechanism where consumers are continuously
learning, interacting with producers and sharing ideas.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 4
Consumer roles in innovation
This section of the paper focuses on identifying and distinguishing between different roles consumers
play in a firm´s innovation process. Consumers can take on and switch between these roles according
to the purpose and intention of the collaboration. The roles are based on the level of consumer
creativity, involvement, and autonomy in the innovation process.
The first role is that of ‘insight providers’, which is characterized by a low level of (direct)
consumer influence and autonomy in the innovation process. Consumers are merely sourced by
firms to gain insights, identify needs or evaluate ideas.
In the role of ‘customizer’ the consumer has a direct influence in the final stages of product
development; adapting and selecting a predetermined set of product features that fit their own
preferences. Consumers can create value individually but only up to the extent to which the firms’
value chain supports this.
The role of ‘ideator’ is the next step towards an active consumer role in innovation practices.
Here, consumers are collectively addressed by firms to provide their creative input and innovative
products ideas. The results will finally become intellectual property of the firm and will be used as
inspiration for innovation.
The role of ‘co-creator’ involves actual open innovation, where firms collaborate with
consumers and use their skills and knowledge in developing new products. Co-creation can involve all
phases of the innovation process; idea generation, design and engineering and finally the test and
launch phase. It often takes place in an online community, which provides a constant platform for
interactive dialogues between participants. Co-creation is an ongoing process of learning, developing
and evaluating ideas together. In the role of ‘co-creator’, consumers’ skills and knowledge are
directly integrated in the business process. However, consumers can also integrate their skills and
knowledge more independently, as long as firms facilitate this. ‘Co-creation of experiences’ is the
most advanced level; every time a product is used consumers co-create their own consumption
experiences. This shows the wide range of possibilities and applications of the term.
The final role that is defined is that of the ‘creator’; where innovation is initiated and driven
by consumers themselves. Here, consumers act as involved and independent value creators. Their
ideas can strongly influence the rate and direction of innovations in some industries.
Exploring the co-creative consumer
Despite the variations in role and task type, literature defines certain characteristics that distinguish
the co-creative consumer from the passive consumer. Co-creative consumers are often pro-active
lead-users, who have insights into future needs. They possess relevant technical and social skills, and
have a solid base of product knowledge. These lead-users are highly involved in the product category
and interested in developing new products. Their contributions are often high in quality and
relevance. Nevertheless, it can be useful to involve non-lead-users as well, to ensure relevance for
the broader target group.
Consumers are driven to participate in co-creation for various motives such as: enjoyment,
empowerment, social interaction, self-expression, peer recognition, altruism and for information
seeking purposes.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 5
Challenges to successful co-creation
Identifying and involving the right participants, consumers as well as people from the firm, is
challenging but crucial in order for effective results.
Consumers willingly participate in value creation mainly driven by intrinsic motivations. They
enjoy the process and get a feeling of satisfaction and empowerment by contributing. This
enjoyment is closely related to the social interactions and recognition they receive for their
contributions. To retain consumer interest and involvement, firms should stimulate these
interactions and appeal to intrinsic motivations.
There are many benefits of successful co-creation, but these can only be achieved if co-
creation principles are applied correctly and are integrated throughout the business process. This
requires firms to adapt their processes and mindset in order to effectively engage in co-creation.
Firms should become more open and willing to integrate external sources in their innovation process.
They should listen to and observe their target group, determine main objectives for co-creation, and
identify and involve appropriate co-creation partners. When it comes to managing the co-creation
process, firms have to be able to find the right balance between freedom and control. They should
stimulate a collaborative culture and allow for rules to evolve from within the community.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 6
1 Introduction
The Pepsico ‘Maak de Smaak’ campaign for the brand Lay’s is an example of a successful idea contest.
Drawing on the idea that Dutch people like to meddle and voice their opinion, the firm sent out an open call
asking people to send in ideas for a new Lay’s potato chips flavor. The cross-media campaign resulted in
almost 680,000 submissions, far more than the 375,000 the company expected. A jury headed by a well-
known Dutch top chef cook, selected three finalists. The crowd of consumers could then vote for their
favorite, resulting in another 220,000 responses, and the winner ‘Patatje Joppie’ was announced on
television. The new flavor is now part of Lay’s Limited Edition product range. (Lay’s, 2010)
An idea contest is just one of many initiatives in the last decade where firms actively involve
consumers in new product development. This involvement is often met with great enthusiasm and
interest on the consumer’s behalf. The general development of integrating consumers in innovation
practices is coined ‘co-creation’ in 2000 by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a). It underlines that
value creation no longer merely stems from inside the firm. The new business paradigm is to create
and maintain an active dialogue with consumers and use them as open-innovation resources
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004). The consumers’ ability to create value is now recognized and
consumer input is integrated throughout the innovation process.
Involving consumers in value creation is not an entirely new development. Around the 1950s,
the consumer was already often put to work in an effort to enhance efficiency and to reduce costs
(Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010). Tasks formerly done by the producer were moved to the user’s side by,
for example, implementing self-service counters, electronic check-in kiosks, or offering self-assembly
products. In 1980 Alvin Toffler already predicted that ‘prosumption’, a combination of the words
‘production’ and ‘consumption’, was to become the new paradigm (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010).
To unravel this paradigm shift, this paper firstly explores the developments that lead to co-
creation and the changing consumer-producer relationships. It combines findings from different
academic fields, such as management, marketing and sociology, to provide a coherent overall view.
This paper offers a new perspective by identifying the various roles that consumers can take
on in modern innovation practices. These roles are based on level of autonomy and influence in
creating innovation value. The roles are linked to practical cases, in order to illustrate their use and
relevance. With this perspective the concept of co-creation become more tangible and is placed
within a broader context.
To better understand what type of consumers are involved in co-creation and what drives
them, some key characteristics and motivations for participating are explored. The paper concludes
by addressing some prerequisite conditions and challenges firms face in order to be successful at co-
creation.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 7
2 Developments towards consumer co-creation
Taking the literature into account, this paper will focus on co-creation defined as follows (based on
Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller et al, 2010; Bartl et al. 2010):
Purposive and intentional collaboration between consumers and producers,
where they systematically interact, learn, share information and integrate
resources with the result of co-creating value.
To better understand the concept and the elements that make up the definition, it is necessary to
look at the main developments that influenced and stimulated co-creation. These developments are:
individualization and consumer-centric firms, consumer empowerment through Web 2.0, and open
innovation. These aspects are discussed separately throughout the next sections and the chapter is
concluded with a section about co-creation of value.
2.1 Individualisation and consumer-centric firms
Around the 1940s, mass production set off allowing a wide availability of consumer products.
Throughout the years the seller’s market evolved into a buyer’s market as goods became abundantly
available. It became difficult for consumers to perceive differences between products of a similar
range of quality, and therefore they opted for the lowest possible price. This resulted in price erosion,
stimulating firms to reduce costs and in turn increasing consumers’ focus on price (Poiesz & Reijnders,
2010).
As this made it more difficult for firms to compete on product offering, they started focusing
on catering to consumer needs. This was done by targeting specific market segments based on e.g.
demographic, geographic, behavioral and psychographic characteristics (Kotler, 1991, in Piller,
2010a). In a constant effort to create competitive advantages, this segmentation process was
continuously refined and finally replaced by the notion of ‘customer orientation’ (Piller, 2010a). This
development is strongly related to individualisation processes in society that became really
prominent after the recession of the 1980s. Symbolic expression of choices and personal identity
became more important to consumers than the product itself (Corrigan 1997, in Van Dijk 2010).
Mobility increased, social classes became interwoven and the level of discretionary income rose.
Consumers spent more money on consumer goods and selected products that fitted their individual
preferences to emphasize sovereign power (Van Dijk, 2010).
In accordance with this individualisation, firms started offering customised products. This
changed the structure of the firm, which was no longer centred on products, but on consumer needs.
It also changed distribution channels and logistics, because firms wanted to deliver products
according to the time of order (Piller, 2010a). Vargo and Lusch (2004) describe this as the ‘service
dominant logic of marketing’, where firms shift their focus from a goods-centered logic, to a service-
centered logic. Consumer centricity became more important than efficiency in production and
distribution (Mirchandani, 2005; Van Dijk, 2010; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a, Cova & Dalli 2009,
Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
With customisation consumers gained control over their consumption activities and felt
empowered. They could influence the production process to a certain extent and create products
that matched their preferences (Piller, 2010a). Consumption goals changed from being transactions
to being personalised ‘holistic experiences’ which enabled self-fulfilment and enjoyment (Pine &
Gillmore, 1991, in Van Dijk, 2010).
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 8
2.2 Consumer empowerment through Web 2.0
Over the last decades, the internet has undergone some major developments. Around the year 2000
e-commerce made the internet into a new platform for buying and selling consumer goods. Last year,
up to 67% of Dutch people have purchased products or services online (Eurostat, 2010). Another
significant change in the online consumption environment took place around 2006, when the
internet grew into an interconnected platform of web applications. Consumers started using the
internet as a means of communication, instead of merely a platform for gathering information,
selecting and purchasing products. In the Netherlands, 76% of all people now use internet on an
almost daily basis (Eurostat, 2010). This new era of internet use was termed ‘Web 2.0’ by Tim O’Reilly
(2007). The difference between the initial phases of the internet (Web 1.0) is that people can now
create, add and change content themselves by means of ‘open source’ software. People became
more able to shape and navigate their consumption environment (Addis & Holbrook, 2001; Gabriel &
Lang, 2008 in Van Dijk, 2010). Bruns (2007) calls this ‘produsage’ - a combination of ‘production’ and
‘usage’- changing the traditional value production chain that starts with the firm and ends with the
consumer.
Nowadays consumers are part of the collaborative production environment and boundaries
between usage and production of content are blurring (Bruns, 2007). Consumers enjoy being able to
control and create content as it enables them to express their self-identity (Füller, 2010). As a result
of these developments, they have grown more resistant to corporate control (Ritzer & Jurgenson
2009). The current generation of consumers are empowered, informed, influential, creative,
interactive and assertive. Web 2.0 is now a mainstream trend and competing with established
entities in news, media, entertainment and art (Cova & Dalli, 2009). People use websites, blogs,
forums or social media sites to voice their opinion on products worldwide. Eurostat research (2010)
shows that as much as 80% of European adolescents use online social media such as Facebook and
Twitter.
This active voicing and worldwide connectedness transforms consumers into powerful
influencers (Van Belleghem, 2010). Their opinions and evaluations can affect brand value and
influence market value of products.
2.3 Open innovation
Web 2.0 has made effective advertising increasingly difficult due to the large amount of ‘media
clutter’ consumers are exposed to (Face Agency, 2009). People are better informed and have
developed a sceptical attitude towards marketing communications and claims about product
performance (Van Belleghem, 2010).
To successfully draw and retain attention in this highly competitive new world, firms have to
be able to stand out. It is crucial for producers to continuously come up with and explore new ideas
in order to develop and market innovative products (Hargadon & Sutton, 2000). Traditional ‘closed’
innovation processes, made way for ‘open innovation’ in pursuit of a better and faster use of ideas.
Firms now often engage in open innovation practices, they collaborate with external parties such as
technology providers and knowledge institutions to co-develop new products.
For many of the same reasons, firms also increasingly involve consumers in innovation
practices (Bughin et al., 2008; Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004; Piller & Ihl, 2009). Web 2.0 allows for
quick and direct access to a diverse target group. According to Piller and Ihl (2009), many
commercially important products are even initially based on ideas from innovative consumers rather
than firms.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 9
2.4 Co-creation of value
The current generation of active, creative and empowered consumers promotes the development of
consumer integration throughout the value chain. In the US, 61% of all online adults are willing co-
creators, and are open to co-creating across a large range of industries (Forrester Research, 2010).
Firms play on this and actively involve consumers in improving and renewing product offering to
create a competitive advantage (Anderson, 2009 in Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2009). Co-creation is
becoming a new business paradigm and can be considered one of the most promising areas of
development in the virtual consumer environment (Füller et al., 2010).
The basis of the added value can be found in the co-creation process itself; consumers and
firms collectively interact, provide inputs and exchange knowledge. This results in a constant process
of learning, creating and developing ideas (Lusch & Vargo, 2009).
In essence, co-creation differs from the more traditional ‘customer integration’ concepts
such as Toffler’s ‘prosumption’ (1980). Consumers are now engaged systematically, not selectively,
and their efforts are purposefully integrated in business processes (Rieder & Voss, 2010).
Instead of merely playing a role in value exchange and extraction, consumers are ‘co-creating’
value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). The traditional production chain is reshaped into a dynamic
network mechanism where consumers are continuously interacting with producers, learning and
sharing ideas (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Lusch & Vargo, 2009). Lusch and Vargo (2009) note
that co-creation doesn’t necessarily imply co-production and goes beyond product development.
They argue that core value is in the collaboration and the actual contribution to the final product is
relatively optional.
When used correctly, co-creation helps reducing research and development costs, enhances
output and opens new markets (Chesbrough & Schwartz, 2007). It creates a larger pool of available
information, which can increase effectiveness and speed of product development (Thomke & Von
Hippel, 2002; Piller & Ihl, 2009). Furthermore, co-creation can enhance retention and trust of
consumers and stimulate positive word-of mouth (Bilgram et al. 2010). In turn, consumers
experience a greater product relevance, since needs and preferences can be communicated directly
to the firm. Chapter 4 elaborates more on the benefits for consumers and their motivations for
participating in co-creation.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 10
3 Consumer roles in innovation processes
According to the literature, co-creating with consumers is the new innovation paradigm. It can occur
for various purposes, in various contexts and within different levels of task complexity. The level of
involvement from both the firm as well as the consumer varies accordingly. In practice, the term ‘co-
creation’ is often generalized and labeled on various processes which require a certain level of
consumer input but not necessarily co-creation of value. This doesn´t only lead to blurring of the
definition in use, it also undermines the legitimate added value of the concept (Lansink, 2009).
This chapter focuses on identifying and distinguishing between the different roles consumers
can play in a firm´s innovation process. It helps to place ‘authentic’ co-creation within this context, by
analyzing the level of joint value creation and consumer influence. To link the conceptual roles to
practice, a number of recent cases are discussed for illustration1.
This paper presents a framework of modern consumer roles within innovation practices. This
framework is inferred from current practices and theories and offers a new perspective on consumer
influence on firms. The roles are connected to the level of consumer creativity, involvement and
autonomy in the innovation process. The roles range from ‘insight providers’ --where consumers are
merely sourced by firms for information about needs or evaluation purposes-- to ‘creators’, where
innovation is initiated and driven by consumers themselves (see figure 1). Consumers can take on
and vary between these roles according to the purpose and intention of the collaboration. The next
sections will elaborate further on these roles.
Figure 1: Consumer roles in innovation practices according to level of influence and autonomy. The cases provide practical
examples of different consumer roles in product innovation.
1 The suggested roles are case specific and cannot be generalized or considered typical to the brands discussed in the
examples.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 11
3.1 The Insight Provider
The role of ‘Insight Provider’ is characterized by a low level of (direct) consumer influence and
autonomy in the innovation process. It resembles traditional market research, where little innovative
input is expected from the consumer. Tasks are firm-initiated and controlled and often aimed at
getting consumer feedback and validation of new concepts, product ideas or trends. For the role of
‘insight provider’, all types of consumers can be addressed, from intensive users, to occasional users
and even non-users.
With Web 2.0 research methods have developed rapidly allowing for a modern style of
market research. New technologies enable efficient analyses of open-ended questions using larger
consumer samples. Texts can now be analyzed through ‘text mining’ methods and ‘semantic
analyses’, quickly uncovering symbolism and identifying differences in behavioral patterns (De Ruyck,
2009). Furthermore, research companies are more often engaging in longer term dialogues with the
respondents --instead of merely presenting questionnaires-- in order to gain richer insights, feedback
and evaluations. These insights can also be gathered through online observational methods such as
‘netnography’, termed in 1997 by Kozinets (2002). Netnography is less time consuming, unobtrusive
and non-artificial as compared with traditional ethnography (Kozinets, 2002). The method allows
firms to immerse themselves in the consumers’ mind, without influencing them. Through observing
behavior and interactions on the internet, firms can get a sense of what consumers are experiencing
and talking about. It allows to uncover abstract issues such as symbolism, meanings and lifestyle
patterns (Kozinets, 2002).
A company applying the crowdsourcing method is InnoCentive. This company relies on ‘wisdom of the
crowds’ to find solutions for very specific scientific problems. They broadcast these problem statements
into their community of more than 160,000 experts, screen the submissions, and select the best fitting
solution (Piller, 2009; InnoCentive, 2011)
For the Beiersdorf brand NIVEA, HYVE conducted a netnography research project around sunless tanning.
Six relevant online communities were chosen to be analyzed and 3128 consumer statements coded. Based
on these statements, consumer insights reflecting problems such as “tanning disasters” or “de-tanning”
were derived. Later, in a collaboration of market researchers and designers, the insights were transferred
into innovative product concepts and suggestions for products communication (HYVE, 2006)
3.2 The Customiser
In the role of ‘Customiser’ the consumer has a direct influence in the final stages of product
development, adapting and selecting a predetermined set of product features that fit their own
preferences (Piller, 2009). An enormous variety of online options for customization are offered to the
consumer in almost every business (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Due to modern technology and
the mainstream use of the internet, consumers pervasively interact with firms and are able to
communicate their preferred options (Piller, 2010). Firms adapt their production models to enable
variability while still managing to produce effectively and efficiently.
Customization often takes place in the assembly phase and allows consumers to use the
firm’s ‘building blocks’ in constructing their own product. Consumer can create value individually but
only up to the extent to which the firms’ value chain supports this. Customization does not allow a
direct integration of innovative ideas or creative solutions from consumers (Piller, 2009).
In contrast to co-creation, customization often does not comprise an interactive dialogue between
firms and consumers. It is mostly done through online toolkits with which consumers can
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 12
independently select and configure product options. Nevertheless, the information gathered from
customization processes can be analyzed and used indirectly by the firm as a source for innovation
(Piller, 2009).
Dell is often named as an example of a company that successfully introduced built-to-order techniques
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Piller, 2009; Piller, 2010). Consumers are presented with a basic model, and
then invited to customize aspects such as operating systems, software programs and colors.
Another example of adding value by offering customized options is NIKE’s online customization tool NIKEiD,
developed by R/GA Agency. NIKEiD allows people to design and customise NIKE products, from shoes to
team jerseys to equipment. Customers can adapt colours, patterns, tags and even performance features to
complement any athletes’ style of play. There is also a group application called ‘The Team Locker’ section,
where individuals or sports teams can enter, share and rate designs. (R/GA Agency, 2011)
3.3 The Ideator
Ideating is the next step towards an active consumer role in innovation practices. In the role as
‘Ideator’, consumers are collectively addressed by firms to provide their creative input and
innovative product ideas. Firms are in search of ‘wisdom of the crowds’, following the belief that the
aggregation of information provided by many different people produces better results than an
individual or expert would be able to accomplish (Surowiecki, 2004). This method is called
‘crowdsourcing’ (Jeff Howe, 2006 in Bartl et al., 2006) or ‘wikinomics’ (Tapscott, 2008 in Fuchs, 2008).
The results will become intellectual property of the firm and will be used as inspiration for innovation
(Brabham, 2008).
An increasingly popular method for ideation is the online idea contest, which focuses on a
specific task and takes place within a predefined time frame (Kelleher, 2011). These contest are often
open calls and can attract ordinary consumers, lead consumers as well as non-users. Often, an online
community platform is constructed where participants can discuss and evaluate the new ideas
proposed by others, creating a shared understanding. The process of learning together and creating
collective knowledge encourages members to improve and elaborate their ideas (Kelleher, 2011).
Design contests are co-creation in the sense that participants actively co-create brand meaning
within the community (Kelleher, 2011). Furthermore, these communities offer firms the possibility to
engage in a dialogue with their consumers, by actively participating as a community member and
discussing and evaluating concepts together. By doing so, firms can communicate their insights and
ensure that concepts suit the firms’ technical possibilities and match the desired brand strategy.
Ideation does not completely match the definition of co-creation, since it is often task-oriented and
integration of consumer resources is limited.
The company Redesignme provides a platform designed to connect firms to ‘ideators’. Firms can post their
challenges in an open call to the community of almost 7,000 creative consumers and designers. These
members can create their visual concepts via an online tool, or upload sketches, photos and videos. Other
community members can vote for the best design and provide feedback. The winning ideas are selected and
rewarded by the firms. (Redesignme,2011)
Doritos and Pepsi Max launched a large scale consumer contest in 2010 in the United States. They invited
fans to design their own commercials in a contest called ‘Crash the Super Bowl’; the winning commercials
were to be aired during the Super Bowl XLV on the 6th
February 2011. A website was launched with a
discussion forum, detailed information and judging criteria. People could vote for their favourite commercial
and, taking the votes in consideration, a jury selected six winning commercials out of 5,6000 submissions.
(Pepsico, 2011)
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 13
3.4 The Co-creator
The role of ‘Co-creator’ involves actual collaboration between firms and consumers and integrated
use of skills and knowledge in developing new products. Instead of consumers responding to ideas
and concepts from firms, here the focus is on offering room for the consumer to formulate and
communicate their own ideas. Co-creation can be accomplished on a one-on-one level, where
consumers collaborate with firms individually, but more often takes place in online communities. The
community participants consist of a selection of both consumers and experts from the firm, who are
engaging in an ongoing process of sharing, learning, evaluating, and developing ideas related to
future needs (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). In this joint collaboration firms can still monitor the
process, check compatibility of the concepts with brand strategy and provide a framework marking
out the firm’s technical possibilities. At the same time, consumers have a platform where they can
develop creative ideas together with peers.
Co-creation can involve all phases of the innovation process; idea generation, design and
engineering and finally the test and launch phase (Füller et al., 2006). There is a collaborative
evaluation and selection of the generated ideas from the first phase. The selection of ideas can then
be processed further in the design and engineering phase, where all participants can use their
creativity and skills. Firms facilitate this by providing ‘co-creation toolkits’ to equip consumers with
online applications that can be used to create solutions or build virtual prototypes (Bartl et al., 2010;
Füller et al., 2010). Sometimes users can even run simulations or actually create and try out their
products. User innovation toolkits range in level of technical sophistication and are more elaborately
explored in Piller and Ihl (2009). In the final test and launch phase, the participants can take on the
role of end user or buyer and evaluate the final product together (Füller et al., 2006)
Sara Lee’s Pickwick team co-created with consumers to develop the new tea ‘the Dutch Tea blend’.
Through the existing interactive community ‘Pickwick Gardens’, facilitated by social medium Hyves and
managed by Pickwick, members were asked to participate. The firm selected a group of 25 Hyves
members based on their level of active participation, creativity and expressive skills. This group co-
created with the Pickwick experts, both online and offline, to develop the new tea blend, co-design the
package and the marketing campaign. (Frankwatching, 2010). The ‘Pickwick Gardens’ community
expanded from 6,000 to 8,600 members within four months after the cross-media launch of the Dutch
Tea blend. (Hyves, 2011)
BMW has integrated its various co-creation projects into a holistic BMW co-creation lab to create a
long-lasting platform. The lab, enabled by the German innovation company HYVE, is a virtual meeting
place for individuals eager to share their ideas and opinions on tomorrow’s automotive world with
BMW. The multiple activities, tasks and integrated methods range from idea contests, user toolkits,
virtual concept tests, and innovation research studies up to lead user application forms. (Bartl et al.,
2010)
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 14
This paper argues that level of ‘joint value-creation’ should always be the measure for determining
whether consumer involvement can be termed ‘co-creation’. Taking this perspective as a starting
point, one can identify a broad array of levels and manners in which consumers act as co-creators.
To begin with, this paper recognizes that co-creators don’t necessarily have to be involved
throughout the whole innovation process. Nor do they always require a direct influence, dialogue
and interaction with the firm. Consumers can co-create and integrate their skills and knowledge also
more independently, as long as firms facilitate this. Figure 2 illustrates this and focuses on specific
aspects in the consumption cycle; such as design, usage and experience. The practical examples show
that applications of co-creation can vary a lot in type and purpose. Nevertheless, the overall focus
remains on consumer-centricity and co-creation of value.
Figure 2: Examples of co-creation within separate dimensions of consumption
Co-creation in ‘Design’, the first block in Figure 2, can be considered as the next step in customization,
offering a lot more degrees of freedom and a greater level of consumer influence. In the cases of
Threadless and IKEA (see italic text below this paragraph), customers can now use their creativity
quite freely in designing products, without engaging in actual dialogue with the firm. With modern
technology and consumer-driven insights, firms can create relatively easy-to-use design tools that
allow high levels of personalization. The final product is the result of co-creation between the firm,
offering the tools and materials, and the consumer, using creativity to meet individual preferences.
Threadless was founded in 2000 and sells printed t-shirts with designs from customers. An online community of customers helps evaluate, improve and select the best designs to go into production. In doing so they take over a market risk. This method also generates word-of-mouth advertising, soliciting new customers.(Piller & Ihl, 2009) IKEA Planner Tool offers customers the possibility of designing their own kitchen. After installing the software tool, customers can drag and drop pieces and fit them to the exact measurements of their home. They can view the 3-D design, try different colors, print their designs, and see the total cost of their new kitchen. (IKEA, 2011)
Co-creation in ‘Use’ focuses on the aspect of ‘Usability’, where consumer friendliness is the most
important aspect. The term ‘usability’ refers to e.g. functionality, user control and freedom of choice,
ease of use, efficiency, ease of remembering tasks, and low error rates (Preece et al. 2002, in Two
Benches, 2008). In the example of the Smartphone application ‘Appie’, usability together with a focus
on personalization generates added value. The application is designed to make shopping easier but
only provides real added value when consumers co-create its use, selecting the right options and
indicating their personal preferences.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 15
The Digital Polyclinic is a co-creation initiative from the health care sector. Usability is the main focus
of the Digital Polyclinic; helping patients to get access to information more easily. In this case, again
added value can only be attained when patients co-create; they will have to become active
themselves in participating on the platform, or it will be of no use to them.
In November 2010 Dutch supermarket Albert Heijn launched a mobile application in order to make
shopping easier. Customers can select and indicate their preferences, see previous purchases, quickly
create shopping lists and automatically arrange them in the order matching the walking route in the
selected store. (Albert Heijn, 2011)
In March 2010, Dutch University and Medical Centre (UMC) St.-Radboud introduced the ‘Digital
Polyclinic’. This platform allows patients to access their own medical files online, look into recent lab
results and go over medical reports. Patients can ask online questions to medical experts and chat with
other patients. (Zorginnovatieplatform, 2010)
Lastly, co-creation in ‘Experience’ occurs when firms offer unique value to their customers through
personalized experiences. This is very impactful, because it plays into consumers’ need for integrated
consumption experiences. It is also the most challenging, since experience co-creation goes beyond
business processes and requires a deep understanding of what generates value in experiences
(Ramaswamy, 2009). The practical examples show that consumers co-create an experience every
time they use the product. Nike+ enables this by linking different applications and focusing on
usability, performance and social interaction.
This January, Nike unveiled the Nike+SportWatch GPS running device, in collaboration with TomTom. The
device captures location information while showing runners their running time, distance, pace, and
burned calories. The watch motivates runners by e.g. recognizing personal records and offer post-run
acknowledgement and encouragement. They can upload their running results and access an online
community to share results, routes or post challenges. (Nike, 2011)
In 2006 Nike already launched the Nike+ iPod device, which made Nike’s share in U.S. running shoe
market rise from 41% in 2006 to 60% mid-2009. The success of the Nike+ iPod also enabled a drastic
reduction of marketing costs. To continuously improve, Nike uses the data collected from the runners to
learn and generate insights from. (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010)
3.5 The Creator
Last but not least, this paper identifies the role of consumers as involved and independent value
‘creator’ (Piller, 2010). This type of value creation is moving away from co-creation; the activities are
often initiated and driven by consumers instead of firms. The online consumer communities are most
often developed as a platform for sharing interests and experiences. Users can discuss new product
developments, persuade each other to try something out or merely exchange knowledge, tips and
tricks (Kozinets, 2002). Piller (2009) distinguishes between ‘discussion forums’ and ‘communities of
creation’. The latter focus on creation and innovation, the members act on their ideas to solve a
problem or improve the use of a product. Their power comes from their independence of firms
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Piller (2009) notes it is important to realize that it is not the
individual efforts, but the collaboration and discussion between community members that creates
value. They provide each other with resources, information assistance and network links.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 16
Füller et al. (2006a) recognize that only some community members are able to create ‘professional’
innovation, but the less skilled members help by coming up with ideas for improvement, or asking
challenging questions. Numerous interactions, contributions and experiments result in the creation
of a new product.
Füller et al. (2006) argue that these community users can offer firms valuable resources since
they are actively involved with the product. Their ideas can strongly influence the rate and direction
of innovations in some industries (Baldwin et al., 2006). According to Baldwin et al. (2006), user
innovation begins when new possibilities are identified and community members begin to explore it
together. The process turns into development of a new product which users are willing to purchase.
Some examples of consumer initiated communities are niketalk.com for sneaker fans,
and Lugnet.com for Lego fanatics.
Also firm-sponsored communities can act rather independently. Piller (2009) gives the example of
the Harley Davidson user community ‘HOG.com’, which is sponsored by the Harley Davidson
company. On the community website users posted and discussed motorcycle accessories they
created themselves. The producer of Harley Davidson later on integrated these ideas in their
development process.
Some other firm-initiated community platform are: MyStarbucksIdea.com;
openinnovationSaraLee.com; and Vocalpoint.com (Procter & Gamble).
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 17
4 Exploring the co-creative consumer
As discussed in the previous chapter, consumers are involved throughout the product development
cycle and can take on different roles. Each task attracts a different kind of consumer, depending on
factors such as required level of involvement, task difficulty and contextual aspects (Füller, 2010).
Despite the variations in role and task type, literature defines certain characteristics that distinguish
the co-creative consumer from the passive consumer. These will be discussed throughout the first
section 4.1. The following section 4.2 then explores the co-creative consumer further, by analyzing
their motivations for participating in co-creation. Figure 3 offers an overview of the characteristics
and motivations to be discussed.
4.1 Characteristics of the co-creative consumer
Before exploring cognitive variables and consumer characteristics, some attention should be paid to
environmental variables. It should be noted that co-creation predominantly occurs in the more
developed countries. These Western markets have an individualistic and experience-oriented culture,
a focus on creativity and an integrated use of Web 2.0 (Etgar, 2008). Furthermore, Western
consumers have more discretionary time available, which makes it more likely for them to engage in
co-creation as it reflects social, psychological and opportunity costs incurred (Etgar, 2008).
Involved lead-users Co-creation attracts consumers that are more interested, but also more competent to recognise
innovation needs than other consumers. These ‘lead-users’ want to help develop innovative products
and to push improvements (Von Hippel, 2002). Since they are actively involved in the use of the
product or the product category, they have a certain competence to anticipate future needs (Piller &
Ihl, 2009; Von Hippel, 2002). Lead-users also have a higher degree of trust and affinity with the firm
or product, and therefore perceive lower costs of participating in co-creation (Piller & Ihl, 2009).
McKinsey research underlines this and claims that affinity is the most important factor for consumers
willing to co-create; 40 per cent of consumers will refuse to co-create with companies they don’t like
or trust (Bughin et al., 2008).
Characteristics
•Lead user
•Technological skills
•Analogous market knowledge
•Cooperative skills
•Pro-active attitude
Motivations
•Enjoyment
•Empowerment
•Interaction
•Self-expression
•Peer recognition
•Altruism
•Information seeking
Co-creative consumer
Figure 3: The co-creative consumers’ characteristics and motivations
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 18
For all of the above reasons, Von Hippel (2002) argues for a ‘lead user method’: only leading-
edge consumers should be involved in co-creation tasks. In contrast to Von Hippel’s theory, other
literature underlines the importance of involving a variety of consumers instead of merely lead users
(Piller & Ihl, 2009). This allows firms to source a broader segment of their final target group. Also
including non lead-users will increase chances of developing a product that is relevant to the needs
of the overall target group (Kristensson et al., 2008).
Analogous market knowledge The most effective co-creative consumers possess ‘analogous market knowledge’, next to skills and
product knowledge (Piller & Ihl, 2009). The analogous market resembles the market that the co-
creation focuses on when it comes to consumers needs and product use, but often belongs to
another industry. People who are connected to different markets, might have developed or
recognized a certain solution or innovative idea. They have a broad experience and therefore a large
and diverse pool of information to source from. They are able to relate the co-creation task to other
market fields where they face similar challenges (Herstatt, 2002). An example of this can be found in
the development of the ABS system in the car industry. This idea was first realized in the aviation
industry and lead users were the first to recognize the use of the system for the automotive industry
(Piller & Ihl, 2009).
Technological skills Consumers need to have a certain skill that enables them to co-create effectively and makes them
participate (Etgar, 2008). Often co-creation involves online and technological toolkits that consumers
are expected to use independently. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) remark that these skills can be
developed and evolve throughout the process of co-creation. They argue that people should at least
be comfortable with technology. Piller & Ihl (2009) also connects this to the importance of learning
capabilities; co-creative consumers should be able to learn and use new skills which enable them to
make effective use of the tools handed to them by the firms.
Cooperative skills Instead of merely exchanging information, consumers need to be able to effectively interact, react
and be aware of the actions of the other involved parties. Etgar (2008) notes the importance of
overcoming differences to enable a productive collaboration. Cova and Dalli (2009) also underline the
a need for a ‘we’ focus and a mutual responsiveness to the intentions and actions of others. This
creates a collective commitment to the activity and a feeling of mutual support, which in turn
enhances collaboration.
Pro-active attitude Modern consumers co-create by choice, they have a desire to express themselves (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004a). What distinguishes them from passive consumers, is the unwillingness to
accept what is offered to them if this doesn’t match their specific needs. Furthermore, they are
aware of the influence they can have on production processes and want to be heard (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004a).
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 19
4.2 Consumer motives to co-create
Finding out what motivates the co-creative consumer to participate helps to understand this
behavior. Besides this, unraveling consumer motives can help firms to gain insight into how to attract
consumers to their co-creation process. Research shows that motives are strongly dependent on
people’s personality, expectations, and goals concerning the co-creation tasks (Füller, 2010). In
general, consumers participate in co-creation because they expect it to be rewarding (Füller, 2010).
They can be driven by intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Füller, 2010; Etgar, 2008). In the case of co-
creation, extrinsically motivated consumers can be driven by the expectations of a reward or
monetary compensation. Intrinsically motivated people get satisfaction from the co-creation process
itself, they are involved, engaged and often novelty-seeking and exploratory in their behavior.
Numerous studies support that intrinsic motivations should be the focus to engage involved,
interested and creative co-creation partners (Bartl et al. 2010). The following subsections discuss the
different motivations recognized in the literature.
Enjoyment
As discussed before, consumers enjoy the process of co-creation where they can use their own
knowledge and skills. They enjoy using their imagination and creating something that matches their
expectations (Piller & Ihl, 2009). This intrinsic motivation is the driving force behind co-creative
behavior (Füller, 2010; Füller et al., 2006). He points out that these consumers mainly seek intangible
rewards such as new friendships and a feeling of fulfilment. Co-creation is considered a playful and
enjoyable activity for these consumers rather than an effort (Füller, 2010). Curiosity is also pointed
out as a motivation, people want to find out what is going on and get involved with the activity.
Empowerment
Füller et al. (2010) also show that consumers engaging in co‑creation get a sense of empowerment.
This feeling increases the enjoyment of the interaction and in turn influences willingness to
participate in co-creation. Troye and Xie (2007) underline this and found that people get a sense of
pride and self-fulfillment through being involved in creative production practices. The level of
empowerment depends on the design of the interaction tool and the ease of handling this tool
(Füller et al., 2010). It also depends on how involved consumers are with the product or task, how
creative they are and whether or not they are lead-users. Consumers who score high on lead-user
characteristics, such as having had new product ideas, are also more involved and tempted by the
feeling of empowerment (Füller et al. 2010). This aspect can also be linked to self-efficacy, when
people get a sense of accomplishment out of the realization of a task. Consumers might perceive the
co-creation task as a challenge they want to face.
Interaction
The mere act of interacting with like-minded people is an important motivation of consumers (Etgar,
2008). Co-creative practices often takes place in online user communities, through which people
share their own generated content. The process of working with others towards a common interest
is what attracts co-creative consumers (Etgar, 2008).
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 20
Self-expression
Another motive that can drive consumers to become co-creators is the need for self-expression and
uniqueness. With this motive co-creation can be seen as an ‘authentication’ act (Arnould & Price,
1999 in Troye and Xie, 2007). Etgar (2008) underlines this and presumes that through co-creation,
people negotiate symbolic meanings in order to construct and maintain their identity. It is thus a tool
with which personal values and preferences can be expressed and elaborated on.
Peer recognition
In their articles, Etgar (2008) and Füller (2010) both recognize the importance of social aspects. They
agree that by participating in co-creation consumers want to gain peer recognition for their know-
how and contribution to the tasks. The co-creation task allows them to become visible and to get
reactions from co-creation partners, which in turn creates ego-gratification.
Altruism, moral responsibility
A case study from the UK shows that the co-creative consumer sometimes acts out of a sense of
moral responsibility (Pongsakornrungsilp, 2010). They feel the need to contribute their time and
effort in order to solve a problem and do not expect economic benefits in return. This motivation
drives them to engage in these activities for the sake of contributing, and they get a sense of
empowerment out of this. According to Pongsakornrungsilp (2010), a remuneration or reward would
be a loss of this power, since their contribution will no longer feel like a sacrifice.
Information seeking
Füller (2010) recognizes information seeking as one of the motivations for engaging in co-creation.
Consumers might be looking for an innovative product or preparing themselves for a future purchase.
It can also be that they are just interested in knowing more about trends or innovative product
developments. They expect to find relevant information in the co-creation process and might decide
to engage because of this motive.
Control
Etgar (2008) argues that consumers may be motivated by the idea that they have more control over
possible risks that the product might have. The risks that people fear when trying out a new product
can be, for example, physical, financial and psychological. By being part of the co-creation process,
consumer might have a sense of control over the production process. However, Etgar (2008)
comments that the co-creation process can create its own risks, such as failure to perform the task
well and conflict with co-creation partners.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 21
5 Challenges for the firm
This paper offers a lot of theoretical and practical insights in the concept of co-creation. This chapter
zooms in on practical issues that arise when incorporating co-creation in the business process. It
explores some of the main challenges recognized in the literature and provides insights in how to
cope with them.
Figure 4 summarizes some of the benefits of co-creation that can be attained after
successfully incorporating the concept. These benefits strongly influence a company’s performance
and future success, but only when certain prerequisite conditions are met by firms. These conditions
are critical challenges and are shown on the right side of the figure. Co-creation requires a significant
change in behavior, mindset and organizational structure. This chapter further elaborates on some of
these challenges.
Figure 4: Benefits and challenges of co-creation as the new business paradigm
Characteristics and behavior of the firm
Prahalad and Ramaswamy, (2004) have determined factors within a firm that strongly influence the
success of co-creation. These factors are ,e.g., a company’s learning ability, flexibility, empathic
attitude, ability to create and maintain dialogue, level of openness and transparency, and the level of
accessibility consumers experience during the process. Co-creation requires externally oriented
employees, who can rapidly and efficiently respond to consumers’ true needs and wants (Pluijm,
2010).
In order to be effective in collaborating with consumers, firms should be able to listen and
observe their target group. This helps to find out what consumers are talking about and what a
product or brand means to them. According to Van Belleghem (2010) this crucial first step is often
overlooked. Only after a thorough exploration and gathering of insights, the co-creation conversation
starts. It is important to makes this an authentic and continuous dialogue (Lusch & Vargo, 2006).
There should be a focus on learning together and firms need to be empathic and open. To create an
Benefits of co-creation
•Creating a competitive advantage
•Increasing effectiveness and speed of product development
•Enhancing retention and trust
•Enhancing relationship with consumers
•Stimulating positive word-of mouth
•Reducing marketing costs
•Constant generation of insights
•Creating joy, satisfaction and empowerment for consumers
•Increasing product relevance for consumers
Challenges for firms
•Being flexible, empathic, open, transparant, responsive, authentic
•Making management pro-active, flexible and open to external sources of value
•Selecting the right co-creative consumers
•Balance between freedom and control
•Communicating and managing expectations
•Taking on a leadership role
•Appealing to intrinsic motivations and acknowledging consumers’ contributions
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 22
effective co-creation of value, there should be a feeling of connectedness, mutual effort and trust
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Lusch & Vargo, 2006).
Challenge: Being flexible, empathic, open, transparant, responsive, authentic
Management mindset
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) dedicate an entire chapter to changing the traditional managers’
mindset. They argue for a focus on collaboration and responsiveness to consumer experiences and
needs. Open innovation and co-creation require management to diminish their focus on control,
planning and forecasting. Instead they should enter the ‘zone of opportunity’ and be more pro-active
and flexible. Reacting and thinking faster makes the difference in a co-creation setting (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004; Piller, 2010). This is especially challenging, since it counters the traditional
innovation paradigm. It will provoke considerable resistance from managers who believe in a more
traditional approach (O’Hern & Rindfleisch, 2008). Hargadon & Sutton (2000) underline the need for
a more open attitude and a realization that innovation can stem from inside as well as outside the
firm. Bartl et al. (2010) argue for incorporating a “proudly found elsewhere” attitude, with
enthusiasm for the value of external resources. This externally oriented attitude needs to become
the firm’s permanent way of thinking an acting to make it authentic.
Challenge: Making management pro-active, flexible and open to external sources of value.
Selecting co-creative consumers
In order to create an effective co-creation dialogue, it is essential to carefully select the appropriate
consumers; lead-users which represent a broad heterogeneous segment of potential consumers. This
will generate a diversity of ideas and diminishes the risk of creating products or services that are only
valued by a small segment of users (Kristensson et al. 2008). Kelleher (2011) underlines that these
lead-users should posses high levels of service and technical knowledge in order for them to make
valuable contributions. Furthermore, it is important to select only highly involved and dedicated
consumers, to reduce the risk of resignation or abdication of their role as co-creators, which can
disrupt the development process (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). A mere monetary incentive is not
sufficient as it will attract consumers interested in a personal need as their main goal for participating
(Bartl et al. 2010).
Challenge: Making a good selection of co-creative consumers, in order to create effective
collaboration.
Structure and rules Co-creation should be an open process and can generate many different inputs, ideas and focuses.
To prevent this large amount of ideas from leading to ‘noise’, there need to be clear procedures that
enable effective filtering of ideas (Whitla, 2009). Firms should structure the co-creation platform, e.g.,
by breaking down the task into different working groups, which users can access in parallel (Bughin
et al. 2008). Furthermore, firms need to find a balance between freedom and control, in order to
effectively develop and create value (Bartl et al., 2010). Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004) suggest this
can be done by means of user protocols that define the rules of engagement and which can be
constantly revised based on experiences. An example of such a protocol which is successfully
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 23
managed is found in the online auction website eBay. As this online platform started to grow and
more and more people participated, a community with its own rules evolved. This allowed eBay to
rely on its users to enforce the code of conduct and for an interactive method of quality
management (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). McKinsey underlines this method and argues that
social norms are often enforced by users which helps mitigating risks (Chui et al., 2009).
Challenge: Finding a balance between freedom and control; allow for evolvement of
community norms and rules
Fostering a collaborative culture
Consumers can influence the brand value of a product through co-creation practices, by adding new
value and meaning to it. However, they also have certain expectations and co-create accordingly. If
the firm fails to comply with these expectations, it runs the risk of consumer scrutiny. In the online
environment it is difficult for firms to immediately identify, react and control these protests.
Consumers can ‘make or break’ a brand by means of far-reaching online interactions (Van Belleghem,
2010). According to McKinsey research, many firms are concerned about these risks and have
difficulty finding the right balance between freedom and control (Chui et al., 2009). Firms have to
foster transparency and a collaborative culture, where concerns are openly addressed and
expectations can be managed. It needs to be clear for all parties what is expected from them.
Since consumers consider their contributions to the co-creation process unique and
important, receiving negative feedback from others may lead to a negative of competitive attitude.
Kelleher (2011) argues that firms should manage this carefully and encourage and foster both
competitive and collaborative behaviour. Still, there is always a possibility that conflicts arise among
co-creators or between co-creators and the firm. This increases the risk of dissatisfaction and
withdrawal from the community or even stimulate co-creators to develop their own products or
collaborate with another party. Bughin et al. (2008) suggest that a leadership role from the firms can
prevent and help resolve these issues. This requires a cohesive vision and a constant focus on
collaborating. Cova and Dalli (2009) argue that firms should especially prevent co-creators from
feeling ‘exploited’. This feeling can occur when consumers do not feel appreciated and as a result
they will protest or retreat.
Challenges:
- Clearly communicating and managing expectations
- Taking on a leadership role, manage expectations and encourage a collaborative culture,
which allows for constructive criticism
Empowering consumers
In a co-creation collaboration it is important to actively stimulate consumers and keep them
motivated to deliver quality. As described in the previous section of this paper, co-creative
consumers are mostly driven by intrinsic motivations. McKinsey research also shows that firms who
merely offer monetary rewards to motivate consumers to increase their input, are not effective (Chui
et al., 2009). Consumers start focusing on meeting the benchmarks and they are not intrinsically
triggered to deliver quality input. When these firms changed their tactics and played into consumers’
desire for recognition and acknowledgement, there was a significant increase in participation input
(Chui et al., 2009).
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 24
Füller et al. (2010) note that consumers that engage in co-creation projects will rarely be able to
determine the final outcome of a product. In most cases, only a small number of consumer
suggestions are actually considered for mass-produced goods. Nevertheless, consumers feel
empowered because they are listened to and experience a sense of enjoyment and self-efficacy. The
actual influence on the product seems to be of lesser importance.
The aspect of trust plays a role here and has a direct influence on the quality of the
interaction and feeling of empowerment. The more the consumer trusts the firm, the more involved
they are (Etgar 2008; Bughin et al. 2008). Users want to feel secure and confident that the producer
doesn’t terminate or change the rules of engagement in order to pursue a different or better goal.
Challenge: Appealing to intrinsic motivations and acknowledging consumers’ contributions.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 25
Conclusions
Co-creation is the new innovation paradigm and firms are increasingly using consumer resources as a
source for competitive advantages. This has changed traditional relationships between consumers
and producers. While consumers were traditionally viewed as value exchangers and extractors, they
are now considered a source of value creation and competitive advantage.
The development of co-creation is driven by individualization and empowerment of
consumers, the rise of Web 2.0 and the growing presence of open innovation practices. Modern
consumers are interactive, creative and knowledgeable, which makes them valuable resources for
new product development.
The value of co-creation lies in the process of collaborative learning, developing and sharing
knowledge. Through these processes value is created for both parties. It is therefore vital that the co-
creation platform facilitates this collaboration and allows for an interactive and open dialogue to
develop. Co-creation in its purest form involves integration of consumers’ skills and knowledge
throughout the innovation process.
Besides co-creation, modern consumers play various roles as value creators, in different parts
of the innovation system. They can take on and vary between these roles according to the purpose
and intention of the collaboration with the firm. Consumer roles range from ‘insight providers’ --
where they are merely sourced by firms for information or evaluation purposes-- to ‘creators’, where
innovation is initiated and driven by consumers themselves. What distinguishes the role of ‘co-
creator’ is that consumers’ skills and knowledge are directly integrated in the business process
through collaboration with the firm. However, co-creators can also integrate their skills and
knowledge more independently, as long as firms facilitate this. This shows the wide range of
possibilities and applications of co-creation. To illustrate this, practical examples are given where co-
creation occurs in the phases of ‘design’, ‘use’ and ‘experience’. ‘Co-creation of experiences’ is the
most advanced level; every time a product is used consumers co-create their own consumption
experience. This level is quite complex and requires a thorough understanding of what generates
value in experiences.
When exploring the characteristics of co-creative consumers, it shows that they are often
pro-active lead-users, who have insights into future needs. They possess relevant technical and social
skills, and have a solid base of product knowledge. These lead users are highly involved with the
product category and interested in developing new products. Their contributions are often high in
quality and consumer relevance. Nevertheless, it can be useful to involve non-lead-users as well, to
ensure relevance for the broader target group. Identifying and involving the right participants,
consumers as well as people from the firm, is challenging but crucial in order for effective results.
Consumers willingly participate in value creation mainly driven by intrinsic motivations. They
enjoy the process and get a feeling of satisfaction and empowerment by contributing. This
enjoyment is closely related to the social interactions and recognition they receive for their
contributions. To retain consumer interest and involvement, firms should stimulate these
interactions and appeal to intrinsic motivations.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 26
There are many benefits of successful co-creation described throughout this paper. These benefits
can only be achieved if co-creation principles are applied correctly and are integrated throughout the
business process. This requires firms to adapt their processes and mindset in order to effectively
engage in co-creation. Firms should become more open and willing to integrate external sources in
their innovation process. They should listen and observe their target group, determine main
objectives for co-creation, and identify and involve appropriate co-creation partners. When it comes
to managing the co-creation process, firms have to be able to find the right balance between
freedom and control. They should stimulate a collaborative culture and allow for rules to evolve from
within the community.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 27
Limitations and suggestions for further research
This paper is based on literature findings, that have been mainly located through online search
engines Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The focus was on the most recent and
academically relevant literature. Although careful attention was paid to the use of appropriate and
complete search queries, the selection process is by default subjective.
The concept of ‘co-creation’ is relatively new and there haven’t been many studies exploring
the roles of the consumer in firms’ innovation practices. The roles identified and elaborated on
during this paper, are the result of the researcher’s interpretation of relevant literature findings.
Suggestions for further research
Future research could focus on analyzing consumers’ and firms’ motivations for co-creating, in order
to identify mutual goals and expectations. Also, the critical success factors and challenges of co-
creation could be further explored to be able to optimize the process.
This paper shows that co-creation requires an attitudinal change and a new set of skills and
knowledge, compared to the traditional innovation cycle. These changes are important for both the
firm and the consumer, in order to effectively interact and collaborate. It is important to explore
these prerequisite conditions and make firms aware of the required changes. At the same time,
consumers should be offered insights into these conditions to better prepare themselves for co-
creation tasks.
Current academic literature mainly focuses on co-creation practices and managerial
implications. However, the majority of consumers are not (yet) actively participating in co-creation. It
is interesting to measure consumer awareness of this new innovation paradigm and to find out what
the expectations are. Knowing this, firms can play on these expectations. Furthermore it can be
explored whether awareness affects consumers’ interest in participating in co-creation. This can then
be used more often, to attract more consumers to engage in co-creation.
Furthermore, it is interesting to find out whether and how consumers’ attitude is influenced
by co-creation. Do they evaluate products differently when they are the result of co-creative
innovation? And how can the aspect of ‘co-creation’ best be communicated to the end-user? It can
be expected that once consumers are aware and informed that the co-creation principle is applied by
firms, this will positively influence their attitude. So, will consumers then consider brands more
empathic, more open to their ideas and more connected to their needs? Will co-creation instigate
more word-of-mouth and a positive ‘buzz’ around the product or brand?
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 28
References
Addis, M., & Holbrook, M. (2001). On the conceptual link between mass customisation and
experiential consumption: An explosion of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behaviour , 1 (1), 50-66.
Albert Heijn. (2011). Appie. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.ah.nl/appie
Bartl, M., Jawecki, G., & Wiegandt, P. (2010). Co-creation in new product development; conceptual
framework and application in the automotive industry. R&D Management Conference, 30th June –
2nd July. Manchester.
Bilgram, V., Bartl, M., & Biel, S. (2010). Successful Consumer Co-creation; the case of Nivea Body Care.
The Annual Research Conference (pp. 2-6). London: Market Research Society.
Brabham, D. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases. The
International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies , 1 (14), 75-90.
Bughin, J., Chui, M., & Johnson, B. (2008, June). The next step in open innovation. The McKinsey
quarterly .
Chesbrough, K., & Schwartz, H. (2007, issue 1). Innovating Business Models with Co-development
Partnerships. Research Technology Management , pp. 55-59.
Chui, M., Miller, A., & Roberts, R. (2009, February). Six ways to make Web 2.0 work. McKinsey
Quarterly .
De Ruyck, T. (2009, March). Qualitative Research is dead, long live Qualitative Research?! Retrieved
February 13, 2011, from Blog.Insites.Be: http://blog.insites.be/?p=206
Eurostat. (2010). Internet usage in 2010 - Households and individuals. Eurostat.
Face Agency. (2009, September). Bottom Up Is Not Enough: co-creation and crowd-sourcing for
research, innovation and planning. (F. D'Orazio, Ed.) Retrieved January 10, 2011, from
http://www.slideshare.net/abc3d/bottom-up-is-not-enough-cocreation-and-crowdsourcing-for-
research-innovation-and-planning
Forrester Research. (2010). An Empowered Report: Activate Engaged Consumers With Social
Technologies To Build Better Products. Executive summary.
Frankwatching. (2010, 11 13). Hyves-leden maken eerste echte Nederlandse Pickwickthee via
cocreatie. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from Frankwatching:
http://www.frankwatching.com/archive/2010/11/13/hyves-leden-maken-eerste-echte-nederlandse-
pickwickthee-via-cocreatie/
Fronteer Strategy. (2009). Five Guiding Principles of Co-creation. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from
http://www.fronteerstrategy.com/pdf/msgwnl_5%20guiding%20priciples%20of%20co-creation.pdf
Fuchs, C. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything - by Don Tapscott &
Anthony D. Williams. Journal of Communication , 52 (2), 402-403.
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 29
Füller, J., Bartl, M., Ernst, H., & Mühlbacher, H. (2006). Community based innovation: How to
integrate members of virtual communities into new product development. Electronic Commerce
Research , 6 (1), 57-73.
Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball communities.
Journal of Business Research , 60 (1), 60-71.
Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2010). Consumer Empowerment Through
Internet-Based Co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems , 26 (3), 71-102.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. (2000, May-June). Building an innovation factory. Harvard Business
Review .
Herstatt, C. (2002). Search fields for radical innovations involving market research. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management , 2 (6), 473-484.
Howe, J. (2006). The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine , 6 (14).
HYVE. (2006). Beiersdorf Sunless Tanning. Retrieved February 5, 2011, from Hyve Cases & References:
http://www.hyve-netnography.de/cases-references/beauty-care/beiersdorf/sunless-tanning/
Hyves. (2011). Case: de Pickwick Gardens Hyves co-creatie. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from
Adverterenophyves: http://www.adverterenophyves.nl/cases/de-pickwick-gardens-hyve-co-creatie
IKEA. (2011). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from IKEA planner tools:
http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/rooms_ideas/splashplanners.html
InnoCentive. (2011). The Best Minds; Global Solver Network. Retrieved February 5, 2011, from
InnoCentive: http://www2.innocentive.com/best-minds/global-solver-network
Kozinets, R., Hemetsberger, A., & Schau, H. (2008). The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds. Journal of
Macromarketing , 28 (4), 339-354.
Kristensson, P., Matthing, J., & Johansson, N. (2008). Key Strategies for the Successful Involvement of
Customers in the Co-creation of New Technology-based Services. International Journal of Service , 19
(4), 474-491.
Lansink, R. (2009, 12 31). De Inflatie van Co-creatie. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from
Frankwatching: http://www.frankwatching.com/archive/2009/12/31/de-inflatie-van-cocreatie/
Lay's. (2010, 12 13). Winnaar Maak de Smaak. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from Lays:
http://www.lays.nl/pers/persbericht_winnaar_MaakdeSmaak.pdf
Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2009). Service-Dominant Logic: A Guiding Framework for Inbound Marketing.
Marketing Review St.-Gallen , 6, 5-10.
Nike. (2011, January 5). Nike plus sportwatch GPS. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Nikemedia:
https://www.nikemedia.com/en/category/nike_plus_sportwatch_gps/feature_archive/2011/1/nike_
and_tomtom_unveil_game_changing_nike_s
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 30
O’Hern, M., & Rindfleisch, A. (2008). Customer Co-creation; A Typology and Research Agenda.
Working Paper, University of Wisconsin (4).
O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software. Communications & Strategies , 1, 17.
Pepsico. (2011, 2 6). Six Consumer-Created Doritos and Pepsi MAX Ads Crash the Super Bowl
Advertising. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from Pepsico: http://www.pepsico.com/PressRelease/Six-
Consumer-Created-Doritos-and-Pepsi-MAX-Ads-Crash-the-Super-Bowl-Advertising-02062011.html
Piller, F. (2010a). Mass Customization: A Strategy for Customer-Centric Enterprises. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1720785: RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
Piller, F. (2010, May). Open innovation and customer co-creation. Retrieved January 2011, from
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/masscustom/frank-piller-open-innovation-customer-
cocreation
Piller, F., & Ihl, C. (2009). Open innovation with customers: Foundations, competences and
international trends. Trend Study within the BMBF Project “International Monitoring”. Aachen:
RWTH Aachen University.
Piller, F., & Ihl, C. (2009). Open innovation with customers: Foundations, competences and
international trends. Trend Study within the BMBF Project “International Monitoring”. Aachen:
RWTH Aachen University.
Pongsakornungsilp, S. (2010). Value Co-Creation Process: Reconciling S-D Logic of Marketing and
Consumer Culture Theory within the Co-Consuming Group. Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom: University
of Exeter.
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation.
Journal of Interactive Marketing , 18 (3).
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with
customers. Harvard Business School Press.
R/GA Agency. (2011). NIKEiD. Retrieved 2 20, 2011, from R/GA Agency:
http://www.rga.com/work/nikeid
Ramaswamy, V. (2009). Co-Creation of Value–Towards an Expanded Paradigm of Value Creation.
Marketing Review St. Gallen , 6.
Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). The Power Of Co-Creation; Build It With Them To Boost
Growth, Productivity, And Profits. New York: Free Press.
Redesignme. (2011). How it works. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from Redesignme:
http://www.redesignme.com/how-it-works
Rieder, K., & Voss, G. (2010). The Working Customer – an Emerging New Type of Consumer.
Psychology of Everyday Activity , 3 (2).
‘The Co-creative Consumer’, by Joyce van Dijk page 31
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism
in the age of the digital 'prosumer. Journal of Consumer Culture , 10, 13-36.
Thomke, S., & Von Hippel, E. (2002, April). Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value.
Harvard Business Review , 74-81.
Two Benches. (2008, June 5). Nielsen's Usability Principles and Heuristics. Retrieved March 10, 2011,
from Two Benches: http://twobenches.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/nielsens-usability-principles-
and-heuristics/
Van Belleghem, S. (2010). De Conversation Manager. Leuven, Belgium: Lannoo Campus.
Van Dijk, J. (2010). Four Dimensions of the New Consumer: images of the multifaceted creature.
Wageningen: (unpublished) Wageningen University.
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. The Journal of
Marketing , 68, 1-17.
Whitla, P. (2009). Crowdsourcing and Its Application in Marketing Activities. Contemporary
Management Research , 8 (1), 15-18.
Zorginnovatieplatform. (2010, March 22). UMC st.-Radboud lanceert negen digitale poli's. Retrieved
from Zorginnovatieplatform: http://zorginnovatieplatform.nl/nieuws/282/UMC-st-Radboud-
lanceert-negen-digitale-polis/